[awscreo]

Just curious (as I won't be buying any more lenses till next year anyway, just got 15-30 and wife's not too happy ) - what would be the best macro lens available for the system in your opinion? Is it the Pentax 100 2.8 WR? Or Samyang 100 2.8? Or the famous Tokina 90 2.8? I've never owned a real macro lens, but I'm interested in picking one up since I got into food photography, and also I live in the middle of the woods and there's tons to shoot here apart from vast landscapes

Go!

[pepperberry farm]

several options exist, but are you looking for new or used, AF or MF?

[EarlVonTapia]

Just curious (as I won't be buying any more lenses till next year anyway, just got 15-30 and wife's not too happy ) - what would be the best macro lens available for the system in your opinion? Is it the Pentax 100 2.8 WR? Or Samyang 100 2.8? Or the famous Tokina 90 2.8? I've never owned a real macro lens, but I'm interested in picking one up since I got into food photography, and also I live in the middle of the woods and there's tons to shoot here apart from vast landscapes

Go!

If you're doing food photography, you might want to get a prime that won't make you have to stand a few feet away from the table just to get a whole shot of a plate.

Maybe a prime macro in the 35-50mm range would suit you? There are several options there, but the DA 35 2.8 Macro has gotten great reviews.

Of course a prime in the 90mm+ range has uses outside of macro (portrait, telephoto). If you really want to grab one in that range I would suggest the Tamron 90mm 2.8 as the best bang-for-buck option. Then if that suits you flip it and upgrade to something like the Pentax 100mm WR Macro if you desire a better build.

[Na Horuk]

Is it the Pentax 100 2.8 WR? Or Samyang 100 2.8? Or the famous Tokina 90 2.8?

I haven't tried all of those, but I am quite happy with my DA 100mm WR. Very compact for what it is, great optics, and its WR. Some of the older Pentax 100mm primes have other features, like aperture ring or focus limiter, if you'd like those. I think a Pentax 100mm f2.8 macro is a great place to start macro, its a top lens with a very fair price (the recent few Pentax 100mm follow the same optical design).
But for "the best" you might want one of the legendary Pentax 200mm macro or a 105mm Lester Dine. And the Sigma 70mm macro is touted as one of the sharpest lenses ever. I don't know how far ahead of the Pentax 100mm f2.8 macro those might be, but it fits my needs really well, even for non-macro photos.

Edit: Note that pretty much all macro primes from the last 20 years are really great at least in terms of optics. I don't think any of them are disappointing, you just have to find the focal length and price that you like. For beginning in macro its usually good to get one that more telephoto, like 90mm+. Wide angle macros like DA 35mm f2.8 macro are more difficult to use, because you are only a couple millimeters from the subject, and you might cast shadow onto it or scare it (if you are photographing insects)

[awscreo]

I'm just thinking what's an absolute best (or closes it comes to it) - doesn't matter new or used. I've shot food with 105mm 2.8 nikkor when I was working in my old studio, and I loved what that lens can do. I like 50mm range, but I think perspective compression and background blur of 100-ish macro would suit me more.

[Rondec]

At macro distances they will all be about the same. The biggest difference is the working distance. With the DA 35 you are literally inches from the end of the lens to your subject to get 1:1 macro, while you have quite a bit more distance with the DFA 100 macro.

My personal favorite is the DFA 100 macro WR. That said, it has a couple of drawbacks -- no focus limiter and no aperture ring. For people who really get into macro and want to add extension tubes to their macro, an aperture ring is awfully handy to have (I'm not into macro in that way at all).

[awscreo]

If you're doing food photography, you might want to get a prime that won't make you have to stand a few feet away from the table just to get a whole shot of a plate.

Maybe a prime macro in the 35-50mm range would suit you? There are several options there, but the DA 35 2.8 Macro has gotten great reviews.

Of course a prime in the 90mm+ range has uses outside of macro (portrait, telephoto). If you really want to grab one in that range I would suggest the Tamron 90mm 2.8 as the best bang-for-buck option. Then if that suits you flip it and upgrade to something like the Pentax 100mm WR Macro if you desire a better build.

So the Pentax 100 WR is better than the Tamron? Honestly, most of those macros seem fairly affordable (or maybe it's just my perspective after buying the 15-30 lol), so if the Pentax 100 WR is better than Tamron I'd rather go for that)

---------- Post added 12-02-17 at 05:28 PM ----------

At macro distances they will all be about the same. The biggest difference is the working distance. With the DA 35 you are literally inches from the end of the lens to your subject to get 1:1 macro, while you have quite a bit more distance with the DFA 100 macro.

