Originally posted by sinjin I have owned both the FA and D FA WR 100mm macros*.
There is little to choose between them in terms of images. Optically very similar; however images from the FA need a bit of contrast in PP to match those straight out of the the D FA WR.
The differences are mostly in the packaging/handling. I sold the FA in favour of the D FA WR because it feels smaller, lighter and tighter/sturdier than the FA, and for it being WR, and for having a dedicated adapter to work with my 160FC ring flash.
Some may prefer the FA for its aperture ring, focus clamp and focus limiter. I don't plan on using tubes to go beyond 1:1 (yet) so I didn't care much about the aperture ring. The focus clamp is not really a feature, but a kludge that compensates for the lens' focus mechanism being very loose when in Manual Focus mode. The focus limiter is a useful feature missed by some in the D FA WR; however, I rarely notice and find the quick shift focus good enough.
Finally, some pictures!
The D FA WR first:
Now the FA:
*(as well as the tamron 90 2.8 and the DA 35mm Limited Macro).
Hi sinjin,
So those amazing photos that you posted (and on Flickr) are with the new WR lens and therefore without the focus limiter or an aperture ring, right?
If that is so, a lot of the choice comes down to personal preference and experience employing different mechanics and techniques.
Your shots are without additional magnification that can be obtained with bellows and extender tubes, right?
Thanks!
---------- Post added 02-24-16 at 07:41 PM ----------
Originally posted by BrianR You can get tubes with aperture linkages, but they will cost more than cheaper versions. Extension tubes will let you focus even closer for higher magnification, not everyone uses or wants them. As mentioned, you also couldn't use a bellows without an aperture ring. Reversing a 100mm lens is probably not a standard thing to do though, so no big loss there
It's mostly the out of focus highlights that you'll see the differences in aperture shape. The general background blur looked to be pretty identical in most circumstances in tests I've seen between the versions of the dfa100mm. Below is the non-WR at f/5.6. Note the octagon shaped highlights, especially the one just to the below the vocal sac partially obscured by the grass. With rounded blades, this would have been closer to being a smooth circle:
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the great info and the photo. I see the octagon shape, but would not have noticed it, if you had not pointed it out. Do more people consider round highlights preferable to octagon or other shaped highlights?
are all of your toad photos without a bellows or extension tubes?
When would one need those tools? When trying to go "ultra" macro?
Thanks,
---------- Post added 02-24-16 at 07:44 PM ----------
Originally posted by Na Horuk I don't think someone who is a beginner in macro needs an aperture ring. Aperture ring is needed for advanced things like enlargements (on manual bellows or extension tubes; though some tubes have coupler) or artistic ideas like shooting on film SLRs. With DFA 100mm WR you get 1:1 magnification without extension tubes already. And you can still add a Raynox macro filter if you want extra enlargement. Or reverse another lens.
Just set the aperture on the camera or use P mode and have the camera choose by itself.
Hi Na Horuk,
So the Raynox macro filter can be employed along the same lines as the tubes and bellows - but can be used without the need for the aperture ring, right?
Thanks,
---------- Post added 02-24-16 at 07:48 PM ----------
Originally posted by Driline The "3D" effect of the FA 100 2.8 macro....
Hi,
I see the 3D, very cool!
Is the FA the better lens when it comes to this effect?
Thanks,