Pentax 100mm 2.8 Macro WR DFA verses DFA, A and FA macro

**JensE** · 06-26-2016, 04:12 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by DSLRnovice

Other than WR what do you prefer about the newer model?

The AF of the well-used non-WR which I tried sounded very noisy to me, my new WR sounds "healthier" so far. The all-metal outer shell of the WR is beautifully built, similar to the DA limiteds, even though the tube coming out when focusing and the hood bayonet are made of plastic. Manual focus feels a little more refined, less scratchy. Likely a side-effect of WR proofing rings. Last the outer diameter of the WR is slightly smaller and the lens comes with a nice matching deep and narrow hood, very compact to stow when reversed - smaller diameter than e.g. my D-FA 50mm macro hood.

**UncleVanya** · 06-26-2016, 04:30 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by JensE

The AF of the well-used non-WR which I tried sounded very noisy to me, my new WR sounds "healthier" so far. The all-metal outer shell of the WR is beautifully built, similar to the DA limiteds, even though the tube coming out when focusing and the hood bayonet are made of plastic. Manual focus feels a little more refined, less scratchy. Likely a side-effect of WR proofing rings. Last the outer diameter of the WR is slightly smaller and the lens comes with a nice matching deep and narrow hood, very compact to stow when reversed - smaller diameter than e.g. my D-FA 50mm macro hood.

Are you sure the DFA 100 non-WR is using a different hood?

To the op: if you need aperture rings then any of the non wr lenses in that f, FA, DFA series will work. The DFA will be the lightest. The FA has a focus clutch to add tension and a focus limiter to allow easier use as a normal telephoto, the f version has the limiter but not the tension adjustment, the DFA is far lighter and smaller and uses 49mm filters.

DSLRnovice · 06-27-2016, 07:46 AM

Just wanted to say that this forum is very helpful. The lens reviews are great too. At this point I think I would be happy with any of the lenses discussed. Even without the aperture ring on the WR model 1:1 macro is good for most purposes.

Would I be pressing it to bring in questions about A and M versions? Is there a significant IQ difference for the K-1?

**UncleVanya** · 06-27-2016, 08:49 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by DSLRnovice

Would I be pressing it to bring in questions about A and M versions? Is there a significant IQ difference for the K-1?

No, it is a reasonable extension of the topic. Sadly without a k-1 or any experience with those a & m lenses I can only say that they have a great reputation. The m42 50 f4 is also quite well loved. My impression is that all of the macro lenses avaiable for Pentax are reasonably good.

**JensE** · 06-27-2016, 01:15 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Are you sure the DFA 100 non-WR is using a different hood?

No, I don't. They do use different hoods though: PH-RBB 49mm vs. PH-RBE 49mm.

Originally posted by UncleVanya

My impression is that all of the macro lenses avaiable for Pentax are reasonably good.

I would prefer the f/2.8 lenses as the brighter viewfinder makes composition and focusing (by whatever method) easier.

**UncleVanya** · 06-27-2016, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by JensE

No, I don't. They do use different hoods though: PH-RBB 49mm vs. PH-RBE 49mm.

That is weird. They look very similar but they sure do have different part numbers. I wonder if anyone out there has both and has ever tried swapping the hoods around.

DSLRnovice · 06-30-2016, 03:00 PM

I saw a m50/4 macro at our local camera shop for a decent price. The reviews here are very positive, and yet one reviewer said that it was not corrected well for infinity. 100mm macros get good overall ratings and several have said that they work well for distance work. But is there a compromise for flatness of field favoring closeup with these also? Macro use for the 100mm would secondary for me.

Would is make sense to buy 2 lenses? I might find a 2.8 non macro for less, and a f4 macro as well, both of which are easier to find. Or go with a Japanese dealer on Ebay and get a 100/2.8 macro.

BrianR · 06-30-2016, 05:32 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by DSLRnovice

I saw a m50/4 macro at our local camera shop for a decent price. The reviews here are very positive, and yet one reviewer said that it was not corrected well for infinity. 100mm macros get good overall ratings and several have said that they work well for distance work. But is there a compromise for flatness of field favoring closeup with these also? Macro use for the 100mm would secondary for me.

