[les3547]

Some of the best lenses are macro lenses, and for any sort of photography. Consider the Pentax D FA 50mm F2.8 macro. Photozone, which isn’t prone to gush (reticent actually) can’t seem to stop themselves from a bit of gushing over the D FA 50 macro:

“… we also have to stress again that it is a marvel of a lens in optical terms. The high performance has also to be seen in to the context of a comparatively low price tag. Therefore ... highly recommended [4.5 stars awarded].”

Of course, a look at the MTF figures explains part of it:


Opinions such as from this DPReview discussion are typical:

“Macro lenses are optimized for close up shooting and are at there best in that range. That isn’t to say that they don’t work well at normal shooting distances. They usually don’t have as wide a maximum aperture as equivalently priced ‘primes’. But apart from the price and maximum aperture, they are usually better optically: flatter (planar) field, good contrast and color reproduction, excellent resolution, sharp form edge-to-edge, very low geometric distortion (lacking pin cushioning and barreling), low vignetting, etc.One other down side is that, for the same focal length, they are usually larger and heavier than the equivalent prime. In order to focus closer, the main lens group has to be extended from the sensor plane (much in the same way the extension tubes are used to allow closer focusing). Although much of this is now done using internal focusing, it still makes for longer lens barrels.”

To me the positives outweigh the negatives, and the “down sides” he mentioned, at least for the DA 35mm Limited Macro, the D FA 50 & 100mm Macros (all F2.8), do not exactly apply. They are relatively compact and affordable; plus an F2.8 lens that at max aperture is sharp from edge to edge I’d consider fast. Size and weight withstanding, a lot of other macro lenses are superb like the Zeiss 50mm and 100mm F2 Makro-Planers, the Tamron 90mm F2.8, the Sigma 70mm F2.8 (a brilliant lens IMHO), the Sigma 105mm, and one of the greatest lenses ever made, the Voigtlander 125mm…

Anyway, I’m curious about this because as I work on completing my kit I see the possibility of filling slots with macro lenses (like the D FA 50mm), and wonder if there is some other down side I’ve not taken into account.

---

Last edited by les3547; 03-19-2016 at 02:50 PM.

[pathdoc]

The problem with macros is that they can be very "clinical" in their rendering - you get an awesome picture, but with none of the character that a less exacting lens provides. If fidelity of resolution edge to edge is everything to you, that's all well and good, but if you are aiming for a subjective creative quality it may not be what you want.

The other problem is that 50mm macro lenses tend to be on the very slow side for this focal length; f/2.8 to f/4.0 depending on the era, in comparison to the 1.4 or 1.7 of your more typical 50mm.

The third problem, in many cases, is that they have a very long focal throw that is primarily dedicated to the very close distances; there is thus very little room available for precision adjustments beyond a couple of metres. You can go from arm's length to infinity very quickly, and depending on the optical design this may matter or it may not. In the case of the D-FA 100WR it matters a lot, because it has a particularly bad reputation for hunting if it misses focus at one end; it really needs its quick-shift capability, which is a necessity rather than a luxury on this particular lens (I know; I own it).

Ultimately, of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you've looked at several bazillion pics taken with macro lenses under non-macro circumstances and you like the result, go for it. But all the above must be borne in mind when it comes to day-to-day use.

[Nick Siebers]

Macros are often optimized for close-up work. They may not perform as well at distance. And their bokeh and rendering may not be to taste in non-macro situations. They may be bigger than a non-macro lens would be. With that said, I love all three of my macro lenses.

[vonBaloney]

Re-iterating above.

I love love macro lenses. I have a ton of them. BUT:

-- They are never really fast (rarely faster than f2.8)
-- They are unsuited to anything more than few feet away -- focus is tough because the throw is designed for close distances (autofocus helps here, but still) and they are often not great at infinity.
-- You don't always want macro lens style rending.

[tvdtvdtvd]

Yep and Yep. What the others have said.

Macros are great when you >want< that kind of exacting, precise sharpness. But they're not always the most
flattering lens for portraits or other scenes which would benefit from a bit more lens personalty.

Macros also have a long focus throw, which translates into slower focus speed.

Max. aperture of f/2.8 is fine for a lot of situations, but f/2 or faster does have it's place. You're glad to have
a 50/1.4 when you need it.

