[robert52]

Hi I am thinking of buying a 2nd hand lens for portraiture & some macro around the 90mm / 100mm / 105mm
I have the list down to the Tameron 172 E ( old model Pentax F ( FA) 100mm & the Sigma 105mm EX all 2.8 .
the Tameron & Pentax are all around same price the Sigma approx $50 more if all equal which 1 would you buy & why .
Of any any 1 recommend any like lens around up to $200 US
Thanks

[Tigs]

Also consider Samyang 100mm but only manual focus.
I didnt know sigma made the 105 for Pentax.

[robert52]

Hi thanks for that also willing to look at f3.5 lens as well

---------- Post added 04-23-17 at 08:22 PM ----------

I give the Samyang the skip if I spend that much I buy a new Pentax / Sigma / Tameron lens

[Na Horuk]

Hi I am thinking of buying a 2nd hand lens for portraiture & some macro around the 90mm / 100mm / 105mm

Portrait lenses are not perfect for macro. Macro is not perfect for portraiture (except maybe 'documentary' style portraits). You can make a compromise, sure. I recommend you really decide what you want, first.
Anyway, all modern macro primes are really good. I usually recommend the Pentax. Love the DFA 100mm. Compact, looks great, WR, great colours and contrasts. But it has no aperture ring, so if you want to use simple extension tubes or use the lens on an old film SLR, this lens is not a good choice. Tamron 90mm is a little cheaper if budget is a big factor.

Bottom line is all three lenses are good. There are many threads about comparing them. In terms of optics, the DFA 100mm usually wins, followed by Sigma and then Tamron. Differences in sharpness are small. Its the rendering (colours, bokeh) and construction (barrel looks) that are the main differences

[WPRESTO]

In terms of IQ, the Tamron & Pentax are probably a tossup, with maybe a slight edge to the Tammy, and both may have a slight edge on the Sigma. In fact. these three lenses are very close in quality, with differences partially determined by manufacturing variation, and enormously impacted by photographer skill. Properly used, unless the individual lens is a bad copy, each of them will give 100% satisfactory results.

[robert52]

Hi thanks for the replys is there much difference between the F & the FA Pentax? thanks

[WPRESTO]

I think the optical formulae of those is the same, just the mechanics were changed. The newest DFA 100 f2.8 is different, and an improvement, but incremental, not dramatic*. In fact. the majority of macro lenses have been really good going back to their earliest introduction back in the 1960's. All versions of the 90mm Tamron going back to the Adaptall II have had an excellent reputation, and I've seen many top quality images taken with various versions of this lens. At apertures typically used for macro (f8 to f16) I doubt very much that anyone would have any idea which macro lens was used to take a specific image, including any and all manufacturers and all lens versions going back to 1990 or earlier.

*The real improvement in the current DFA is that it is TINY and LIGHT, almost unbelievably so. So small that the lens hood seems to overwhelm the lens.

---

Last edited by WPRESTO; 04-23-2017 at 04:18 AM.

[DDJ]

You must have a look at this review on the sigma 70mm EX DG macro,
One of the sharpest lenes out there.
Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Interchangeable Lens Review

[Kozlok]

I have the Sigma 70. It's a super lens. Every photo has a WOW to it.

[DDJ]

I have the Sigma 70. It's a super lens. Every photo has a WOW to it.

It's a great lens, one of my other favorite lenses is the pentax k SMC 135mm f2.5
Fantastic 3d rendering.

[robert52]

Trouble with the 70mm its way out of my budget

[Just1MoreDave]

Look at the SMC Pentax-FA 100mm F3.5 Macro Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database. The reason I suggest that is, it's only 1:2 macro, so smaller, lighter, cheaper than the rest, but good enough if you don't need the 1:1 magnification. It comes with a screwon adapter to get to 1:1. It should be close to $100. It's not an amazing build quality but not bad.

I have a Tamron 52E, which is the same optical formula as the Adaptall-2 52BB except in a short-lived autofocus mount. It's also 1:2, but nearly the same size and weight as the Tamron 272E. I really like it for portraits and macro despite the "rules". I'd sell it to you but shipping and exchange probably ruins the value in the deal.

[clackers]

Portrait lenses are not perfect for macro. Macro is not perfect for portraiture (except maybe 'documentary' style portraits).

I think they're great for portraits, Na Horuk! K-1, DFA 50mm f2.8 Macro:

[BrianR]

Love the DFA 100mm. Compact, looks great, WR, great colours and contrasts. But it has no aperture ring, so if you want to use simple extension tubes or use the lens on an old film SLR, this lens is not a good choice.

The previous model of the DFA100mm has an aperture ring, no WR, plastic build (but still pretty sturdy), and is often less expensive than the WR-version on the used market. It's occasionally cheap enough that I'm tempted to spring for a spare, but I think it's generally over the $200USD mark. It's equally tiny as its WR successor, unbelievably so as Walt has mentioned.

I think they're great for portraits, Na Horuk! K-1, DFA 50mm f2.8 Macro:

I agree 100%, but it also helps to have a gorgeous model, makeup, moss ornaments, and lighting setup. Those not so fortunate can use whatever model they have available and cover them up with an appropriate mask and a silly hat:



PS. They work for self-portraits too.

[clackers]

I agree 100%, but it also helps to have a gorgeous model, makeup, moss ornaments, and lighting setup.

Several of your favourite things, Brian - as I understand it, as a plants'n'macro man, it's the moss ornaments that turn you on most!