[cport]

I have 70/2,4 ltd and FA 135/2,8. I like them, really - both are very small with fast AF, 70 ltd is amazing optically, but sometimes I have a feeling that I am not using them enough. I had got an idea that I can buy another lens instead of them. A natural choice is D FA 100/2,8 WR, which would add WR and macro options.


However, after reading PF reviews, many users complain to slow AF of 100/2,8 and aberation. Is it really so bad? Could somebody give me more experienced feedback? Does anyone have experience with the same lenses? How fast/slow is AF speed of 70/2,4 (resp 135/2,8) in comparison to the 100/2,8 WR?

[tonyzoc]

I have 70/2,4 ltd and FA 135/2,8. I like them, really - both are very small with fast AF, 70 ltd is amazing optically, but sometimes I have a feeling that I am not using them enough. I had got an idea that I can buy another lens instead of them. A natural choice is D FA 100/2,8 WR, which would add WR and macro options.


However, after reading PF reviews, many users complain to slow AF of 100/2,8 and aberation. Is it really so bad? Could somebody give me more experienced feedback? Does anyone have experience with the same lenses? How fast/slow is AF speed of 70/2,4 (resp 135/2,8) in comparison to the 100/2,8 WR?

I don't have the FA 135...but I do have the 100WR. While there is some purple fringing on high contract edges, and the infinity to 1:1 is a long throw that can be slower than expected (sometimes)... It's a macro lens and a very good one. If you want a macro lens with WR, it's a great choice. If you want a medium telephoto, you're better off with the 135 FA. I'm sure the 135 and 70 are faster focus especially on poor contrast under low light....but I would attribute that to the throw length difference.

[jgnfld]

I have 70/2,4 ltd and FA 135/2,8. I like them, really - both are very small with fast AF, 70 ltd is amazing optically, but sometimes I have a feeling that I am not using them enough. I had got an idea that I can buy another lens instead of them. A natural choice is D FA 100/2,8 WR, which would add WR and macro options.


However, after reading PF reviews, many users complain to slow AF of 100/2,8 and aberation. Is it really so bad? Could somebody give me more experienced feedback? Does anyone have experience with the same lenses? How fast/slow is AF speed of 70/2,4 (resp 135/2,8) in comparison to the 100/2,8 WR?

What are you trying to shoot?

Can't say I've seen much aberration in my uses of the lens which include both forest floor subject macros and medium tele both. Which aberrations are you worried about?

The DA 100mm macro is among the sharpest lenses I own (and I own a 70mm now, too!). I wouldn't try action shooting with it much, but you do learn tricks to get to focus quicker I can't describe them step by step, but you CAN get into the area with manual focus and then let the autofocus take over. Basically it has a loonnng throw due to being a macro and screw drive cannot go from macro close to near or at infinity all that fast. Landscapes and macros simply don't require fast focus. So no problem using it there.

[aslyfox]

the OP might want to read this article if WR isn't essential:

Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro Review
Specifications
The lens covers the full 24x36mm format, not just APS-C. The aperture blades are rounded, delivering a smoother bokeh which is important for a macro lens. However, unlike its predecessor, it has no aperture ring.

.

The optical design is the tried-and-proven formula of the previous generation D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro lens, which in turn had inherited the optical design from the well-respected FA 100mm F2.8 and F 100mm F2.8 macro lenses introduced in 1991 and 1987, respectively. None of these earlier lenses had rounded aperture blades

.



Read more at: Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro Review - Specifications | PentaxForums.com Reviews

and check the reviews of the D FA ( non WR ) FA and F 100mm F2.8 Macros if an " experienced ": lens is acceptable

look under " lenses " above

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 01-18-2021 at 02:41 PM.

[stevebrot]

Pentax D FA 100/2,8 WR instead of FA 135/2,8 and 70/2/4?

What is your intended subject? While a dedicated macro lens may do double duty as a short tele or portrait lens, its intended use is for close focus and macro. I would expect that the extra weight and size might be a consideration in your choice.


Steve

[JensE]

I have 70/2,4 ltd and FA 135/2,8. I like them, really - both are very small with fast AF, 70 ltd is amazing optically, but sometimes I have a feeling that I am not using them enough. I had got an idea that I can buy another lens instead of them. A natural choice is D FA 100/2,8 WR, which would add WR and macro options.

However, after reading PF reviews, many users complain to slow AF of 100/2,8 and aberation. Is it really so bad? Could somebody give me more experienced feedback? Does anyone have experience with the same lenses? How fast/slow is AF speed of 70/2,4 (resp 135/2,8) in comparison to the 100/2,8 WR?

