[Ash]

There are lots of great threads on both the D-FA 100mm f/2.8 macro and the FA 100mm f/2.8 macro.
Whilst there is information on the size difference between the two lenses in numbers, I couldn't find any showing the size difference between the two in the flesh.
For pictorial depiction of this, here is the image:



Whilst the internal elements are quite similar, the outer threads are different (49mm vs 58mm) and the FA outer barrel is both wider and longer 74 x 104 mm (2.9 x 4.1 in.) vs. the D-FA 65 x 80.5 mm (2.6 x 3.2 in.).



The FA weighs 600g whilst the D-FA weighs 380g.

[RobA_Oz]

A good comparison, thanks. With onboard AF drive, the D-FA would probably expand to match the barrel diameter of the FA, not that a macro lens would strictly need that, but the focal length is good for non-macro work, too.

[FozzFoster]

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...

[sergysergy]

Plus the newer version is very light!

[aslyfox]

Plus the newer version is very light!

both D FA versions are light

there appears to be only 2.5 mm ( .1 in ) in size and 5 grams ( .2 oz ) difference between the predecessor ( non WR ) version and the newest, the WR

Diam x Length 67.5 x 80.5 mm (2.7 x 3.2 in.)
Weight 345 g (12.2 oz.) w/ Hood: +38g


Read more at: SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

__________________

Diam x Length 65 x 80.5 mm (2.6 x 3.2 in.)
Weight 340 g (12 oz.) w/ Hood: +38g


Read more at: SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

I am very happy with my older Pentax-DA 100mm F2.8 Macro

[BigMackCam]

There are lots of great threads on both the D-FA 100mm f/2.8 macro and the FA 100mm f/2.8 macro.
Whilst there is information on the size difference between the two lenses in numbers, I couldn't find any showing the size difference between the two in the flesh.
For pictorial depiction of this, here is the image:

there appears to be only 2.5 mm in size and 5 grams difference between the predecessor ( non WR ) version and the newest, the WR

Thank you, Ash, for the photos. These clearly show the physical difference in size, whatever quotes differences we might see elsewhere. Looking online at various photos, they confirm your own comparison (unsurprisingly).

I hadn't realised just how significant the difference in size was. Thanks for posting

[BrianR]

Thank you, Ash, for the photos. These clearly show the physical difference in size, whatever quotes differences we might see elsewhere. Looking online at various photos, they confirm your own comparison (unsurprisingly).

I'm not sure it's clear from what you quoted, but Allen's numbers are comparing a third lens that is not pictured, the often ignored original DFA100mm. I've never had mine side-by-side to the WR model (or their FA ancestor), but the numbers are essentially identical between the two dfa100mm macros..

[BigMackCam]

I'm not sure it's clear from what you quoted, but Allen's numbers are comparing a third lens that is not pictured, the often ignored original DFA100mm. I've never had mine side-by-side to the WR model (or their FA ancestor), but the numbers are essentially identical between the two dfa100mm macros..

Thanks for the clarification, and you're quite correct. Ash's photos show the original FA 100/2.8 Macro vs the D-FA 100/2.8 Macro WR. The in-between ("first D FA") model is indeed different again...

[Sandy Hancock]

Wow, that's a dramatic difference.
I'm now even more pleased with my DFA100WR.

[tokyoscape]

Yeah, that HD FA35 should get the same treatment. I would buy it in a heartbeat.

[BigMackCam]

Yeah, that HD FA35 should get the same treatment. I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Have you seen the size of the original FA35/2? And the DA35/2.4?

[monochrome]

FA100/2.8 Macro = 600 grams
DFA100/2.8 Macro WR = 340 grams

It is time to sell some lenses. I have my DFA100/2.8 Macro ready for sale in favor of keeping the FA. I never really bonded with the newer lens

*** I see Allen already noted the weight difference.

[aslyfox]

Thanks for the clarification, and you're quite correct. Ash's photos show the original FA 100/2.8 Macro vs the D-FA 100/2.8 Macro WR. The in-between ("first D FA") model is indeed different again...

in addition to the slight differences in weight and size
here are the apparently differences between the 2 D FA 100mm F2.8 Macros:

SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Full-frame / 35mm film
Lens Mount Pentax K
Aperture Ring No
Diaphragm Automatic, 8 blades (rounded)
Optics 9 elements, 8 groups
Mount Variant KAF
Max. Aperture F2.8
Min. Aperture F32
Focusing AF (screwdrive)
Quick-shift Yes
Min. Focus 30 cm
Max. Magnification 1x
Filter Size 49 mm
Internal Focus No
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.) APS-C: 16 ° / 14 °
Full frame: 24 ° / 20 °
Coating SMC,SP
Weather Sealing yes (W R)

Read more at: SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database | PentaxForums.com Reviews[/url]

SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro

Full-frame / 35mm film
Lens Mount Pentax K
Aperture Ring Yes (A setting)
Diaphragm Automatic, 8 blades
Optics 9 elements, 8 groups
Mount Variant KAF
Max. Aperture F2.8
Min. Aperture F32
Focusing AF (screwdrive)
Quick-shift Yes
Min. Focus 30 cm
Max. Magnification 1x
Filter Size 49 mm
Internal Focus No
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.) APS-C: 16 ° / 14 °
Full frame: 24 ° / 20 °
Coating SMC
Weather Sealing No
Other Features Focus Clamp

Read more at: SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[BrianR]

There are lots of great threads on both the D-FA 100mm f/2.8 macro and the FA 100mm f/2.8 macro.
Whilst there is information on the size difference between the two lenses in numbers, I couldn't find any showing the size difference between the two in the flesh.
For pictorial depiction of this, here is the image:

This is terrific, and will definitely help anyone looking for a comparison. I bought my dfa100mm sight unseen and was considering the FA100 as well. I made a couple of cardboard cylinders of their dimensions as I could not find a photo comparison.

If you wanted to add an extra touch, you could also throw in a shot of them both fully extended?

[Ash]

This is terrific, and will definitely help anyone looking for a comparison. I bought my dfa100mm sight unseen and was considering the FA100 as well. I made a couple of cardboard cylinders of their dimensions as I could not find a photo comparison.

If you wanted to add an extra touch, you could also throw in a shot of them both fully extended?

Yes, I should be able to get to this tonight as I ease into the working week, so standby for that.
The beauty of the DFA, and many would know, is that the lens hood essentially covers the extendable barrel such that the lens appears not to extend at all when focusing on the camera. The FA barrel extends much the same way, but as far as I'm aware it never came with a lens hood. Then again, the front element of the FA is considerably recessed into the barrel, whereas the DFA front element is closer to the end of the barrel.

I too could barely conceptualise the size and weight difference until holding them both in the flesh. The FA 100 is built like a tank. The DFA feels less solid, but I think that "feel" underestimates how robust that lens really is. Its focus ring tolerance is so firm, yet MF action is so smooth that it is a remarkable piece of engineering. Like a well refined car would be seen to be.