Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Which is better for Macro and Portrait, including options like MF/AF, Shift, Clutch?
Pentax 100mm 2.8 Macro - DFA 1618.39%
Pentax 100mm 2.8 Macro - FA 1416.09%
Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro 1517.24%
Tamrom 90mm 2.8 Macro 4248.28%
Voters: 87. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-15-2010, 07:56 AM   #16
pdo
Senior Member
pdo's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Westminster CA
Posts: 264
I haven't seen a bad macro lens. They are all sharp as hell.

01-15-2010, 08:54 AM   #17
Veteran Member
StephenMerola's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southeast Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 391
They are all sharp. I vote for the Sigma though. I do not have the 105mm. But I have 4 other Sigma EX DG lenses and the build quality is GREAT. ABSOLUTELY GREAT.
01-15-2010, 07:11 PM   #18
Pentaxian
danielchtong's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 848
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
the FA version is a tank, just to let you know.
It is indestructible indeed.
01-15-2010, 08:02 PM   #19
Veteran Member
Raybo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 871
QuoteOriginally posted by bonovox Quote
If manual focus doesn't worry you (and for macro work, I find manual focus is better), consider the amazing vivitar series 1 105mm - also sold as a lester a dine and kiron.
Superb lens!

I agree!

01-16-2010, 02:17 AM   #20
Veteran Member
dugrant153's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,059
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
the FA version is a tank, just to let you know.
I'm going to have to second this one. I've personally tested a copy and it is REALLY something.

Superb build quality! Why don't they make more of these??
01-16-2010, 05:26 AM   #21
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,960
I voted for the Tamron, as I chose that one. I received it a few days back. I liked the bokeh from this when viewing the samples posted in Flickr and such, almost the VL 125/2.5 look.

I've heard this 'all macros are sharp' thing before, but dang! never knew it would be this sharp. It's wickedly sharp from f2.8 on.......This is my first macro, and at 1:1 it truly opens up a new world which I never knew existed....a simple t-shirt transpires into these magnificent woven fibers with all sorts of colors and detail, it's cool.

Last edited by pcarfan; 01-16-2010 at 05:35 AM.
01-16-2010, 10:52 AM   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 828
As already stated, there is no such thing as a bad macro lens.

Just get a macro that suits your budget and desired focal length. You probably won't be disappointed with any macro, manual or autofocus, regardless of brand.

Having said that, I have used the Tammy 90/2.8, Sigma 105/2.8, F100/2.8 and FA100/2.8. They are all good. There are no differences in sharpness, at least from normal everyday use. In term of usage & handling, there are a few issues to be aware of.

The Tammy and Sigma are smaller and easier to fit into a camera bag -- if you overstuff your camera bag like I do this is actually important. Also, the Tammy & Sigma have deeply recessed front elements which helps protect the glass. In terms of optical performance, while all are very sharp, I find any differences between the various lenses are from the color cast/rendering that is unique to each brand (this is not a criticism of any particular lens). The Pentax versions have that special "pop" in colors that we get from the good Pentax lenses, but you have to be aware of and be watching for it to notice it.

Last edited by tranq78; 01-16-2010 at 11:01 AM.
01-16-2010, 11:03 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
I voted for the Tamron, as I chose that one. I received it a few days back. I liked the bokeh from this when viewing the samples posted in Flickr and such, almost the VL 125/2.5 look.

I've heard this 'all macros are sharp' thing before, but dang! never knew it would be this sharp. It's wickedly sharp from f2.8 on.......This is my first macro, and at 1:1 it truly opens up a new world which I never knew existed....a simple t-shirt transpires into these magnificent woven fibers with all sorts of colors and detail, it's cool.
glad to hear about your new acquisition. anyway, if you want a real sharp macro, you might want to try out the Sigma 70/2.8 or FA50/2.8. had you tried those already? and yes, macros are really the creme dela creme of sharp lenses. maybe the FA77 (non-macro) is a close candidate?

01-16-2010, 08:39 PM   #24
Veteran Member
Nachodog's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 457
I voted for the Sigma 105mm. I had the DFA 100mm which was a great macro lens, however since getting the Sigma a little while ago, I'm uber impressed with how unbeliveably sharp the Sigma is. I'll edit this post with a quick sample in a bit.

I've heard really great things about the Tammy though. Never had the chance to try it.

Edit:

Resize


100% crop


100% crop

Last edited by Nachodog; 01-16-2010 at 08:50 PM.
01-17-2010, 08:01 AM   #25
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,960
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
glad to hear about your new acquisition. anyway, if you want a real sharp macro, you might want to try out the Sigma 70/2.8 or FA50/2.8. had you tried those already? and yes, macros are really the creme dela creme of sharp lenses. maybe the FA77 (non-macro) is a close candidate?
I've found a major problem with buying my first macro....all of a sudden most of my lenses are unacceptably soft

The FA77 and the FA43 are still as sharp at their best aperture, but the Tamron is almost as sharp from f2.8 on.....but, the limiteds are still very special as they are not one trick ponies, and can be used to render different types of images....

Why are you trying to get me into trouble suggesting all these other macros
01-17-2010, 01:38 PM   #26
Senior Member
elle.e's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 106
No voting option for the Sigma 70mm f/2.8.
Why?
01-17-2010, 03:06 PM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
NeverSatisfied's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Posts: 666
QuoteOriginally posted by elle.e Quote
No voting option for the Sigma 70mm f/2.8.
Why?
I think it was just a focal length thing. I have used the Sigma 70 and it is a nice lens indeed.
01-17-2010, 04:05 PM   #28
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by elle.e Quote
No voting option for the Sigma 70mm f/2.8.
Why?
QuoteOriginally posted by NeverSatisfied Quote
I think it was just a focal length thing. I have used the Sigma 70 and it is a nice lens indeed.
I tend to agree about the focal length. it seems to fall short in a few instances, especially outdoors or anything that requires quite a bit of distance. but with regards to indoors, general portraitures, macro, or anything with considerable or acceptable range, the 70mm would fit the bill really well. this lens is perfect for head/shoulder shots at a closer range or anything that a longer fl can't seem to fit inside. both fl's are useable in situations that require them.
01-17-2010, 11:57 PM   #29
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
I've found a major problem with buying my first macro....all of a sudden most of my lenses are unacceptably soft

The FA77 and the FA43 are still as sharp at their best aperture, but the Tamron is almost as sharp from f2.8 on.....but, the limiteds are still very special as they are not one trick ponies, and can be used to render different types of images....

Why are you trying to get me into trouble suggesting all these other macros
maybe you should start selling those soft lenses.

I think having 2-3 macros would be worth the trouble.
02-08-2010, 11:46 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
Sigma 70/2.8 MACRO.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-7  Photo 
Reply

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, 105mm, 90mm, f/2.8, k-mount, lens, macro, pentax, pentax lens, sigma, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro vs Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG vs Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP dyusem Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 02-13-2010 08:11 PM
Macro: Pentax D-FA 100mm vs. Tamron SP Di 90mm vs Sigma EX DG 105mm anirbax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 01-30-2010 10:25 PM
SIGMA 105mm vs TAMRON 90mm macros gkopeliadis Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 05-06-2008 06:55 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 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