Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-02-2023, 06:01 AM - 1 Like   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
EssJayEff's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: near Saxapahaw, NC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 956
Original Poster
I have the previous version (SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR), but have used it more for photographing protest marches than macro and got some terrific images. I do hate it when it searches to focus, but I know going into it that I'm using the lens for something other than what it was meant to do . . . so I don't let that bother me. Its compactness makes me stand out less in a crowd that a big telephoto would.

05-02-2023, 06:10 AM   #17
Pentaxian
simon_199's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 606
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
I don't dispute this, but for the record, Fuji (and others like Sony) rely heavily (and I mean heavily) on built-in corrections for many optical flaws. When left uncorrected, it's impressive how Fuji lenses show vignetting, distortion and even some CA.

regarding the lens review, my first reaction is "why am I seeing this guy's TV in the background?"
Absolutely correct. I like to download raw samples from various camera systems to do my own experiments with software, and am always amazed by the amount of distortion that you can get away with nowadays. I think that the 10-17 fisheye at 17mm has less distortion than some premium "rectilinear" wide angle lenses
Nevertheless...normal focal lengths like a Fuji 50 f2 don't rely so heavily on this trick. And it's not like lenses like a Pentax DA21Ltd are stellar optical performers.

Back on the 100mm WR, I also find that at tele distances for portraits, if it is not allowed to hunt, being a bit careful, the AF system is more than decent. Modern it is not, but workable, very much so.
05-02-2023, 06:25 AM - 8 Likes   #18
Pentaxian
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,016
Complain about the screwdrive AF, then recommend two manual focus options that are not WR and more expensive as alternatives.

These reviews always turn into a feature checklist that ignores cost-benefit because the equipment costs nothing to the reviewer.
05-02-2023, 06:26 AM - 6 Likes   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,601
For all the talk about mirrorless lenses and internal focus motors, the HD DFA 100 macro is 500 dollars on B and H photo. It takes a 49mm filter and size-wise, is 348 grams and 65 by 80.5 mm.

In comparison, the Canon RF 100 macro is1100 dollars, takes a 67mm filter and is 81.5 by 148mm with a weight of 730 grams -- it does do 1.4x macro as compared to the DFA 100 macro. The Nikon Z 105mm macro is 950 dollars, takes 62mm filter size and is 85 by 140mm in size with a weight of 630 grams.

Personally, I would be willing to deal with screw drive, to have half the weight and significantly smaller size -- plus 49mm lens filters. I also think that if Pentax could add the software focus limiter to cameras going forward and maybe include the K-1 II with that, that would help auto focus functionality out a lot.

05-02-2023, 07:16 AM - 1 Like   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,976
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
For all the talk about mirrorless lenses and internal focus motors, the HD DFA 100 macro is 500 dollars on B and H photo. It takes a 49mm filter and size-wise, is 348 grams and 65 by 80.5 mm.

In comparison, the Canon RF 100 macro is1100 dollars, takes a 67mm filter and is 81.5 by 148mm with a weight of 730 grams -- it does do 1.4x macro as compared to the DFA 100 macro. The Nikon Z 105mm macro is 950 dollars, takes 62mm filter size and is 85 by 140mm in size with a weight of 630 grams.

Personally, I would be willing to deal with screw drive, to have half the weight and significantly smaller size -- plus 49mm lens filters. I also think that if Pentax could add the software focus limiter to cameras going forward and maybe include the K-1 II with that, that would help auto focus functionality out a lot.
Yeah, the DFA 100 is fantastic size-wise - and it still packs a very good optical punch. Even the RF 85/2 (yes, one stop faster, but only manages 1:2 magnification) is 500 dollars, weighs 500 g and has a 67mm filter size...

I think the only real contender* to the DFA 100 Macro, size-wise, is the old Model 52 90/2.5 Tamron Macro, which is an even more venerable optical design. It's just a touch heavier/larger at 405 g/52mm filter, and a bit faster... but it also only manages 1:2 mag (without the matched extender, at least).

*Provided you find one, lol.
05-02-2023, 07:38 AM - 6 Likes   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,170
According to the author, the lens is shockingly tiny and slim and has excellent optical performance--certainly important qualities. However, It seems that the "antiquated" screw-driven AF system really bothered him, although it doesn't preclude "incredibly great macro photos" or "impressive portrait photography."

It's odd that the reviewer had notable problems to achieve focus: "...frequently during my testing the AF motors were often lacking in their accuracy." I suspect that there might have been some user issues: "I can’t say for sure, but at least in my testing, the autofocus struggled a lot when the contrast in the image was low or the colors/textures rather consistent across the frame."

