[TER-OR]

I thought the Sigma 28mm EX DG had a pretty weak magnification ratio for a macro lens and was really just a good close focusing lens.

That's what I use it for. It is very good at that. For what amounts to still life, it's not magnification which matters.

[Kerebron]

I can recommend D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR. I own one and it's excellent in all regards except for one: autofocus (slow, loud and hunting a lot). Which is not much of a problem for a macro/portrait lens anyway. AF limiter would be a nice addition for this lens, but it's worth buying, even without it, IMO.

[Apet-Sure]

I recently picked up a copy of the Pentax-F 100mm F2.8 Macro, and can give it two enthusiastic thumbs up. Friends and family say "wow, that's a great shot". It's because I'm using a great lens. IQ is just superb. According to the lens review here on the forum 'This was the first in a series of 100mm autofocus macro lenses from Pentax. The subsequent versions (FA, D FA) have the same optical formula.' So I'd say any of these three versions would give wonderful results image-wise. I don't miss the WR, and I keep the aperture ring set on 'A'. If I want to use my 'dumb' extension tubes (non-automatic) the aperture ring will come in handy.

[mgvh]

Depending on what I'm doing and trying to accomplish...
1) TAMRONSP AF 90mm F2.8 Di Macro is a great 1:1 macro lens that is reasonably priced. The Pentax 100mm macro might be better if you need WR, but this Tamron may be cheaper.
2) SMCPENTAX 50mm F4 Macro does 1:2 macro and is an outstanding lens when I can work closer to the subject.
3) Extension tubes with a M50mm f1.7 where I can get up to 1.5:1 magnification.
4) For traveling when I don't want to carry an extra macro lens, I use an achromatic diopter that screws on to the front of a lens and provides magnification up to 1:1 depending on lens and diopter. NOTE: This is not the cheap diopter lens sets you can get. You want the achromatic ones. I have some old ones that work great, but check the Raynox 150 or 250 for something newer.

[aslyfox]

Depending on what I'm doing and trying to accomplish...
1) TAMRONSP AF 90mm F2.8 Di Macro is a great 1:1 macro lens that is reasonably priced. The Pentax 100mm macro might be better if you need WR, but this Tamron may be cheaper.. . .

the advantage of the F 100mm 2.8 macro, the FA 100mm 2.8 macro and the D FA 100mm 2.8 Macro sharing the same optics as the D FA 100mm 2.8 macro WR

is that you can find options with Pentax cheaper than the WR version

[Kerrowdown]

Macro lens suggestions?

I'm not a big macro man myself, but I will admit to being pleased with the results from my “Femme Fatale” (Pentax-A 50mm F2.8 Macro).

Not an expensive lens, but very very sharp indeed.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-A-50mm-F2.8-Macro-Lens.html

[pentax360]

$500-1000, anything that expensive is outside my knowledge.
I love my $150 Tamron 90mm macro.

[rogerstg]

I can recommend D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR. I own one and it's excellent in all regards except for one: autofocus (slow, loud and hunting a lot). Which is not much of a problem for a macro/portrait lens anyway. AF limiter would be a nice addition for this lens, but it's worth buying, even without it, IMO.

That's my recommendation and observation too. The af hunts so much at longer distances that I tend to use it as a manual focus lens. The longer focus throw make this easy.

[RKKS08]

35mm being too wide for a macro makes me wonder what it was like for serious macro shooters using 50mm macro's on film.

The 50mm macro was used quite a lot for reproductions (paintings and documents), especially because of its flatfield characteristic and lack of distortion.
The dedicated macro stand gave the correct distances for standard document sizes.

100mm would have made the arrangement unnecessary big.

[pres589]

Yes, I can see that use case now, I keep thinking macro == close up pictures of dimes, flowers, and bugs. Or in my case, digitizing 35mm film.

I still want an M 50 f4 Macro and would use it on both my digital and film bodies, but I'm really excited about the rendering quality, and not macro functionality per se.

[normhead]

There's not a lot of difference, macro lenses are just good. I own four , the FA 50 macro, the Sigma 70 macro, the Tamron 90 macro, and the DFA 100 macro. All are excellent. I consider the Sigma to be decent go for a hike lens on APS-c, the FA 50 is a standard lens for normal purposes use with macro if you came to a small flower or detail. The a DFA 100 is a favourite walk around on my K-1.

But this is about as macro as I usually get, with my walking around the garden taking pictures of flowers "oh look there's an insect" shot.


If you want more than this you're going to have to get into some more serious set-ups.

This one taken with the DA 55-300 PLM, macro, I don't need no stinking macro.


Most of my macros are pseudo macro, not real macro. (1:1 or greater.) What you want to shoot makes a difference to what you end up buying. Most of my efforts are hand held on walks. If you plan to put more effort into it than that, the rigs mentioned above are more appropriate. With a 2:1 macro, you're already way out in front of any of the 1:1 macros mentioned in terms of real macro shooting. Can you stick a 1.4 TC on that lens?

[aslyfox]

There's not a lot of difference, macro lenses are just good.. . . . Can you stick a 1.4 TC on that lens?

Macro Photography

The close focusing distance of a lens remains the same with and without the rear converter. As an example, the closest focusing distance of the D FA 100mm macro lens is 30 cm (11.8 inches). This yields a magnification of 1x (life-size) when the lens is used without the rear converter. With the rear converter, the magnification increases to 1.4x lifesize, since we now effectively have a 140mm lens with a close focusing distance of 30 cm.

Boosting macro magnification is a very useful feature of a rear converter. It requires the converter to be of good quality, of course. The HD Pentax-DA 1.4x Rear Converter fits the bill. . .

Conclusion
The Pentax-DA rear converter is suitable for boosting magnification in macro shots without any discernible degradation of image quality.



Read more at: Pentax-DA 1.4x AW AF Rear Converter Review - Macro Photography | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[lesmore49]

I've got three macro lenses.

1) A Pentax 50mm SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 Macro. It is a K mount, manual focus with an aperture ring and I use it on my full frame , ASP-C cameras, also my old 35mm K1000.

2) SMC Pentax-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro. It has AF and good on both ASP-C/ full frame.

3) SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR and good on both ASP-C/ full frame..

They're all good, but I prefer my 100 by a large margin, as I can get further away from both bugs and people and not spook them as much, when taking portraits of them. I also feel my 100 Macro is an exceptional lens and I like the 100mm field of view over the 50 field of view.