I believe the design of these macros changed significantly around the "A" series where they started using floating elements in the 50mm macros and the "FREE" system in the 100mm macros. I'm not a lens design expert, but I understand this meant the lens design went from being "inert" where all elements move in unison forward or backward when focusing to some of them moving around (or staying put) in more clever ways as you changed focusing distance. This cleverness lets the lenses characteristics change as the focusing distance does, ideally to improve its performance at whatever distance you've got it set to (and possibly other benefits, weight, length, etc). This seems to be a turning point in when macros went from being sharp up close to being sharp across the board.

You can see exactly which of the Pentax Macros incorporate these designs here:

Pentax Normal Prime Lenses
Pentax Short Telephoto Prime Lenses

For interests sake you can see some animations of inert lenses vs. more complicated systems here (for example figures 13 and 14):

Focal Length and Magnification, by Pierre Toscani

Originally posted by DSLRnovice

Would is make sense to buy 2 lenses? I might find a 2.8 non macro for less, and a f4 macro as well, both of which are easier to find. Or go with a Japanese dealer on Ebay and get a 100/2.8 macro.

I dunno, the obvious answer is to buy buy buy as many lenses as you can get

. Probably it's more economical to get one of the later macros (this includes the F/FA versions).

For what it's worth, here are a couple samples from my DFA100mm non-WR on my k100d used at distances. These were handheld (I was already lagging behind on a family vacation

), and taken by someone who doesn't really care much for landscape type things. On the left is the whole frame, on the right is a 600 pixel high crop from the top centre or top right to show the detail.

There are probably zillions of up-close samples of this lens out there, but I can post some if you really like. It's really pretty awesome up close. The only compromise I can see with this lens is some purple fringing when used wide open in high contrast scenes, otherwise it's truly the bomb.

It might be interesting to do a side-by-side distance comparison with my old m42 100mm f/4 macro. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen, but if I get time I'll give it a whirl vs. some very exciting trees across the road.

henryzhou · 07-11-2016, 12:52 AM

Has anybody compared A 100/2.8 macro with DFA 100/2.8 macro?
Consider the image quality and contrast on A* 135 and A* 85 are superb (I know they are * lens), I'd expect a lot for A 100/2.8

DSLRnovice · 09-05-2016, 10:14 AM

Just to update after all the helpful advice I found in this thread and the lens reviews, I decided on the non WR DFA 100mm macro. They are rarely found used but I found a near mint one for a fair price on ebay, and so far I love it! I never before realized this, but the clamp feature makes is possible to use catch-in focus which I expect will be handy with some close ups. I don't know if the WR version has a way to disable autofocus.

Also I can use my kmount extension tubes with it.

irek83 · 09-05-2016, 10:48 AM

D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro is a one with the best Pentax lenses, I do highly recommend it.
Also works well with old film cameras.
Sample below.
Pentax K-5IIs + smc PENTAX-D FA 100mm F2.8 MACRO
iso 200, f/3.5

DSLRnovice · 09-05-2016, 05:47 PM

The manual says "when focusing manually, do not turn the focusing all the way to infinity or to the minimum focusing distance."

That cannot mean that in manual focus photos cannot be taken at infinity or at the closest focusing distance, can it? What I noticed when focusing manually that the focusing ring will continue to move after reaching the end of the focusing movement. I would not intentionally force the ring after reaching infinity focus, but when I did it accidentally, it did not seem to cause a problem.

Is this normal? It does appear that the focus will extend slightly beyond infinity. The warning could be so that we not assume that there is a lock at infinity as with most manual focus lenses.

BrianR · 09-05-2016, 06:12 PM - **1 Like**

IIRC continuing to turn it past minimum or infinity isn't great for the focusing clutch. I've been manually setting mine to the hard stops at either end for years and all is still dandy. Just don't apply force once you hit the stop or turn it with the strength of enraged gorilla and it should be fine.

Yes, the focusing clamp works for catch-in-focus. I had read about this a few months ago after owning the lens for several years (duh!) and I keep forgetting to try to put it to good use, so thanks for the reminder

Enjoy your lens...it's a dandy!

DSLRnovice · 09-06-2016, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by BrianR

IIRC continuing to turn it past minimum or infinity isn't great for the focusing clutch. I've been manually setting mine to the hard stops at either end for years and all is still dandy. Just don't apply force once you hit the stop or turn it with the strength of enraged gorilla and it should be fine.