My go-to macro lens is my $20 manual-focus Tamron Adaptall-2 90mm f/2.8 (72B) 1:1, surely a prehistoric lens by the reviewer's measure. I also have an S-M-C Macro-Takumar 50/4, which is even older than the Tamron, having been made shortly after the Big Bang.


- Craig
05-02-2023, 08:05 AM - 2 Likes   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
JensE's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Leipzig
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,942
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
In comparison, the Canon RF 100 macro is1100 dollars, takes a 67mm filter and is 81.5 by 148mm with a weight of 730 grams -- it does do 1.4x macro as compared to the DFA 100 macro. The Nikon Z 105mm macro is 950 dollars, takes 62mm filter size and is 85 by 140mm in size with a weight of 630 grams.
While I don't have experience with the Canon or Nikon lenses, I really appreciate the small outer diameter of the lens, in combination with a good working distance for available light shots, compared to any other current alternatives. Flowers turn with and attract insects facing the sun, so you're often blocking the light when you go for 'deep' shots, e.g. the tongue of a bee, with the - optically excellent - Irix 150mm or Laowa 100mm lenses. The slim profile of the D-FA 100 lenses (both smc WR or HD AW versions) simply gives you more angles. Similarly, it's easier to light the front of a tiny subject with less of a ring effect - I'm e.g. using a styrofoam disc lit from behind.

05-02-2023, 08:07 AM - 3 Likes   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,601
QuoteOriginally posted by simon_199 Quote
Absolutely correct. I like to download raw samples from various camera systems to do my own experiments with software, and am always amazed by the amount of distortion that you can get away with nowadays. I think that the 10-17 fisheye at 17mm has less distortion than some premium "rectilinear" wide angle lenses
Nevertheless...normal focal lengths like a Fuji 50 f2 don't rely so heavily on this trick. And it's not like lenses like a Pentax DA21Ltd are stellar optical performers.

Back on the 100mm WR, I also find that at tele distances for portraits, if it is not allowed to hunt, being a bit careful, the AF system is more than decent. Modern it is not, but workable, very much so.
50mm lenses are the easiest lenses to build for any mount. There are millions of them out there.

That said, it is really hard to tell how much Fuji is doing behind the scenes, isn't it? The 50mm f2 shows -1.66 EVs vignetting wide open, although most of that is smoothed away with jpegs. Lens tip did measure the amount of distortion for this lens at 1.49%, which is actually a decent amount for this focal length.

Compared to the Pentax DFA 50mm f2.8 macro, there is vignetting of 0.67 EVs wide open and negligible distortion on APS-C.
05-02-2023, 08:43 AM - 2 Likes   #24
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,902
One of the things that is being lost in comparing the size of lenses from Fuji and Pentax is the flange distance. The shorter flange distance of the X Mount makes it easier to produce small short focal length lenses. If we look at longer lenses, Pentax does quite well in the size and weight department in a very cursory glance. Compare the DA* 50-135 to the XF 50-140. The Pentax is smaller and lighter by quite a bit.
05-02-2023, 12:08 PM   #25
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,594
QuoteOriginally posted by JensE Quote
While I don't have experience with the Canon or Nikon lenses, I really appreciate the small outer diameter of the lens, in combination with a good working distance for available light shots, compared to any other current alternatives. Flowers turn with and attract insects facing the sun, so you're often blocking the light when you go for 'deep' shots, e.g. the tongue of a bee, with the - optically excellent - Irix 150mm or Laowa 100mm lenses. The slim profile of the D-FA 100 lenses (both smc WR or HD AW versions) simply gives you more angles. Similarly, it's easier to light the front of a tiny subject with less of a ring effect - I'm e.g. using a styrofoam disc lit from behind.
This ^^^^^

I think some folks don't realize that a small - particularly narrow - lens helps considerably when "out in the wild" and trying the maneuver your photo gear through plants and brush.
05-02-2023, 12:55 PM   #26
Pentaxian
simon_199's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 606
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
One of the things that is being lost in comparing the size of lenses from Fuji and Pentax is the flange distance. The shorter flange distance of the X Mount makes it easier to produce small short focal length lenses. If we look at longer lenses, Pentax does quite well in the size and weight department in a very cursory glance. Compare the DA* 50-135 to the XF 50-140. The Pentax is smaller and lighter by quite a bit.
Fair enough about shorter distance making it easier to design smaller lenses, with smaller bodies for a given focal length. The point was that such small size has not prevented other manufacturers to make extensive use of in-lens motors. Not even Pentax, when they wanted to: the DA18-50 was tiny and retractable, with DC motor. Much more appealing than the old-school 18-55. There is also clearly no correlation between price and screwdrive vs in-lens motors. There are dirt cheap kit lenses with silent motors and very expensive optics with no motor at all. Many factors determine the asking price of camera lenses, AF motor is one of them but not the only one. As a matter of fact the street price of 55-300 screw vs. PLM did not change by much at all; limited lenses are expensive even if screw driven. There are many counterexamples to the argument.

