[les3547]

I have the 35 and 100 macros, but for non-macro shots they do not hold a candle to my 31 and 77, or even my DA* zooms.
Viva la difference!

Well, I'm starting to suspect I'm just infatuated with the Sigma 70mm macro, and hoping other macros are like it. I own the FA 31, and have owned many other great lenses (e.g. several Limiteds, all the Voigtlanders except the 125, and still own the 180, plus most of the Zeiss glass made for Pentax). The Sigma is right in there with the best I've tried.

[mee]

This is an interesting thread to me since I have had the same idea... to stock up on macro primes due to their sharpness.

As your MTF chart shows, they're super sharp even at max aperture. Which negates (imo) most of the argument against them as being too slow. Take something like a DA 50 f/1.8 and you'll have to stop down to around f/2.8 anyways to come close to the same level of sharpness as the macro. And it still won't be as sharp in the corners as the macro lens.

But the biggest difference is that macro lenses are generally designed for flat field correction. On most other lenses, they're designed with a curve so that the center is the sharpest and the edges trail off to a degree in sharpness. That is great for portraits. Not so great if you're photographing artwork or something small like a stamp and need edge-to-edge sharpness. Hence why macro lenses are generally flat field. Though I suspect this could be a boon to architecture and landscape work too.

I haven't stocked up on macro primes (mostly because I value having a focal range in a zoom lens) but the thought crops back up in my mind from time to time when threads such as this pop up.

This would make for an interesting lens shoot out. take a focal length (say 35mm or 50mm) and then shoot the same scenes through both macro and non-macro lenses in that same focal length, correct any exposure differences, and compare the output. I'd love to see what this 'personality' really consists of.

[Nicolas06]

Macro lenses, the modern ones at least seems to be sharp in all settings. They are also sharper closed down to quite narrow appertures like f/16 trying to get the best under diffraction limits.

I use the DA35 ltd for landscapes and it work well. Sharp and very contrasty. It also work very well for... macro of course.

Now there still other issues. f/2.8, in particular on APSC is not that fast or for WA, not that shallow. There no WA wide angles like a 24mm or 18mm macro available anyway.

But the other part is the rendering is not the same. Here I shot 2 people shots, first one with FA77, I tried to get one that was not too good and another with DA35ltd, I tried to get one that was not too bad. These are not fancy, just snapshot at a weding and the weather was bad... Both were taken at f/4 iso 400. The FA77 is 1/500 and the DA35 is 1/200 so that should be fast enough.

I still prefer the FA77 shot. Part of it is likely the focal length, but another part is the lens rendering.

That show you the limits of reviewers. They shot brick wall and charts. This is as boring subject as it can be. And really this is not the kind of subjects that interrest most people, really.

[Nicolas06]

Now let's take a look a some nice FA77 and DA35 ltd images. Consistantly the FA77 handle landscape without issues and manage quite some sharpness... But it does also make the subject more vivid, aline, 3D. It make them pop. The DA35ltd does it very well but only on macro/proxy shots.

Sure I would have preferred to show 2 teles macro vs non macro or 2 lenses near 35mm, but I still think that if you tried with FA31 and compared it to DA35 ltd you would see the difference too. I would say the DA35ltd is sharp but rendering non macro things flat most of the time with the FA77 render them with volume.

DA35ltd



DA35ltd



DA35ltd



DA35ltd




And now the FA77ltd


FA77ltd



FA77ltd



FA77ltd



FA77ltd

[les3547]

This would make for an interesting lens shoot out. take a focal length (say 35mm or 50mm) and then shoot the same scenes through both macro and non-macro lenses in that same focal length, correct any exposure differences, and compare the output. I'd love to see what this 'personality' really consists of.

I like to see such comparisons too, especially since I've bought and sold a ridiculous number of lenses over the last year trying to get what I want in terms of compactness and IQ. The only macro lens I own now is the Sigma 70, but I have been considering the D FA 50 because it is so affordable. The Sigma seems fantastic as an all-around lens, as did the Zeiss Makro 50 for I had awhile (I didn't have time to test it properly as a general purpose lens—wife lost job, then a crazy driver totaled our car, so the seller graciously let me return the lens).

But comparisons online are hard to make use of too with the limits of JPEG, and differences in taste and preference that show up in other's opinions. I tend to agree with what some suggested that the planar design can be hard and two dimensional for people shots, but I am thinking the right macro might have great potential for landscape where one wants things crisp from edge to edge.

[Nicolas06]

But comparisons online are hard to make use of too with the limits of JPEG, and differences in taste and preference that show up in other's opinions. I tend to agree with what some suggested that the planar design can be hard and two dimensional for people shots, but I am thinking the right macro might have great potential for landscape where one wants things crisp from edge to edge.