Yes, the focusing clamp works for catch-in-focus. I had read about this a few months ago after owning the lens for several years (duh!) and I keep forgetting to try to put it to good use, so thanks for the reminder

Enjoy your lens...it's a dandy!

Thanks for the answer.

What happened when I first got the lens and possibly before it was on the camera, I turned the focusing ring and found it went past infinity with little force. After that there was a firmer click. Then I noticed that since the manual focusing ring does not move when autofocusing, the lettering on ring ends up on a different position when switching back and forth between auto and manual. This looseness I guess is necessary because the focus ring is large, which I like, but it needs to remain stationary when holding the camera and using autofocus.

On the speed of autofocusing, I think it is fine. I don't plan on switching between macro and normal a lot. When I do, I will manually get it within range. Do I need to switch the camera to manual focus when doing that? It says to not turn the ring while autofocusing, but would it hurt when the camera is in the process of finding the focus?

BrianR · 09-06-2016, 06:45 AM

The AF at 'normal' distances is pretty zippy assuming it doesn't miss focus and go for a spin, something that happens much less with the newer bodies. At close-up distances, it's not so fast but is pretty accurate, even in shockingly poor light (also dependent on the body).

With the camera set to AF, it's no problem turning the focusing ring as long as the camera isn't currently trying to focus. You can manually turn it to be 'close' then engage the AF to (hopefully) finish the job. You can also do this to reset the focus if it goes off on a long AF hunt the wrong direction.

If this is your first Quick Shift lens, I highly recommend you try out Back-Button AF. With the camera on AF.C, Back button AF enabled, and AF decoupled from the shutter button, you can easily slide back and forth from full time AF to full time MF.

06-30-2016, 05:32 PM - 1 Like	#23
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Originally posted by DSLRnovice I saw a m50/4 macro at our local camera shop for a decent price. The reviews here are very positive, and yet one reviewer said that it was not corrected well for infinity. 100mm macros get good overall ratings and several have said that they work well for distance work. But is there a compromise for flatness of field favoring closeup with these also? Macro use for the 100mm would secondary for me. I believe the design of these macros changed significantly around the "A" series where they started using floating elements in the 50mm macros and the "FREE" system in the 100mm macros. I'm not a lens design expert, but I understand this meant the lens design went from being "inert" where all elements move in unison forward or backward when focusing to some of them moving around (or staying put) in more clever ways as you changed focusing distance. This cleverness lets the lenses characteristics change as the focusing distance does, ideally to improve its performance at whatever distance you've got it set to (and possibly other benefits, weight, length, etc). This seems to be a turning point in when macros went from being sharp up close to being sharp across the board. You can see exactly which of the Pentax Macros incorporate these designs here: Pentax Normal Prime Lenses Pentax Short Telephoto Prime Lenses For interests sake you can see some animations of inert lenses vs. more complicated systems here (for example figures 13 and 14): Focal Length and Magnification, by Pierre Toscani Originally posted by DSLRnovice Would is make sense to buy 2 lenses? I might find a 2.8 non macro for less, and a f4 macro as well, both of which are easier to find. Or go with a Japanese dealer on Ebay and get a 100/2.8 macro. I dunno, the obvious answer is to buy buy buy as many lenses as you can get. Probably it's more economical to get one of the later macros (this includes the F/FA versions). For what it's worth, here are a couple samples from my DFA100mm non-WR on my k100d used at distances. These were handheld (I was already lagging behind on a family vacation), and taken by someone who doesn't really care much for landscape type things. On the left is the whole frame, on the right is a 600 pixel high crop from the top centre or top right to show the detail. There are probably zillions of up-close samples of this lens out there, but I can post some if you really like. It's really pretty awesome up close. The only compromise I can see with this lens is some purple fringing when used wide open in high contrast scenes, otherwise it's truly the bomb. It might be interesting to do a side-by-side distance comparison with my old m42 100mm f/4 macro. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen, but if I get time I'll give it a whirl vs. some very exciting trees across the road.

09-05-2016, 10:14 AM	#25
DSLRnovice Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 192 Original Poster	DFA 100mm macro Just to update after all the helpful advice I found in this thread and the lens reviews, I decided on the non WR DFA 100mm macro. They are rarely found used but I found a near mint one for a fair price on ebay, and so far I love it! I never before realized this, but the clamp feature makes is possible to use catch-in focus which I expect will be handy with some close ups. I don't know if the WR version has a way to disable autofocus. Also I can use my kmount extension tubes with it.