And don't discount the added weight so quickly. A bag of macros would be appreciably heavier than a bag of primes.
10% more, no biggie. 20% more, noticeable but tolerable. 50% more, (or more), that's quite a lot.

FA 50/1.7 + FA135/2.8 + FA*200/2.8 = 170g+375g+785g = 1330g
FA 50/2.8macro + FA 100/2.8macro + FA*200/4macro = 385g+600g+1080g = 2065g

[Rondec]

Biggest thing to me is slow auto focus and a little slower max aperture. Sure, you could get a 35 macro, 50 macro and 90/100 macro and cover a lot of territory, but if you aren't particularly interested in shooting super-close up, shooting with a FA 31, DA *55 and FA 77 would be a more enjoyable experience (and a more expensive experience). Rendering will be pretty different, but I have found that macros are a little sharp to be shooting a lot of people shots.

I own the 100 macro (and used to own the 35 macro) but I find I mainly use macro lenses for macro and use other glass for walk around situations.

[les3547]

. . . They are unsuited to anything more than few feet away -- focus is tough because the throw is designed for close distances (autofocus helps here, but still) and they are often not great at infinity.

I wonder how much that particular criticism is real and how much is myth—I mean, sometimes a "fault" is logically arrived at rather than actually experienced, and then it gets passed around as though fact until it's accepted. It wasn't my experience earlier with DA 35 Limited, the Zeiss 50 Makro, and nor is it now with the Sigma 70mm. I found they were suited for any distance whatsoever.

---

Last edited by les3547; 07-16-2017 at 01:33 PM.

[MJSfoto1956]

I wouldn't mind seeing Pentax offer a "set" of Macros in nicely spaced focal lengths (much like the old Olympus OM system).
e.g. 17mm (á la Venus Laowa 15mm f/4 Wide Angle Macro Lens w/ Shift ), 35mm, 70mm, and 140mm.

Michael

[les3547]

. . . I have found that macros are a little sharp to be shooting a lot of people shots.

True. I found the DA 35 Limited so sharp it seemed almost harsh at times (which is why I sold it). I don't perceive the Sigma 70 that way, and I am hoping (but don't yet know) the D FA 50mm isn't so.

[joergens.mi]

something above 140mm like 140, 180 or 200,... in the typical Pentax limited quality would be really great. A Sigma i would take too

[pathdoc]

I wouldn't mind seeing Pentax offer a "set" of Macros in nicely spaced focal lengths (much like the old Olympus OM system).
e.g. 17mm (á la Venus Laowa 15mm f/4 Wide Angle Macro Lens w/ Shift ), 35mm, 70mm, and 140mm.

Michael

I doubt you'll get the last two so long as the 50 and 100 are around. Both focal lengths have too long a history in the Pentax macro lineup.

[vonBaloney]

I wonder how much that particular criticism is real and how much is myth—I mean, sometimes a "fault" is logically arrived at rather than actually experienced, and then it gets passed around as though fact until it's accepted. It wasn't my experience earlier with DA 35 Limited, the Zeiss 50 Makro, and nor is it now with the Sigma 70mm. I found they were suited for any distance whatsoever. I just stepped outside and took these handheld with the Sigma 70.

It is hard to find fault with the Sigma 70 optically under any circumstances, and probably your other choices also. You're talking about some of the sharpest and most highly regarded lenses ever. But there are plenty of others (i.e. less expensive and/or older) where longer distances plainly suffer at the wider apertures (or it is just very hard to nail it), and just in general I'd rather have a non-macro lens where infinity doesn't start at 6ft out for focusing on things that are more than a few feet away.

[jkomp316]

the pentax 50 and 100 macros are very sharp at f8 and infinity.

[Sandy Hancock]

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!

[ivanvernon]

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!

I agree with this. However, I like my Pentax-M 100mm f 4.0 for longer shots where I want a very sharp foreground and blurred background. I do lots of flowers, and sometimes use the 100mm for them, but definitely get the dreamy, painterly look more with the 77. Sometimes you want a clinically sharp rendering of a blossom, and other times a more artistic, less sharp version, but when you see the artistic version with the 77 you don't want anything else.