The thing there no prime that are not sharp edge to edge in 31-560mm range in current line up. I agee that DA15 and DA21 have field curvature and that can be anoying at time but there no alternative Pentax macro lens neither... and only a few if any from other manufacturers. The macro may have a slight benefit wide open but I don't think DA35 f/2.4, DA50f/1.8 or DA70 going to be soft on border even at f/2.8 and well near 100mm there only macro lenses available.

I would say a macro lens work great for macro, is good for landscape and typically so-so for portraiture and non proxy/macro bokeh.

Lenses like DA*55 or even more FA31, FA43 and FA77 shine at making the subject look 3D when there bokeh. Even big subject (see the plane on my previous post). I would say the FA77 manage it a bit on some landscapes. Theses lenses do landscape just fine, maybe even more pleasant but may have more flare or chromatic aberation in difficult conditions.

I got the impression that DA40 or DA70 are a bit in the middle rendering wise.

Zooms can be quite sharp too, they are just essentially slower and are more limited for their ability to make the subject pop. 50-135 does it, but not at all as commonly and pronounced as the FA77...

In the end, outside a few cases, it is difficult to find a lens that is not sharp used properly. marco lenses are sharper, sure and more contrasty/punchy but that a type of rendering. Not THE rendering.

[les3547]

In the end, outside a few cases, it is difficult to find a lens that is not sharp used properly. marco lenses are sharper, sure and more contrasty/punchy but that a type of rendering. Not THE rendering.

True, and sharpness isn't all I care about either. I do like macro rendering for certain settings, and one can always tone it down in Lightroom—toning up is harder when the info isn't there. I decided to give the D FA 50 a try since I found one for $200. I won't be content until I try it myself to see if will work out as an all-purpose prime (anticipating FF a bit with this lens too). If it doesn't work as general purpose lens I'll stick with the Sigma as my sole macro (or keep the D FA 50 as my macro).

[Nicolas06]

True, and sharpness isn't all I care about either. I do like macro rendering for certain settings, and one can always tone it down in Lightroom—toning up is harder when the info isn't there. I decided to give the D FA 50 a try since I found one for $200. I won't be content until I try it myself to see if will work out as an all-purpose prime (anticipating FF a bit with this lens too). If it doesn't work as general purpose lens I'll stick with the Sigma as my sole macro (or keep the D FA 50 as my macro).

That would be interresting if you could compare it on different occasion with a more classical lens like DA/FA50 f/1.4-f/1.8, DA*55 or one of the FAltds !

[les3547]

That would be interresting if you could compare it on different occasion with a more classical lens like DA/FA50 f/1.4-f/1.8, DA*55 or one of the FAltds !

I don't have a classic 50mm anymore, but I do have the FA 31 LTD which I can try to compare it to, as well as the DA 16-85 which is a lovely renderer IMO, and has caused me to return or sell many a prime lens that couldn't out-IQ it at F5.6 (where I shoot most everything). I'll post some comparison shots when the F DA 50 arrives.

[Nicolas06]

I don't have a classic 50mm anymore, but I do have the FA 31 LTD which I can try to compare it to, as well as the DA 16-85 which is a lovely renderer IMO, and has caused me to return or sell many a prime lens that couldn't out-IQ it at F5.6 (where I shoot most everything). I'll post some comparison shots when the F DA 50 arrives.

good that's not perfect but I think that even "better". First FA31 is a great lens so nobody could say you didn't compare well... Second if a shorter focal length make the same subject pop more, this will show there quite some difference in the rendering !

[JensE]

The D-FA 100mm WR for is definitely more than a macro-only lens. Landscape/city details are is a no-brainer, sharpness, contrast and rendering are all better and provide more options than the two, admittedly not top of the line, zooms (18-135, 55-300) which I have at that focal length. At medium distances, it provides very nice rendering of both foreground and background, totally usable for portraits. The below had very little processing, just color-wise a Portra NC simulation applied. I often like the results more than those from the DA 70 Ltd., where I often have to fiddle with colors. I even use the D-FA 100 WR for indoor sports sometimes, see my post in the https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/87882-d-fa-wr-club-30.html#post3464873. Give it a try!

Maybe I can do a comparison, under comparable conditions, between D-FA 100 WR, DA 70 Ltd. and my medium format 80mm Carl Zeiss Jena Biometar, and maybe the 135mm/3.5 CZJ M42 Sonnar - even though that gets somewhat long. I use the last two definitely not for their benchmark resolution/aberration qualities but for their beautiful rendering.