[bassek]

I have the EX 70 macro and the M100/4 macro. The only downside with the Sigma is the bulky size (like all the other Sigmas I own).
The build of the Sigmas have now and then been questioned. I have been lucky so far, all my Sigmas were bought used.

Seb

[pxt]

As I get Pentax 77 (not macro of course) I only will ask that is not short? When I use 100 WR from Pentax sometimes I want twice long lens for butterfly etc.

[cyberjunkie]

I have all of them
Though I have used some on APS-C only, and since I purchased the K-1 I shoot 99% of the times on FF.
The format changes a bit the perspective. If I had to shoot only macros I'd go for a crop format camera... but I almost never do that, I mostly shoot with fast vintage primes in low light, which is a perfect use for the K-1. Generally I have a macro with me, just in case.
I don't have the D FA, but I acquired an FA 100mm not long ago, just because it was cheap (AF problems, I thought it could have been just the limiter switch: the gamble paid off).
I also have the F 50mm, and the Sigma AF trio (50mm, 70mm and 105mm), plus some MF macros.
I found the Sigma 50mm inferior to the Pentax-F (and with ugly bokeh too), but the 70mm is a hell of a lens.
If you want the highest level of sharpness and very controlled aberrations, and WR isn't required, I'd go for it. On APS-C it gives the field of view of a 105mm on FF, which is ideal for general macro use, especially if you intend to shoot live subjects.
AF is more a nuisance than an advantage for proper macro use, but it gives more flexibility.
The 70mm is the best of the Sigmas, better than one of my most treasured lenses, the old Sigma MF Macro 5.6/180mm.
Considering it can't be purchased new anymore, I'd take advantage of this chance and buy it, if the price is right. It's a very good example of modern time optical engineering, and Sigma assistance is also quite good.

[stevebrot]

I have all of them

Ta! Da!

I found the Sigma 50mm inferior to the Pentax-F (and with ugly bokeh too)

I like my Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG Macro and while I don't know how it compares to the Pentax-F, I have no complaints with its bokeh...





Steve

[vonBaloney]

the old Sigma MF Macro 5.6/180mm.

I just acquired the 180/5.6 about a month ago. I had no idea it existed until I saw it for sale. Very nice, lightweight and compact (for an 180mm macro) with beautiful bokeh. If any of you see one, snap it up -- quite rare. The 70mm really is in another league though. For a budget MF option, the old Vivitar 55/2.8 (comes in other names also, and had m42, K, & KA versions) is actually one of the sharpest macros you can find as well, although obviously shorter than these other ones. I was lucky to find an Elicar-branded 'A' version.

[pxt]

This Sigma is with Pentax mount or are you use adapter?

[UncleVanya]

This Sigma is with Pentax mount or are you use adapter?

It is rare in Pentax mount but that is the way it is typically used.

[pxt]

Thanks. It is like Sigma 105 macro - very limited with Pentax mount.

[cyberjunkie]

I just acquired the 180/5.6 about a month ago. I had no idea it existed until I saw it for sale. Very nice, lightweight and compact (for an 180mm macro) with beautiful bokeh. If any of you see one, snap it up -- quite rare. The 70mm really is in another league though.

It's a real pity the 5.6/180mm was never made in PKAF mount
I bought mine new back at the time. One of the VERY few lenses I didn't buy second-hand...
I's true. It has a great bokeh. I love mine.
It is so good that when it got fungus, luckily in a very mild way, I decided I won't try to clean it, and not have it cleaned by a repair shop, cause I was afraid it could be worse after reassembly.
Of course the 70mm has an edge, it's a much newer optical project, but I don' think the difference would show at mid diaphragms.
I believe Sigma has improved a lot their coating technology since the time of the 180mm. With raw files, bumping up contrast and clarity a little bit should make up for that, IMHO.

I like my Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG Macro and while I don't know how it compares to the Pentax-F, I have no complaints with its bokeh...

Maybe it's my example.
Maybe the lens isn't exactly the same.
After buying the 2.8/24-70mm I realised that there were four or five different variants with the same speed/focal, and with very little difference in the way they were marked.
Maybe it's just because I have run a bokeh comparison of different fifties, all set at around f/2.8. I guess it's not fair to compare a sharp macro to lenses of different vintage, and that were originally made for a completely different use (I even had in the mix a Trioplan 2.9/50mm, which has no other meaning but bokeh!). It's kind of comparing apples and oranges... but it made some sense, I could see how different the rendering can be, shooting the same subject under the same lighting, and how it gets more evident approaching the minimum focusing distance.
The Sigma EX DG Macro proved to be the sharpest, at the expense of bokeh. It was the only macro I tried, so the result was not unexpected

[troika]

So, to wrap this thread up neatly, the shop with the Sigma 70 still has it. It's a great lens and can be yours for $250 if anyone is interested, I can point you to it and if it helps, I've handled it and looked at it and shot with it and it's in mintish shape and is a great lens.

But, they happened to get in a used Pentax 100/2.8 WR and I bought it for just a bit more. I liked the form factor better, I liked the working distance a bit better. I liked the quick shift and the WR. I also think that if I were to wind up with a K1 that it would be a better focal length.

Lucky that I was able to handle and compare them back to back. They're both fine lenses and it's arguable whether I actually needed that good of a macro lens or not. I always believe that I'm going to use my macro lenses as telephotos too and I think I might in this case, which helps me justify ownership.

Thanks for talking me through it.

[kernos]

Ta! Da!



I like my Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG Macro and while I don't know how it compares to the Pentax-F, I have no complaints with its bokeh...





Steve

These are really good !

[sculptor666]

i have the wr100, the sigma 70, the dfa 50, sold the da35mm macro (not ff), sold/re-bought the sigma 180mm macro... also have the da70.

the only benefit to the 100 is the weather resistance.

the only benefit to the 50 is maximum magnification on extension tubes, and it's a bit wider as a walk around lens.

the only benefit to the da70 is the compactness.

the sigma 70mm macro is a stunner! i never thought i'd replace my dfa50mm as my walk around macro lens, but i did. now i only use it on things smaller than a nickle. everyone likes to use the phrase "tack sharp wide open" for just about every lens, whether it's true or not. none of my other lenses are this sharp wide open and truly useable at 2.8. the only drawback are the hood design(threaded screw on), no aperture ring (need "a" contact extension tubes, and no good ones exist for pentax once you stack them beyond a certain point... the full manual pentax tubes are fine though), and no weather sealing. i found one on ebay (from aus) for $250 or something.

[stevebrot]

Maybe the lens isn't exactly the same.
After buying the 2.8/24-70mm I realised that there were four or five different variants with the same speed/focal, and with very little difference in the way they were marked.

Quite likely. Sigma made some fairly cheap lenses at this focal length. The "EX" in the name indicates premium line and mine has lots of aperture blades and one or more floating elements.


Steve

[normhead]

Check this out....
Macro-bokeh-test - PentaxForums.com

Which is the best bokeh?
1


2.


3.


4.


They are in order, 50, 70, 90 100 (and my luggage combination is 1-2-3-4) but you can check by clicking on the image, then scrolling down to see the flickr exif.

Read more at: Macro-bokeh-test - Page 3 - PentaxForums.com

[troika]

Better is subjective, but #4 for me. It's creamest. They are all nice results.