My personal favorite is the DFA 100 macro WR. That said, it has a couple of drawbacks -- no focus limiter and no aperture ring. For people who really get into macro and want to add extension tubes to their macro, an aperture ring is awfully handy to have (I'm not into macro in that way at all).

Yeah I think 100mm would be more than enough for me personally.

Has anyone tried the Samyang 100 2.8? Reviews suggest it's very sharp. Although it's basically the same price as the Pentax 100, but without af or WR, which would probably turn me towards the newer DFA

[fwcetus]

what would be the best macro lens available for the system in your opinion? Is it the Pentax 100 2.8 WR? Or Samyang 100 2.8? Or the famous Tokina 90 2.8?

The Tokina AT-X 90/2.5 "Bokina" (especially in PK/A-mount trim, just for convenience).

[pepperberry farm]

I love my Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 72 (90mm f2.8)...

[pathdoc]

What do you want to shoot with it? The D-FA 100 WR is sweet on the K-1; all the missed focus issues it had on my K-5 are gone, baby, gone, and it also makes for a nice short WR tele when there's outdoor shooting to be done in dodgy weather. Its strong suit is things that creep and which you don't want to get too close to, for your sake or theirs.

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.

The DA 35 Limited Macro is fantastic overall and very good for those who need both a wide APS-C field and very, very short minimum focal distance in the same lens (which I do in my work, for which it is my dream lens come true). Unfortunately it's not one of those DA lenses that you can get away with using on full frame, though at very close distance it's minimal and a bit of cropping does for the rest. Your signature line suggests the K-1 is your only Pentax DSLR, and as the DA35 cannot double up as a general use prime except in crop mode, I suggest its potential would be wasted. I bought mine with my K-5 five years or so back, and except when it is digitising film (where any vignetting actually stays well clear of the image I am capturing), it never sees the K-1.

[Na Horuk]

Has anyone tried the Samyang 100 2.8? Reviews suggest it's very sharp. Although it's basically the same price as the Pentax 100, but without af or WR, which would probably turn me towards the newer DFA

Exactly. The Samyang would be very attractive if it has significantly cheaper than the competition. But Tamron 90mm is very affordable and great, Pentax 100mm is even better. Btw we had a number of threads that compare Sigma 105mm, Tamron 90mm, and Pentax 100mm.
Samyang is great, but it is no longer a super affordable alternative, as it was some years ago.

[Alex645]

- what would be the best macro lens available for the system in your opinion?

"Best" for:

a) What system? Film, FF, APS-C, 645, 67?
b) Price? Versatility? Sharpness? Compact? Rendering? Ruggedness?

When I started in photography, I was using close-up diopters (price). But since then I learned I could also use extension tubes, reversing rings, macro couplers, and bellows, in addition to macro lenses. They all have their pros and cons depending on "a" and "b" above.

The cutting edge work these days is with focusing rails that allow you to stack focus.

[pathdoc]

For people who really get into macro and want to add extension tubes to their macro, an aperture ring is awfully handy to have (I'm not into macro in that way at all).

That or a deglassed 1.4X or 2X teleconverter with A contacts. The third-party ones sometimes aren't optical jewels, but if you take the glass out that disadvantage is negated, and you retain full aperture control while still getting the extension you want. Not all of them have pass-through for the screwdrive, but macro shooters often fall back on manual focus anyway.

The only real disadvantage to this is that the older third-party teleconverters may not pass lens-correction data adequately or at all, but macro lenses are generally developed and renowned for freedom from that issue. Be warned that the 100 WR does vignette on the K-1 in full frame mode with extended or stacked T/C (deglassed as extension tube) combinations at some reproduction ratios.

[totsmuyco]

I have a 100 mm WR. Though I'm planning to get a 35 and a 50 if my budget permits. I like using macro on still life photography. There will be times when you'll need different focal lengths. For bugs and crawlers I'd get a 100 mm WR. It's sharpness like crazy plus, it's weather resistant. So if you're out on a rainy day, you'll be fine. And oh the bokeh is spectacular.

[awscreo]

"Best" for:

a) What system? Film, FF, APS-C, 645, 67?
b) Price? Versatility? Sharpness? Compact? Rendering? Ruggedness?

When I started in photography, I was using close-up diopters (price). But since then I learned I could also use extension tubes, reversing rings, macro couplers, and bellows, in addition to macro lenses. They all have their pros and cons depending on "a" and "b" above.

The cutting edge work these days is with focusing rails that allow you to stack focus.

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?