[jwquinn68]

I have a K-70 that I really like and am still learning about. I like to do macro photography and I have a Sigma 16-80 mm Macro lens that does a pretty good job. I paid $16.00 for brand new! I happened upon a good deal when Kit's Cameras was going out of business. The only drawback is that has a tendency to be soft. Even focusing manually, I can't get seem to get it as sharp as I'd like. I'm looking for recommendations on a replacement, preferably a Pentax lens. I looked at the 50 and 100mm macros but they are FF. I'm not sure how well they'd perform in APS C.

I took some pics with my Sigma last weekend, and this seems to be the best of the bunch. The blossom is about the size of my thumbnail & the grasshopper might be a half inch long. Thanks

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[monochrome]

I have a K-70 that I really like and am still learning about. I like to do macro photography and I have a Sigma 16-80 mm Macro lens that does a pretty good job. I paid $16.00 for brand new! I happened upon a good deal when Kit's Cameras was going out of business. The only drawback is that has a tendency to be soft. Even focusing manually, I can't get seem to get it as sharp as I'd like. I'm looking for recommendations on a replacement, preferably a Pentax lens. I looked at the 50 and 100mm macros but they are FF. I'm not sure how well they'd perform in APS C.

I took some pics with my Sigma last weekend, and this seems to be the best of the bunch. The blossom is about the size of my thumbnail & the grasshopper might be a half inch long. Thanks

The DFA 50 and 100mm Macros will be fine on an APSc body, but if you want a lens designed for APSc - Why not the HD DA35/2.8 Limited Macro? It might not be quite as sharp as the other two but you probably won’t ever notice, and it is a great normal lens the rest of the time.

[luftfluss]

I have a K-70 that I really like and am still learning about. I like to do macro photography and I have a Sigma 16-80 mm Macro lens that does a pretty good job. I paid $16.00 for brand new! I happened upon a good deal when Kit's Cameras was going out of business. The only drawback is that has a tendency to be soft. Even focusing manually, I can't get seem to get it as sharp as I'd like. I'm looking for recommendations on a replacement, preferably a Pentax lens. I looked at the 50 and 100mm macros but they are FF. I'm not sure how well they'd perform in APS C.

I took some pics with my Sigma last weekend, and this seems to be the best of the bunch. The blossom is about the size of my thumbnail & the grasshopper might be a half inch long. Thanks

By all accounts, the 50 & 100 Macro perform extravagantly well on APS-C. For insects, the 100mm Macro would likely be better than the 50, as the working distance is greater.

The DA 35 Limited Macro is pretty amazing, and might be better for general all-around use and a perspective that is not typical "macro".

[luftfluss]

Another terrific macro lens is the Tamron 90 f/2.8 Macro (also FF). Really, all true Macro lenses - "Macro" meaning they do 1:1 (or at least 1:2) reproduction, not a term simply tacked on to the end of a lens name - are very sharp. The Tamron 90mm Macro is regarded, I guess, as being a smidgen behind the Pentax 100mm Macro but is still an excellent lens, and more affordable.

What is your budget?

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by luftfluss; 06-04-2020 at 10:10 PM.

[ofer4]

I'll second the recommendation for the 50/100 macros. I have the FA versions of both, and they're some of the sharpest lenses that Pentax has ever made. You can find used versions pretty reasonably priced, both here and at Keh. I happened to get a steal in the local classifieds on my 50.

Having said this, technique is really important here, too, and you might try investigating this aspect before throwing more money at the problem. Your depth of field is really short when doing macro photography. Even your grasshopper photo appears to be front-focused a bit. In the macro world, you're often focusing by moving the camera instead of the focusing ring, too, and even slight movements (if handheld) can make or break the photograph. If you're working in situations with enough light, stop down your aperture quite a bit to get some forgivable depth of field. Try a tripod for testing purposes. You might be surprised at the sharpness you can obtain with these changes first.

[K-Three]

The Pentax 100mm macro is great for both FF and APSc, the extra working distance you get for true macro is very useful.
While the 35 macro is a fine lens, at 1:1 there is no working distance, you are constantly fighting your own shadow in the frame (the voice of experience here).
For me, even a 50mm has too short of a working distance.

do you have any other lenses already? For an inexpensive start into closer work, you may consider option, such as macro "filters" that screw onto the front and allow you closer focus, a set of 3 that can be stacked can usually be found inexpensively.

Extension tubes can be a good entry point too.
For both of these options, I'd recommend a prime lens rather than a zoom though.

The EXIF data on your image indicates it was taken with a Pentax 18-135, at 135, not a sigma,

[ToddK]

I have the HD DA 35mm Limited Macro, the FA50mm f2.8 Macro and the DFA 100mm f2.8 Macro and they are all fantastic lenses on my K-3II. They each have their sweet spots, but for all-around use, I really like the FA 50. It has terrific color rendering, and I like it best when going out without knowing what I am going to encounter on a path through the woods, or a walk along a wetland, etc. There have been quite a few popping up at KEH or Usedphotopro.com for around $200 USD.

[Des]

I have a K-70 that I really like and am still learning about. I like to do macro photography and I have a Sigma 16-80 mm Macro lens that does a pretty good job. I paid $16.00 for brand new! I happened upon a good deal when Kit's Cameras was going out of business. The only drawback is that has a tendency to be soft. Even focusing manually, I can't get seem to get it as sharp as I'd like. I'm looking for recommendations on a replacement, preferably a Pentax lens. I looked at the 50 and 100mm macros but they are FF. I'm not sure how well they'd perform in APS C.

