[pathdoc]

For example, if you are trying to get a fairly close shot of an object that is more than just "tiny", and if you wanted to shoot it from above, you might need a step ladder to get far enough away from that object.

This is one of the reasons I eventually decided on getting the 35/2.8 macro when I ordered my K-5. In addition to photographing extended resections of bowel and other large organs at close range without standing on boxes etc, I needed to be able to take pictures of an entire body in the autopsy room. I was worried 50mm wouldn't be wide enough; experience has shown me I was right.

[hjoseph7]

Sometimes you don't want to get that close, that's when the 35mm or 50mm Macro come in handy. Also when you want a little background in the scene...

[esrandall]

While I loved what my HD 35 could produce, I ended up selling it because I had to get too close for subject isolation, and then I ran into problems with shadows. My old Sigma 50 was perfect for flowers, and the 100 WR was ideal for subject isolation. I've since moved on to Nikon Fx, and I had to really think on what was most important to me for the kind of macro shots I like to take (mainly flowers) because I was no longer operating with the crop factor. I ended up going with a Tamron 90 VC, and it gives me something similar to what I got when using my Sigma 70 (just need to move in a little closer). It all comes down to what you shoot. The 100 WR is one of the nicest lenses I've ever shot with, so if it fits what a person is looking to shoot - can't go wrong.

[pathdoc]

I ended up solving my DA35 shadow problem (such as it was) with a ring flash because a lot of the time I need the closeness, and the things I take pics of don't move. But as you say, it all comes down to what you're taking pictures of.

[old4570]

Generally speaking the 100mm Range Lens will serve you better for Macro ..
The 50mm Lens is possible better for larger subjects as well as double duty as a walk and talk lens ..

If you are really serious , and have very steady hands , then maybe 150 to 200mm lens ...
But for a good 80% of your macro , the 90 to 105 lenses will do the job ..
And if you want to go further just stack a 50mm lens in front for 2:1 macro ...
There is 101 ways to macro , and like I mentioned , that 100mm lens will do the job about 80% of the time just fine .

[MJSfoto1956]

I ended up solving my DA35 shadow problem (such as it was) with a ring flash because a lot of the time I need the closeness, and the things I take pics of don't move. But as you say, it all comes down to what you're taking pictures of.

Out of curiosity, which ring flash did you purchase?
Any sample photos using your new setup?

M

[pathdoc]

I bought the AF080C, off another forum member. And the stuff I shoot is all medical in confidence, I'm afraid, but the next time I'm on a PC instead of a glorified e-reader I think I have a picture of my favourite jacket that I took & I will try to post that. The trick has been to work out what exposures to use, because modern Pentax DSLRs lack TTL (something I hope we get back with either the full-frame or the K3 successor), but I've been getting it right most of the time and the ones I get wrong don't matter; just do it again and check the result before proceeding.

[jddwoods]

I once had the DFA 50 mm macro and used it more as a super sharp 50 mm lens than a true macro. I sold it and eventually acquired the DA 35 limited macro and later the DFA 100 WR macro. The DFA 100 WR is much more usable as a true macro since you have more distance to work with. It also doubles as a very sharp telephoto. For me that would be the better choice as a macro. Build quality is also top notch, on par with DA Limiteds. I also use the DA 35 Macro Limited more for close ups than for true macros. For things like butterflies you can't get close enough for a good picture without your subject flying away. It is great for still objects and botanicals though. The 35 Limited also has a dual purpose being a super sharp normal lens on the K-5 and K-3 bodies.
But if it is only one, and mainly for macro, the DFA 100 WR is the best choice. As others have stated, the best choice may also be the one that does not duplicate one of your prime lenses.

[normhead]

My macro is the Sigma 70 macro, which can double as a great portrait lens. But it's heavy and not WR, so not ideal for everyone. Sometimes i wish I had a 50 macro just to keep the weight down.

[UncleVanya]

I bought the AF080C, off another forum member. And the stuff I shoot is all medical in confidence, I'm afraid, but the next time I'm on a PC instead of a glorified e-reader I think I have a picture of my favourite jacket that I took & I will try to post that. The trick has been to work out what exposures to use, because modern Pentax DSLRs lack TTL (something I hope we get back with either the full-frame or the K3 successor), but I've been getting it right most of the time and the ones I get wrong don't matter; just do it again and check the result before proceeding.

TTL is gone for reasons that have nothing to do with FF or simple cost. The explanation is that for TTL to work you need a set of sensors in the mirror box to read off the sensor/shutter. The sensors reflectivity is weird and caused issues for exposure from what Pentax reported. Additionally it is overly complex to try to get anything more complicated than very basic matrix metering or center weighting. Preflash methods are used by all the competitors as far as I know thought the name is varied. For example here is something on the history of Nikon's TTL modes: Nikon TTL History - What is TTL, D-TTL, iTTL

[whojammyflip]

for what its worth, I've got a book on classic lens design from Neblette, and the Apo Skopar has an identical layout to the Pentax M 100 f4