[tokyoscape]

Ah, so not the size? I thought size was the main point of Ash's original post.

Certainly it would be nice if any new lens benefited from metal construction, but unless it's a Limited model (either DA of FA) I think that's probably too much to expect these days, even though the D FA100/2.8 WR Macro isn't (technically) a Limited lens.

I'm sure Ricoh could produce an all-metal Limited quality version of the HD FA35/2, but then you'd have to pay FA Limited money... and it would compete with the existing FA31 Limited. So I don't think it's a viable product

yeah, the more I think the more I feel like I was talking about WR version of DA35 limited! and it would be too close to 31 as you said.

[Ash]

It was a rhetorical question Ash. I can't think of another Pentax lens in the F, FA, DFA or DA series that has similar build quality and design quality that isn't a Limited or star lens.


The lack of a focus limiter is my only criticism, although it doesn't bother me much for the way I use it.

Sorry Des, I totally missed the tone of voice. Yes to the focus limiter criticism, but as mentioned, some pre-focusing does help to limit hunting around.

[monochrome]

I have had this lens on the K-1 II and there are occasions where engaging the autofocus sends the lens on a goose chase in the other direction of focus when it could have gone the right way, or the subject moves ever so slightly and as the camera is being tricked it sends the autofocus down to its minimum focus and back looking for it. The closer you are to the subject, the less this becomes a problem since I haven’t found the lens hunting in the other (infinity focus) direction.

That is my experience as well - more often than ‘occasions’. As a manual focus Macro it is as good as the FA but I’m selling it because the AF hunting on K-1 is abominable.

[Ash]

That is my experience as well - more often than ‘occasions’. As a manual focus Macro it is as good as the FA but I’m selling it because the AF hunting on K-1 is abominable.

I hear you, although generally I would recommend any close focusing 'in the field' work be done in MF mode anyway because of how any tiny movements will make it almost impossible to fix focus on anything for more than a millisecond. It's easier to focus manually to the magnification desired, then slowly rock the camera forwards and backwards (or just wait for the right moment) until focus locks then implement the catch focus release for the photo.

---

Last edited by Ash; 02-18-2019 at 01:28 AM.

[Andrea K]

With the D-FA 100mm I can confirm the trip of the focus and... the huge annoying (?), too much compared to my expectations (?) CA.

[aslyfox]

, . . . then slowly rock the camera forwards and backwards (or just wait for the right moment) until focus locks then implement the catch focus release for the photo.

a movement similar to the old " step forward/back " " zoom " but you are only swaying your body as your feet stay in place

yep, I've tried that one

[UncleVanya]

With the D-FA 100mm I can confirm the trip of the focus and... the huge CA.

I rarely see ca but our shooting subjects may be different.

[Andrea K]

I rarely see ca but our shooting subjects may be different.

I'm not a big fan of the D-FA macros, I think that a macro lens has to have ED / APO elements inside to avoid CA:


100% crops - Left untouched picture - Right after Camera Raw corrections

[BigMackCam]

I'm not a big fan of the D-FA macros, I think that a macro lens has to have ED / APO elements inside to avoid CA:


100% crops - Left untouched picture - Right after Camera Raw corrections

Given that those are 100% crops, the CA seems anything but huge to me. It's rather minimal, IMHO.

[UncleVanya]

Given that those are 100% crops, the CA seems anything but huge to me. It's rather minimal, IMHO.

I'd agree.

[bdery]

Very cool! I never appreciated how much bigger the FA is compared to the D-FA!
I had considered the FA, but I'm glad I got the D-FA! Especially know showing the size comparison!

Now we just need some non-snow weather...

The DFA is WR

[Andrea K]

Given that those are 100% crops, the CA seems anything but huge to me. It's rather minimal, IMHO.

I'd agree.

This at f/2,8:


The previouses were at f/5,6

In my opinion it is too much.

[BigMackCam]

This at f/2,8:


The previouses were at f/5,6

In my opinion it is too much.

At f/2.8, that's to be expected - and it's still not bad by any means. It's not huge CA... I own a few lenses that justify that description, but not the D FA100/2.8 WR. Remember, this is a macro lens, first and foremost. You can use it for other things, sure... but in its macro role it's usually going to be stopped down to at least f/8 - more likely f/16 or even smaller. The results at f/5.6 were rather good in my view... That's really very minimal CA. I had to look carefully to actually see any in your examples

[aslyfox]

. . . Now we just need some non-snow weather...

The DFA is WR

yep, the D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR helps with H2O and dust but it doesn't warm the body

[BrianR]

DFA100 @f2.8 iso200, 1/250s, k5iis, no cropping, shot in raw and 'zeroed' preset in LR5 for a baseline:



The fringing is extreme on high contrast edges and wide open. It diminishes as either of these conditions lessen. I've learned to avoid these situations where possible, but when it isn't it can be tedious to protect other colour information while correcting for it. I understand it to be Axial Chromatic Aberrations, caused by different wavelengths of light focusing on different planes. Aberration gurus please correct me if I'm wrong.

I accept it as a compromise of size and cost of the dfa100mm. I'm hoping with pentax's recent releases of super awesome performance no compromise lenses that a highly corrected macro will eventually turn up (and that I can afford it by the time it does). However, the only reason I would part with my dfa100mm is probably for a dfa100mm wr, I cannot imagine being without the option of its tiny size.