Fully agree on Tele lenses, where Pentax has some winners. The 55-300PLM considering price, build quality (WR), optical performance and AF is probably the best consumer tele-zoom on the market. Smaller and lighter than most mirrorless options in the same range (Fuji 70-300 is maybe a bit better optically, but considerably heavier and twice the price....).
05-02-2023, 01:10 PM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,594
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
Complain about the screwdrive AF, then recommend two manual focus options that are not WR and more expensive as alternatives.

These reviews always turn into a feature checklist that ignores cost-benefit because the equipment costs nothing to the reviewer.
The author did not "recommend" other lenses, he merely pointed out alternatives.

QuoteQuote:
While it’s arguable that this particular lens is one of the better ones as far as image quality is concerned that you can get for Pentax, there are a handful of alternatives available for shooters looking for a good macro lens. The previous-generation $349 Pentax D FA 100mm F/2.8 Macro WR lens won’t be as sharp or clean but it will save you a few hundred dollars.

Alternatively, you can go for the $595 IRIX 150mm f/2.8 Dragonfly Macro Lens which will give you a little extra reach, but it is a manual focus system only. Keeping with the 100mm range, there is the $999 Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm f/2.8 II Lens and another slightly cheaper manual option is the $449 Venus Laowa 100mm f/2.8 Manual Aperture 2x Ultra Macro APO Lens.

Finally, the $297 Pentax Normal smc P-D FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens is a wider focal length, but it does support autofocus for those who don’t want to focus manually all of the time.
05-03-2023, 02:32 AM - 1 Like   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,601
I do think it is interesting that people bring up the Irix 150mm macro. If you are using it as a dedicated macro lens, then manual focus doesn't need to be a detriment. Many macro shooters use manual focus. The whole benefit of having a longer focal length is to give you more working distance with insects that will move if you get too close. The thing about the Irix lens is that it has a lot of focus breathing which means that it gets 1:1 macro at 13.5 inches versus the the DFA 100mm macro getting 1:1 at 12 inches. Maybe 1.5 inches is a big deal to some people, but I would have thought that there would be a bigger difference for a lens that is 50 percent longer focal length.

(In comparison, the FA* 200 macro has a minimum focus distance of 20 inches.)
05-03-2023, 05:04 AM - 3 Likes   #29
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,350
QuoteOriginally posted by c.a.m Quote
It's odd that the reviewer had notable problems to achieve focus: "...frequently during my testing the AF motors were often lacking in their accuracy." I suspect that there might have been some user issues: "I can’t say for sure, but at least in my testing, the autofocus struggled a lot when the contrast in the image was low or the colors/textures rather consistent across the frame."
Yeah, that bohtered me also, because if there's one thing I can rely on with all Pentax lenses I've reviewed, is that "accuracy" of the AF is extremely high. "speed" is good but not class-leading, but "accuracy"? Not a bother. The 100 macro does have the ability to hunt and miss focus, especially when using live view, which the reviewer might have been using a lot especially if he comes from mirrorless.

In any case, that article is an opinion piece, interesting and welcome, but not a review.
05-03-2023, 06:22 AM - 1 Like   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,161
The older WR version of the lens can already deliver fantastic detail. My A7Riii like it enough that I haven’t bothered with a native e mount macro.

It ain’t easy being cheesy by -vanya_42nd-
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
100mm, fa 100mm f2.8, hd dfa 100mm, hd pentax-d fa, k-mount, macro, pentax lens, pentax news, pentax rumors, pentax-d fa 100mm, petapixel, petapixel review, review, review of hd, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 100mm comparison, DFA 100mm f2.8 vs M 100mm f2.8 house Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 03-08-2022 06:50 AM
PetaPixel K-3 Mark III Review Kobie Pentax K-3 III 44 08-09-2021 02:44 PM
Petapixel K-3 Mark III Review bladerunner6 Pentax News and Rumors 2 07-26-2021 11:35 AM
Macro DFA 100mm/2.8 vs DFA 100mm/2.8 WR tcom Post Your Photos! 9 01-11-2010 02:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:32 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top