I took some pics with my Sigma last weekend, and this seems to be the best of the bunch. The blossom is about the size of my thumbnail & the grasshopper might be a half inch long. Thanks

I can't see any Sigma 16-80mm macro in the database. If it's an old (film era) lens it's more likely to be 24-80, 28-80 or 35-80 - 16mm was extremely wide on a 35mm film camera.

Anyway Sigma is notorious for bandying the "Macro" appellation, commonly applying it to lenses that only give 0.3x magnification. Those sort of zooms can be handy for close focus, but they really are no match for a true 1:1 macro lens.

Incidentally, the EXIF for your photo says that it was with the Pentax DA 18-135. It's pretty good for close focus but still only 0.24x magnification.

I have the FA 50mm f2.8 macro and the DFA 100mm f2.8 macro WR. As others have said, each works very well on APS-C. The narrower FOV at a given focal length with APS-C is often an advantage for macro. Both lenses are exceptionally sharp. I use the 100mm a lot more than the 50mm for macro because of the extra working distance. With the 50mm you need to get to 19cm from the subject for 1:1 magnification, whereas for the 100mm it is 30cm. (For the DA 35mm f2.8 macro Limited it is 14cm.) For static subjects (e.g. coins or stamps) the difference wouldn't matter so much (although if the lens is very close to the subject lighting could be more awkward), but for anything that moves (or bites!) the extra distance is an advantage.

There are numerous options in focal lengths between 90mm and 105mm, from the Tamron 90 to the Sigma 105 and many different 100mm lenses. That's where I'd suggest you start. For macro, manual focus will be fine because you often have to focus manually anyway and MF lenses may be cheaper.

For general (non-macro) use, many people will find a wider lens (like the 35mm Limited macro) more versatile, although personally i have warmed to 100mm as a general focal length on APS-C.

I do love the DFA 100.

[Kozlok]

Is your Sigma a 17-70? I’m not aware of a 16-80. The Sigma 17-70 does around 1:2 “macro”. A true macro lens will go to 1:1 and is not a zoom.

However, the Sigma 17-70s are reasonably sharp. Not as sharp as a real macro lens, but quite good. If your shots are all blurry, I suspect you need to work on technique. Macro is not done like other photography. Set manual focus, decide what macro ratio you want (i.e. where you set focus), and move the camera until the subject is in focus. I use live view to do it. In any case, there is a whole new world of special techniques when working up close.

[hcc]

Great shot, Des. I love the wallaby .

Back to the OP. You already received great advice. As a Pentax lens, the Pentax DFA 100mm (several versions) is a very solid choice, albeit a bit pricy. The Tamron 90mm and Sigma 105mm are two other options.
When price is an issue, you may consider a 2nd hand purchase, from trusted sources, like PF marketplace, KEH.com, B&H (2nd hand) and Adorama (2n hand)
On another hand, when the lens price is not an issue or you want to make a strategic investment, the best macro lens IMO is the Voigtlander APO Lanthar 125mm f2. Rare, expensive, but superb / astonishing / outstanding IQ - I speak from experience as i have one, and it outshines all my other lenses for macro shots.


My 5 cents, hoping that it may help ...

[clackers]

I am a bit confused, Jwquinn, and maybe you are too!

That picture was taken with the Pentax DA18-135mm.

And a full frame lens like the fantastic DFA 100mm f2.8 Macro (which is 1:1) will work fine on your APS-C camera, in fact, even better, since only the very sharpest central part of the image is used.

[Zijspoor]

Hi,

I am a little bit confused too, like Clackers. Your exif information is stating a Pentax 18-135, as mentioned in your profile. And I am also not aware of a 16-80mm Sigma to exist.

For macro it is important to have your focus point spot on, and your lens AF fine adjust for your camera when using PDAF. Or make use of Live-view.
You can fine adjust AF yourself easily.

Kind regards, Ron

[acoufap]

Already said - the DFA100WR is a great macro lens.

If you don‘t need full 1:1 macro then I‘d also recommend the DA55-300PLM @ 300mm. With its minimum working distance of 95cm you get good results especially when you combine it with a macro achromat. You will be surprised what it can do for you!

[normhead]

I have a Sigma 24 macro where the actual magnification is 1:4. For a Pentax to be a macro it has to be 1:1. 1:4 is about the same as the the pseudo macro on the 18-135, 16-85 and less than the 1:3 of the DA 55-300, so get that out of the way first, a Sigma may be labelled a macro, but most are way under spec compared to what Pentax calls macro.

So my advice would be a Sigma 70 macro, a Pentax 100 macro, or a Tamron 90 macro what ever you can get at the best price. A 50 macro is also a nice lens but I find I usually want the extra reach for skittish subjects.

The Pentax is top of the list, lighter, very small footprint and WR. The Sigma is a beast but very nicely corrected and can be used as a portrait lens. The Tamron probably has the best micro-contrast but it's a toss up. All three of them are great lenses in their own right. Any lens that can be used on FF can be used on APS-c. That's really not an issue.

[Serkevan]

I am a bit confused, Jwquinn, and maybe you are too!

That picture was taken with the Pentax DA18-135mm.

And a full frame lens like the fantastic DFA 100mm f2.8 Macro (which is 1:1) will work fine on your APS-C camera, in fact, even better, since only the very sharpest central part of the image is used.

Third party lenses sometimes get their EXIF data mixed up.
My Tokina 70-210/4.5 shows up as Pentax-F 70-210/4-5.6... even if the shot was at 210mm and f/4.5
That said, the EXIF in OP's photo says 135mm and in my experience the FL shouldn't be wrong even if the lens ID is.