The D FA 100 WR ist sharp and fairly well corrected, at least on par with the FA 135/2.8, according to what I've seen published from that lens (never had one). The bar is high for a macro lens which has been released in the not too distant past and Pentax maybe should have overhauled thr optics as well. It does show some coloration of out-of-focus foreground/background, esp. wide open with harsh contrasts, for very critical situations only. Otherwise it has very nice rendering - see the lens club. Perspective is noticeably different from the 70mm.


Compared to the fast-focusing DA70/2.4, it has just slightly slower focus as long as you keep it in the 'distant' range. It takes a very long time to go through its entire range though. So if you lose focus, just lift up you finger/thumb (in case of back-button fokus) briefly and it will refocus without going all in and out. So with a bit of practice, I used it successfully for indoor sports for a while.

What you likely haven't considered yet: It's one of the best current lenses handling-wise, very compact and light, with a small diameter, which makes lighting setup in macro easy. The hood is superb, no other current macro has so usable scales, manual focus-throw and -feel. A world of a difference to the previous generation's (non-WR) full time manual implementation, on par with the DA70, just with a wide and comfortable focus ring.

[bdery]

AF of 100/2,8

AF using the viewfinder is fast outside the macro range. Not as fast as the DA 70, but ok. In the macro range, it's slow. That's to be expected for a macro lens which needs to be accurate.

Using live view, it's very slow and, in the macro range, almost incapable of locking focus.

and aberation

It's sensitive to purple fringing, but it's really not that bad. It's a very good lens in general, not perfect but excellent. That being said, unless you want a macro lens or a WR lens, the 70 is a better lens regarding size and AF speed. Plus it's more different vs your 135mm.

I would see the 100 macro as more of a replacement for your 135mm than for your 70mm.

[Marcel K]

I have both the da70 and dfa100wr and love them both. They are different beasts for different purposes, obviously. As said, AF speedwise the 70 is a bit faster due to the shorter focus throw, but with a bit of prefocus the 100 can be used for anything fast moving (e.g. my son’s soccer matches) as well. 100 is a glorious macro for jumpy critters and flowers. I haven’t encountered any CA that could be fixed in post. I’m using smaller apertures anyway for macro or when using it as short tele.

[Kozlok]

I think it's important to assess WHY you aren't using them more? What are you using instead? Why are you choosing that?

Also, maybe try doing a "single in" challenge with these lenses where you shoot with only these for a full month, and shooting every single day. There's a social group here at the forum dedicated to the Single In challenge. It's a fun way to really get to know a lens.

[PJ1]

The DFA 100/2.8 doesn't have an aperture ring so you lose manual control of you ever want to use it with older bodies.

[dbs]

I have 70/2,4 ltd and FA 135/2,8. I like them, really - both are very small with fast AF, 70 ltd is amazing optically, but sometimes I have a feeling that I am not using them enough. I had got an idea that I can buy another lens instead of them. A natural choice is D FA 100/2,8 WR, which would add WR and macro options.


However, after reading PF reviews, many users complain to slow AF of 100/2,8 and aberation. Is it really so bad? Could somebody give me more experienced feedback? Does anyone have experience with the same lenses? How fast/slow is AF speed of 70/2,4 (resp 135/2,8) in comparison to the 100/2,8 WR?

Hi
Why would you use a 100 mm lens instead of the 70 mm and the 135 mm ? ones too short and ones too long ?
What other lenses are you using more and do they cover 100 mm ?
I have not mentioned the specific lenses because that muddies the water.
Are you just trying to have a lighter bag or less lenses .?


Dave

[normhead]

I walk around with mine on regular basis in mushroom season.

It works on the shrooms.


It works on the dogs.






It's awesome edge to edge.


It's not fast focusing, most of the time it doesn't matter.

Whether you can use it instead of other lenses, I suspect you'd have to buy one and try it out to know what you'd think. I almost never recommend selling lenses. With the HD DA 1.4 TC the 100 becomes a 140 ƒ4 macro, you could argue that would take the place of the 135, plus it's small, light and WR. I don't see how I could recommend letting a 70mm go for it though.

[UncleVanya]

The DFA 100/2.8 doesn't have an aperture ring so you lose manual control of you ever want to use it with older bodies.

The non-WR version does.

[UncleVanya]

Assuming that you are on a crop sensor the best one lens replacement is the DA* 50-135/2.8. The lens is old style sdm but can be converted to screw drive. It is much larger but supremely versatile.

Just a thought. Used it isn’t terribly expensive.

[ramseybuckeye]

Maybe you should explore some of the zooms.