[Wheatfield]

So my new 100mm macro arrived, so I decided to do a quick comparison between the two.

I shot an image at each aperture with the focus on the expansion cut at the edge of the saw blade, and then did a focus stack of the entire scene.
I'm only posting crops of the lenses at each aperture. I stopped at f16 as it seemed pointless to go past that aperture.

The first series is of the old lens.

Overall image, remember this is a focus stack at f5.6

[/url]

At f2.8



At f4




At f5.6



At f8



At f11



At f16



Then the new lens:

Overall image This is a focus stack at f5.6:


At f2.8



At f4



At f5.6



At f8



At f11



At f16

[/url]

Overall they seem to have done fairly well with the new lens. I was able to force purple fringing on both lenses, but there is far less on the new lens and it cleaned up nicely by f5.6
The old lens showed a bit more fringing and wasn't really clean until f8.
The difference isn't earth shattering, but it's there. The new lens is definitely an improvement over the old one, though it may not matter depending on the type of photography one does. Both are adequately sharp.
I chose this scenario as quite often macro lenses are used for photographing shiny objects.

[sergysergy]

Thank you for the comparison!

[OldChE]

I only have the older 100mm macro - the non-WR version of the 100mm macro, the SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro (first available in 2004). Do you know how the two newer WR versions compare to that older one?

This is the one I have, which is supposed to be optically the same as the later WR version:
SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Madaboutpix]

A neat comparison with a well-chosen usage scenario. Thanks indeed for making this available.

[normhead]

I was able to force purple fringing on both lenses, but there is far less on the new lens and it cleaned up nicely by f5.6
The old lens showed a bit more fringing and wasn't really clean until f8.

One of those things to commit to memory if you don't like dealing with purple fringing.

[Wheatfield]

I only have the older 100mm macro - the non-WR version of the 100mm macro, the SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro (first available in 2004). Do you know how the two newer WR versions compare to that older one?

This is the one I have, which is supposed to be optically the same as the later WR version:
SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

If it's optically identical it should have very similar performance. There may have been coating changes between the generations but the difference would be very slight and would only show up in extreme optical conditions.

[Wheatfield]

One of those things to commit to memory if you don't like dealing with purple fringing.

Something I forgot to do when I did the DNG conversions is to tell Lightroom to turn off those corrections entirely. I will revisit this soon to see if I haven't inadvertently made the lenses look better than they are.

[btnapa]

The difference isn't earth shattering, but it's there

I agree. I have the old version and for macro work, I shoot at least f8 with focus stacking. The samples that Ricoh showed when they introduced showed a much more pronounced purple fringing. Your samples show less. On the old one, at f2.8, it is very noticeable. at f4 there is a hint. By f5.6 it seems to be gone. At least what I am seeing on the screen. So at the end of the day, unless you are shooting at f2.8, the old one is just fine. I was really bummed out when I saw the results Ricoh posted thinking I have a bad lens!

[MossyRocks]

I suggest you lend the lens to me for a week or so and I can go really put it through its paces and stick it on my equatorial and shoot some ultra high contrast point light sources some night.

In all seriousness I am considering getting this lens as the purple fringing problem really has been resolved so it may be a good performer for astro but would like to see some controlled shots.

[Wheatfield]

I suggest you lend the lens to me for a week or so and I can go really put it through its paces and stick it on my equatorial and shoot some ultra high contrast point light sources some night.

In all seriousness I am considering getting this lens as the purple fringing problem really has been resolved so it may be a good performer for astro but would like to see some controlled shots.

It will be a few months for me. I don't do cold, so einter astro photography is not my thing.

[MossyRocks]

I don't do cold, so einter astro photography is not my thing.

Cold is one of the best times. You get those very cold clear nights with next to no humidity and great sky clarity. If you have the right gear it isn't bad but then I look like the Michelin Man when out doing winter astrophotography.

[clackers]

Great bit of work, Wheatfield, thanks!

[OldChE]

If it's optically identical it should have very similar performance. There may have been coating changes between the generations but the difference would be very slight and would only show up in extreme optical conditions.

Thanks.

[Sandy Hancock]

That's all well and good Bill, but my new one is SILVER!!

The old lens can't match that

[Wheatfield]

That's all well and good Bill, but my new one is SILVER!!

The old lens can't match that

I've always thought silver lenses look kind of tacky, but you do you