09-05-2016, 05:47 PM	#27
DSLRnovice Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 192 Original Poster	Question about focus ring on D FA 100 macro The manual says "when focusing manually, do not turn the focusing all the way to infinity or to the minimum focusing distance." That cannot mean that in manual focus photos cannot be taken at infinity or at the closest focusing distance, can it? What I noticed when focusing manually that the focusing ring will continue to move after reaching the end of the focusing movement. I would not intentionally force the ring after reaching infinity focus, but when I did it accidentally, it did not seem to cause a problem. Is this normal? It does appear that the focus will extend slightly beyond infinity. The warning could be so that we not assume that there is a lock at infinity as with most manual focus lenses. Last edited by DSLRnovice; 09-05-2016 at 05:55 PM. Reason: mistake in grammer

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DFA Macro 100mm 2.8 near mint	TroutHunterJohn	Sold Items	3	01-13-2016 08:37 PM
Pentax FA 135 f2.8 v. DFA 100mm F/2.8 Macro	HGMerrill	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	04-11-2015 12:07 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DFA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro Lens	loveisageless	Sold Items	2	01-07-2015 12:31 AM
K10D and DFA 2.8 100mm macro	Heinrich Lohmann	Post Your Photos!	18	11-26-2007 12:16 AM

06-26-2016, 04:12 PM - 1 Like	#16
JensE Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Leipzig Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,969	Originally posted by DSLRnovice Other than WR what do you prefer about the newer model? The AF of the well-used non-WR which I tried sounded very noisy to me, my new WR sounds "healthier" so far. The all-metal outer shell of the WR is beautifully built, similar to the DA limiteds, even though the tube coming out when focusing and the hood bayonet are made of plastic. Manual focus feels a little more refined, less scratchy. Likely a side-effect of WR proofing rings. Last the outer diameter of the WR is slightly smaller and the lens comes with a nice matching deep and narrow hood, very compact to stow when reversed - smaller diameter than e.g. my D-FA 50mm macro hood.

06-26-2016, 04:30 PM - 1 Like	#17
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,406	Originally posted by JensE The AF of the well-used non-WR which I tried sounded very noisy to me, my new WR sounds "healthier" so far. The all-metal outer shell of the WR is beautifully built, similar to the DA limiteds, even though the tube coming out when focusing and the hood bayonet are made of plastic. Manual focus feels a little more refined, less scratchy. Likely a side-effect of WR proofing rings. Last the outer diameter of the WR is slightly smaller and the lens comes with a nice matching deep and narrow hood, very compact to stow when reversed - smaller diameter than e.g. my D-FA 50mm macro hood. Are you sure the DFA 100 non-WR is using a different hood? To the op: if you need aperture rings then any of the non wr lenses in that f, FA, DFA series will work. The DFA will be the lightest. The FA has a focus clutch to add tension and a focus limiter to allow easier use as a normal telephoto, the f version has the limiter but not the tension adjustment, the DFA is far lighter and smaller and uses 49mm filters.

06-27-2016, 07:46 AM	#18
DSLRnovice Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 192 Original Poster	Just wanted to say that this forum is very helpful. The lens reviews are great too. At this point I think I would be happy with any of the lenses discussed. Even without the aperture ring on the WR model 1:1 macro is good for most purposes. Would I be pressing it to bring in questions about A and M versions? Is there a significant IQ difference for the K-1?

06-27-2016, 08:49 AM - 1 Like	#19
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,406	Originally posted by DSLRnovice Would I be pressing it to bring in questions about A and M versions? Is there a significant IQ difference for the K-1? No, it is a reasonable extension of the topic. Sadly without a k-1 or any experience with those a & m lenses I can only say that they have a great reputation. The m42 50 f4 is also quite well loved. My impression is that all of the macro lenses avaiable for Pentax are reasonably good.

