[TER-OR]

If you're doing food photography, a 100mm lens means you'll need to be about 8-10 feet from the plate, shooting with the K1. A Sigma 28mm macro, or Pentax's 35mm would be better. Or find a 50mm and you'll have some flexibility.

[BrianR]

If an aperture ring is required, the slightly older non-WR version of the dfa100mm has one. I don't know how the dfa100mm compares to the other brands ~100mm macros (I only have the dfa100mm), they all seem pretty level from sample photos I've examined. The dfa100mm is comparatively small though, a major plus as far as I'm concerned.

As mentioned, you'd need to be pretty far back to photograph a plate of food.

The D-FA 50 I don't own and haven't tried, but I am often tempted since it retains an aperture ring and could go on all my K-mount film bodies if I really had to. The only thing that stops me is whether its MFD is close enough to fit my slide copier directly to the front of it without some sort of extension arrangement..

I've recently fallen into a copy, if there's a measurement that would help you decide, let me know.

I'm shooting with K-1, looking for best sharpness, for sake of the discussion - price is not an issue. I know people stack focus, but wouldn't having the best lens only make the technique achieve better results?

I've never even seen one in person, but the FA*200mm usually comes up when 'best' and 'no fixed budget' come into play:

SMC Pentax-FA* 200mm F4 Macro ED [IF] Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Alex645]

I'm shooting with K-1, looking for best sharpness, for sake of the discussion - price is not an issue.

With the K-1 and price not being an issue, and having WR, and best=sharpness, the Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR would be my recommendation. I am not so sure you'd need a macro for food shots, and depth of field will become problematic.

I have this macro and also a Nikon AF-S VR Micro 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED and the two are equally sharp except the Pentax is almost half the price! The only sharper macro that I've tried was the Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2M ZF.2 for Nikon F, but you could buy a second K-1 for the same price as the Milvus.

[awscreo]

Mm, I don't stand that far back when I shoot with my Tamron 70-200, I usually use 135mm (sharpest focal length with this lens), but I'm aware of Tamrons pretty severe focal breathing at 200mm, maybe it affects 135mm too. Again, I've used Nikkor 105 2.8 few years for quite a lot of shoots for high end places, and I loved what we got from it, looking to replicate or exceed with the pixelshift tech.

---------- Post added 12-02-17 at 06:43 PM ----------

If an aperture ring is required, the slightly older non-WR version of the dfa100mm has one. I don't know how the dfa100mm compares to the other brands ~100mm macros (I only have the dfa100mm), they all seem pretty level from sample photos I've examined. The dfa100mm is comparatively small though, a major plus as far as I'm concerned.

As mentioned, you'd need to be pretty far back to photograph a plate of food.



I've recently fallen into a copy, if there's a measurement that would help you decide, let me know.



I've never even seen one in person, but the FA*200mm usually comes up when 'best' and 'no fixed budget' come into play:

SMC Pentax-FA* 200mm F4 Macro ED [IF] Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

200mm macro, lol I've never used one this long. Would it be 2x1?

---------- Post added 12-02-17 at 06:45 PM ----------

Weirdly, this video randomly (or is it random?) appeared in my YouTube feed

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Does it actually rattle like that? (first couple of minutes of video)

[BrianR]

200mm macro, lol I've never used one this long. Would it be 2x1?

Its maximum magnification is still 1:1, but its minimum focusing distance and working distance are much greater. At 1:1 the 200mm is supposed to have a working distance (measured from the front of the lens to your subject) of about 28cm, compared to 13cm of the dfa100mm.

[jatrax]

since I got into food photography,

For food photography I find 100mm to be on the short side. I often shoot with the DA*60-250 or the Pentax-F 135mm. You get too much extraneous background with a wider lens. Macro is seldom needed. Never needed as far as I can tell for food photography.

Look here: Zigzag Mountain Art's Portfolio on Shutterstock Hardly any of these were taken with a macro lens.

[sqrrl]

I personally have a 100mm f4 macro M-series lens - works fine for me, in fact it usually works better than I do.

I've used a bunch of others on various systems at one time or another and they all worked fine (100ish mm macros are a bit like fast 50's in that there seem to be very few bad ones) - I don't tend to use AF for macro personally, so the 100 f4 suits me at half the price of the others.

...and yes I know it's not 'true macro', but extension tubes will get me there if I need it.

