Originally posted by marcinski The problem with DFA macro lenses is that they offer poor value for money. Canon 100mm macro costs about as much as Pentax DFA (about £520 here in UK) but it offers ultrasonic motor, IF, focus limiter and optional tripod collar. I am sure that Pentax is optically excellent but it doesn't really offer anything except small size and quick shift. Both Tamron and Sigma offerings are also very good optically, better built and have focus limiter to help with focusing.
I think Pentax should introduce 70 and 135 macro with good built, weather sealing and SDM, the longer one with tripod collar. Right now many people dont feel like they are getting theirs money worth with Pentax macros (well except 35mm which I have and think it's great).
Just IMHO
Marcin
I think value for money propositions vary according to where one buys one's lenses, certainly prices are pretty high in the UK.
But I think the comparison with Canon's 100mm macro has to be qualified. Pentax has to date never had a macro lens with an ultrasonic/SDM type motor, so I'm not sure one can compare here. Pentax's Quick Shift actually makes the need for a focus limiter redundant based on my personal usage of the Pentax FA (which have a focus limiter) and DFA macros lenses. QS is so much quicker to use imo. In the DFA series, Pentax has slimmed down their lenses in size and weight (some say too much) so the need for a tripod collar isn't so pressing. But if you're shooting macro the whole day, the lighter lens makes a big difference.
Yes internal focus is nice as it maintains better balance as the lens barrel does not increase in length but as with all internal focusing macros, the true focal length at the closest focusing distance is shorter.
At any rate there are very few macro lenses that are poor and more choice would offer more options for buyers looking to shoot macro.