06-27-2016, 01:15 PM - 1 Like	#20
JensE Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Leipzig Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,969	Originally posted by UncleVanya Are you sure the DFA 100 non-WR is using a different hood? No, I don't. They do use different hoods though: PH-RBB 49mm vs. PH-RBE 49mm. Originally posted by UncleVanya My impression is that all of the macro lenses avaiable for Pentax are reasonably good. I would prefer the f/2.8 lenses as the brighter viewfinder makes composition and focusing (by whatever method) easier.

06-27-2016, 01:37 PM	#21
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,406	Originally posted by JensE No, I don't. They do use different hoods though: PH-RBB 49mm vs. PH-RBE 49mm. That is weird. They look very similar but they sure do have different part numbers. I wonder if anyone out there has both and has ever tried swapping the hoods around.

06-30-2016, 03:00 PM	#22
DSLRnovice Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 192 Original Poster	I saw a m50/4 macro at our local camera shop for a decent price. The reviews here are very positive, and yet one reviewer said that it was not corrected well for infinity. 100mm macros get good overall ratings and several have said that they work well for distance work. But is there a compromise for flatness of field favoring closeup with these also? Macro use for the 100mm would secondary for me. Would is make sense to buy 2 lenses? I might find a 2.8 non macro for less, and a f4 macro as well, both of which are easier to find. Or go with a Japanese dealer on Ebay and get a 100/2.8 macro.

07-11-2016, 12:52 AM	#24
henryzhou New Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 20	Has anybody compared A 100/2.8 macro with DFA 100/2.8 macro? Consider the image quality and contrast on A* 135 and A* 85 are superb (I know they are * lens), I'd expect a lot for A 100/2.8

09-05-2016, 10:48 AM	#26
irek83 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Dublin Posts: 159	D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro is a one with the best Pentax lenses, I do highly recommend it. Also works well with old film cameras. Sample below. Pentax K-5IIs + smc PENTAX-D FA 100mm F2.8 MACRO iso 200, f/3.5

09-05-2016, 06:12 PM - 1 Like	#28
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	IIRC continuing to turn it past minimum or infinity isn't great for the focusing clutch. I've been manually setting mine to the hard stops at either end for years and all is still dandy. Just don't apply force once you hit the stop or turn it with the strength of enraged gorilla and it should be fine. Yes, the focusing clamp works for catch-in-focus. I had read about this a few months ago after owning the lens for several years (duh!) and I keep forgetting to try to put it to good use, so thanks for the reminder Enjoy your lens...it's a dandy!

09-06-2016, 05:54 AM	#29
DSLRnovice Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 192 Original Poster	Originally posted by BrianR IIRC continuing to turn it past minimum or infinity isn't great for the focusing clutch. I've been manually setting mine to the hard stops at either end for years and all is still dandy. Just don't apply force once you hit the stop or turn it with the strength of enraged gorilla and it should be fine. Yes, the focusing clamp works for catch-in-focus. I had read about this a few months ago after owning the lens for several years (duh!) and I keep forgetting to try to put it to good use, so thanks for the reminder Enjoy your lens...it's a dandy! Thanks for the answer. What happened when I first got the lens and possibly before it was on the camera, I turned the focusing ring and found it went past infinity with little force. After that there was a firmer click. Then I noticed that since the manual focusing ring does not move when autofocusing, the lettering on ring ends up on a different position when switching back and forth between auto and manual. This looseness I guess is necessary because the focus ring is large, which I like, but it needs to remain stationary when holding the camera and using autofocus. On the speed of autofocusing, I think it is fine. I don't plan on switching between macro and normal a lot. When I do, I will manually get it within range. Do I need to switch the camera to manual focus when doing that? It says to not turn the ring while autofocusing, but would it hurt when the camera is in the process of finding the focus?

09-06-2016, 06:45 AM	#30
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	The AF at 'normal' distances is pretty zippy assuming it doesn't miss focus and go for a spin, something that happens much less with the newer bodies. At close-up distances, it's not so fast but is pretty accurate, even in shockingly poor light (also dependent on the body). With the camera set to AF, it's no problem turning the focusing ring as long as the camera isn't currently trying to focus. You can manually turn it to be 'close' then engage the AF to (hopefully) finish the job. You can also do this to reset the focus if it goes off on a long AF hunt the wrong direction. If this is your first Quick Shift lens, I highly recommend you try out Back-Button AF. With the camera on AF.C, Back button AF enabled, and AF decoupled from the shutter button, you can easily slide back and forth from full time AF to full time MF.