[awscreo]

For food photography I find 100mm to be on the short side. I often shoot with the DA*60-250 or the Pentax-F 135mm. You get too much extraneous background with a wider lens. Macro is seldom needed. Never needed as far as I can tell for food photography.

Look here: Zigzag Mountain Art's Portfolio on Shutterstock Hardly any of these were taken with a macro lens.

http://kollektiv.co
This is our portfolio, I've left the company about two years ago, but we established it together back in 2008 and worked with some of the best f&b outlets in Shanghai, China. Don't mind the graphic design, check out the food photography, a lot of it is done with nikon d800 and the Nikkor 105 2.8, and few with the 50mm. I'm saying I got into food photography, perhaps that's misleading, I've done it before for long time, I mean I'm getting into it since I've switched to Pentax and started working/shooting on my own.

---------- Post added 12-02-17 at 08:21 PM ----------

I personally have a 100mm f4 macro M-series lens - works fine for me, in fact it usually works better than I do.

I've used a bunch of others on various systems at one time or another and they all worked fine (100ish mm macros are a bit like fast 50's in that there seem to be very few bad ones) - I don't tend to use AF for macro personally, so the 100 f4 suits me at half the price of the others.

...and yes I know it's not 'true macro', but extension tubes will get me there if I need it.

I'm trying to find the best macro available) no compromises etc. If even just theoretically and to spark a discussion, although I am looking to get it as soon as dust settles after buying 15-30..

[Na Horuk]

Does it actually rattle like that? (first couple of minutes of video)

I never noticed that with mine. Pentax AF is not known to be super quiet, though, except for the new SDM or DC lenses.
The Quickshift feature on the DFA 100mm is great, because often I take shots without using AF, just a tiny readjustment by hand and snap
When you are actually in the macro range, you will not be using AF anyway, because magnification is linked to the focus distance

[awscreo]

I never noticed that with mine. Pentax AF is not known to be super quiet, though, except for the new SDM or DC lenses.
The Quickshift feature on the DFA 100mm is great, because often I take shots without using AF, just a tiny readjustment by hand and snap
When you are actually in the macro range, you will not be using AF anyway, because magnification is linked to the focus distance

So it's the af mechanism that rattles in the video? I've never heard a lens sounding like that, hopefully it's just his copy

[BrianR]

So it's the af mechanism that rattles in the video? I've never heard a lens sounding like that, hopefully it's just his copy

My non-WR version rattles like that, but you really can't hear anything unless you're actively shaking it or sticking a microphone close to it. The lens barrel has some play and there's no audible rattle if I hold that part tight. I've never held a WR copy, I had kinda hoped they'd be solid and tight like older film-era lenses. I've had no issues at all in use and I've done my best to abuse it for 8 years. I've always been careful to support any lens I reverse onto my macro (usually an A28/2.8), which has been my only real concern about its structural design.

It's not recommended that you use this lens as a substitute for a Maraca.

[disconnekt]

If you want to go the ultra-macro route (bigger than macro/2:1) without using extension tubes, there's the Venus Laowa 60mm Macro lens (manual) available: Venus Optics Laowa 60mm f/2.8 2X Ultra-Macro Lens VEN6028P B&H

[travelswsage]

Don't forget the Sigma 180mm as an option. They don't pop up often but it is a wonderful lens. I picked one up from a fellow forum member this summer and for around the house -- garden, floral, butterfly type stuff it is great. Since getting one the pentax dfa 100 is rarely on my K-1.

[buberfan]

If we are talking best of the best on an unlimited budget, then I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Zeiss Makro 100mm f2.8 or the Voigtlander APO 125mm f2.5. They're both no longer made in the Pentax mount, but occasionally can be found used.

[RAART]

[I'm trying to find the best macro available) no compromises etc. If even just theoretically and to spark a discussion, although I am looking to get it as soon as dust settles after buying 15-30..

To me it will be Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 Apo-Lanthar Macro dot period... I strongly believe that this is if not the best Macro then second best, ever.

If you want to go faster then Zeiss 100mm f2.0 Macro ZK who is getting very, very close to Voigtlander.

P.S. I think maybe 10-11 years ago I tested both lenses (was using Nikon at that point) for my DSLR and went with Voigtlander. Never regret getting it instead of Zeiss. The only thing that I regret is not having it anymore (gone with Nikon equipment)