[dms]

I would never consider a macro lens w/o aperture ring, unless I planned to have another one with aperture ring. The lack on an aperture ring means you cannot add most extension tubes, bellows, TC, or reverse the lens. All the usual things one does when doing macro range (m>1).

[Digitalis]

I would never consider a macro lens w/o aperture ring

yes, without which getting photographs like this..


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 180mm f/3.5 APO EX Macro ISO 800 f/16 1/180th + 85mm extension tubes used, with Godox AD180 wireless flash @ 1/8th power.

...is practically impossible.

[BrianR]

So if the WR version of the lens is placed on extension tubes - the aperture cannot be controlled, because there is no ring? If I got that correct, that seems like a deficiency, right?
Would the extension tubes increase the macro?
Do aperture blades that are rounded result in better bokeh?

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:

[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.

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 02-24-2016 at 06:14 AM.

[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).

[TER-OR]

It's a tough call, rounded blades vs. focus limiter. The focus limiter tells the lens to only operate below a certain distance. I would have a tough time passing up a $220 deal, though.

[BrianR]

I don't think someone who is a beginner in macro needs an aperture ring.

I would certainly say many users will be completely happy without a ring, and never miss its absence. However, given the large number of people I've seen try to use modern ringless lenses on cheap tubes or bellows, I don't think this difference and potential problem can be mentioned often enough. It's hard to predict someone else's use.

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.

I just want to point out that this isn't the case for the non-WR DFA100mm. It does have a focus clamp, but the focus ring is very well damped and not prone to wandering (on mine at least).

(That's a beauty of a caterpillar by the way)

[Na Horuk]

However, given the large number of people I've seen try to use modern ringless lenses on cheap tubes or bellows, I don't think this difference and potential problem can be mentioned often enough. It's hard to predict someone else's use.

Definitely, but its usually lenses like DA 35mm f2.4 or DA L 18-55mm - lenses that are not dedicated macro lenses. I think people who want to go beyond 1:1 usually already have some experience and will have very specific needs. The DFA 100mm WR was my first 1:1 macro lens and its great to build skill on, without any compromises in optics

[Driline]

The "3D" effect of the FA 100 2.8 macro....

[Dewman]

The "3D" effect of the FA 100 2.8 macro....

Exactly! Beautiful!

[radman]

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 ----------

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 ----------

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 ----------

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,

[BrianR]

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?

Generally yes, rounded highlights look nicer. It is not an issue for many photos, and is not usually a 'make it or break it' difference. Flat blades tend to give better starbursts - there are numerous comparisons between the DA15mm (flat blades) and the newer HD 15mm (rounded blades) where the older flat bladed version is preferred. This is usually less of an issue with the dfa100mm - it's not the type of lens that you usually end up including the sun in the composition. If I could magically swap in rounded blades, I'd go for it, but they aren't so appealing to me that I'd bother selling my version and moving to the WR one.

are all of your toad photos without a bellows or extension tubes?
When would one need those tools? When trying to go "ultra" macro?

Those male toads are tyically 5-7cm long, so no extension was required. There are a few 'head shots' as well as a few really young toads in my stream that were taken at or near 1:1 magnification - anything smaller would have required tubes, or a close up filter like a raynox, or a teleconverter, or extensive cropping, or other method.

With no extra add ons, the dfa100mm macro lets you "fill the frame" with a subject roughly 16x24mm in size (assuming an aps-c sensor). Do you have any idea what sort of subjects you're interested in and how small they are?

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?,

Absolutely, you'll get increased magnification and all automation is still intact.

[radman]

Generally yes, rounded highlights look nicer. It is not an issue for many photos, and is not usually a 'make it or break it' difference. Flat blades tend to give better starbursts - there are numerous comparisons between the DA15mm (flat blades) and the newer HD 15mm (rounded blades) where the older flat bladed version is preferred. This is usually less of an issue with the dfa100mm - it's not the type of lens that you usually end up including the sun in the composition. If I could magically swap in rounded blades, I'd go for it, but they aren't so appealing to me that I'd bother selling my version and moving to the WR one.



Those male toads are tyically 5-7cm long, so no extension was required. There are a few 'head shots' as well as a few really young toads in my stream that were taken at or near 1:1 magnification - anything smaller would have required tubes, or a close up filter like a raynox, or a teleconverter, or extensive cropping, or other method.

With no extra add ons, the dfa100mm macro lets you "fill the frame" with a subject roughly 16x24mm in size (assuming an aps-c sensor). Do you have any idea what sort of subjects you're interested in and how small they are?



Absolutely, you'll get increased magnification and all automation is still intact.

Hi Brian,

Thanks again for the helpful info.

I have never shot macro before, but I am interested in having fun with a macro lens.
I imagine myself shooting flowers, insects, and berries...and close ups of my kids' eyes

I do not have any other 100mm lenses - so I could use it for indoor school concerts also... right now I use my K3 and tamron 70-200 for that.

Best regards,

Brian

[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?

Yes, macro filters go on the front end of the lens, so they don't affect its communication with the camera. Tubes and bellows go between the lens and camera, and they can prevent AF, aperture coupling, and transmission of any other data. That is why for extension tubes and bellows it makes sense to get an old lens for a lower price, so you aren't "paying" for AF, WR, auto aperture because you won't be getting those things once you put the lens on "dumb" bellows.
Most macro filters are relatively bad, they negatively affect the image quality. Actually, technically, they all do. But the Raynox ones are really good, they cause next to no loss of IQ.

Btw, 1:1 macro means the image projected onto the sensor is the same size as the actual object. So you can imagine 1:1 is already fairly big. Something like a coin might be too big to get fully into frame at 1:1.
Btw btw, check out the DFA WR club thread. Most of the photos are the DFA 100mm macro: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/87882-d-fa-wr-club-30.html

[sinjin]

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!

None of my photos have been taken with the use of a focus limiter, aperture ring, bellows, extension tubes or macro adapters (e.g. Raynox), although when I started out I assumed I'd need all that. But once I got started with dedicated 1:1 macro lenses* I realized that macro is brutally hard to get good at and the difficulty increases [exponentially?!] with magnification. I've got a long way to go learning about lighting (and perhaps focus stacking) before I begin on the path beyond 1:1, if ever.

I wouldn't factor future adapter needs too heavily in your decision at this time if you are beginning with a dedicated macro lens. In a nut: adapters are primarily used to allow close-focussing on non-macro lenses OR going beyond 1:1 magnification. When you experience how hard it is to get a good shot at 1:1, you may be happy to stop there! You can always swap out your macro lens in the Marketplace later if you feel the need for a feature yours lacks.

If you do want to go beyond 1:1, I recommend you read this excellent resource by one of our fellow forum members:

Extreme Macro Photography

Finally, thanks for the compliments on my photos. I really appreciate it!

*Pentax FA 100, D FA WR 100, 35mm Limited and Tamron 90mm. These are all tagged in Flickr, click on the tag to subset the photos taken with that particular lens.