[SOldBear]

Is 'quick shift' more important than 'focus limiting' on an Auto Focus Macro lens?

I think so.

Macro or not, with "quick shift," you can "rough" focus and then have a choice of allowing the lens's autofocus mechanism to take over. This is even better than "focus limiting."

Of course "quick shift" also does something "focus limiting" can't do.

[GhoSStrider]

As soon as I say this, someone will post some obscure example, but to my knowledge, there are no 1:1 zoom lenses.

There's at least one that gets pretty close, the Nikon 70-180mm Micro.

But yeah...zoom lenses that do better than 1:3 are pretty rare, and I can't think of any that gets to 1:1 without the assistance of a teleconverter (Tamron did this with a couple models like the Model 52A 70-210mm) or accesory lenses like the Nikon does.

The Vivitar 90-180mm Flat Field is well regarded, but also doesn't get to 1:1 by itself.

[PentaxForums-User]

I'm looking forward to the Pentax D-FA Macro 100mm F2.8 WR..

and im gonna assume it's the besterest 1:1 Macro lens :P

When does that come out? Should I hold off and wait for that?

[ilya80]

No one mentioned Bokina 90mm 1:2.5 with extender yet?

I have it in PK mount and its amazing.

[raymeedc]

The Pentax preset 1:1 50mm Takumar has great IQ & build quality, & is relatively cheap. Manually focused lenses are usually best for Macros.

The Pentax preset 1:1 50mm Takumar has great IQ & build quality, & is relatively cheap. Manually focused lenses are usually best for Macros.

I have one and find it a beast to tame at macro range. Meaning it's hard to focus. Might be just great for some tripod work and stationary objects but not so great for any fast situation.

BTW, anyone looking for one? (90% kidding, 10% serious)

[feverbeaver]

A* 200/4 Macro ED: A* 200/4 Macro ED
or
FA* 200/4 Macro ED [IF]: FA* 200/4 Macro ED [IF]

cheaper and extremly sharp: Pentax 645-A (or FA) Marco 120mm

[PentaxForums-User]

Okay... kinda torn between...

DA 35mm ƒ2.8 Limited
FA 50mm F2.8
DFA 100mm ƒ2.8 (which is better? FA or DFA?)
FA 100mm ƒ2.8 (which is better? FA or DFA?)
Sigma 180mm ƒ3.5
(The Voigtlander is not an option because reality says it's $1500)

All are vastly different mm's from normal to telephoto.

I'm looking for a great lens that can do 1:1 Macro and fill a gap in my current line up when not using macro for a dual-purpose. Sharpness, 3-D, IQ, and durability/construction is very important. I know the decision is ultimately mine - but please... any advise or recommendations on which I should get? I want to get the most bang for my buck, and POSSIBLY fill some gap in my lens line-up... but still be left with an excellent macro.

My line up is:
Pentax Lenses: 31mm ƒ1.8 FA Limited, 50mm ƒ1.4 FA, 77mm ƒ1.8 FA Limited, 18-250mm DA

[LeDave]

When does that come out? Should I hold off and wait for that?

A bit of research wouldn't hurt you know. the DFA 100mm 2.8 WR Macro is 850 USD, but since the cost isn't a problem I'm sure you would love this lens.

It's based off the current DFA 100mm f/2.8 but with a new full metal and weather-resistant body, at the same time losing it's aperture ring for film. Available in January 2010 as link below stated.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/official-pentax-news/82816-pentax-adds-10...s-line-up.html

[PentaxForums-User]

No one mentioned Bokina 90mm 1:2.5 with extender yet?

I have it in PK mount and its amazing.

Can you post samples?

[ilya80]

I wasnt able to do any actual macro work with it, but I`ll see what i can do for you.

Hope you are not in a hurry, since I need some free time for it.

[deadwolfbones]

No one mentioned Bokina 90mm 1:2.5 with extender yet?

I have it in PK mount and its amazing.

Seconded.

Sold my Tamron 90/2.8 to keep the Bokina.

Samples:
http://deadwolfbones.smugmug.com/Other/K100D-Bokina/10549999_t5aZr
http://deadwolfbones.smugmug.com/Photography/K-7-Etc/10201533_fdyQn#702842034_YP2hN (#3 onward)

Not much actual macro use, but you can assess its other optical qualities. Nearly all of these are at f/2.5, btw.

[Pentaxor]

This is a good thread for a question I have pondered...

When someone is asking about a AF macro lens to also be used as a portrait lens. I often see it mentioned that someone would chose the Pentax 100 because of it's"Quick Shift AF" like LeDave did here and many others do in other threads.

To me this is not really something I would use as a macro feature since I tend to MF and/or slightly move the camera to achieve focus on macro shots. And I just don't see quick shift AF being all that helpful for portraits when you are relying on AF.

It seems to me the "Focus Limiter" switch on the Tamron would be more useful in an AF macro lens that is going to double as a portrait lens. Sense you dont want the lens cycling thru the entire range every time your re compose a portrait shot.

Am I off base with this thinking?

Is 'quick shift' more important than 'focus limiting' on an Auto Focus Macro lens?


PS I would love the Voigt - 125mm! Or the siggy 180mm

personally, I don't find the quick-shift feature that wanted at all with regards to using my FA100/2.8 macro nor my Sigma 70/2.8 (both have focus limiters). there are only two shooting techniques that I use for both lenses, shoot AF when doing telephoto and shoot MF when doing macro. and I haven't been in a situation when or where I need to do both at the same time. the most obvious advantage of the quickshift feature is the convenience of not having to switch the AF/CF/MF lever inorder to do manual focus. it can also be used to pre-focus inorder to help for a faster AF or micro-focus adjustment after doing AF. the only problem I see here is that the macros have a long focus throw which can affect the speed of locking the subject in focus.

the advantage of a macro lens with a focus limiter however, makes up for faster and more convenient AF/MF focusing (but mainly AF). and also avoid the unwanted focus hunting which is really bothersome. atleast with the focus limiter, the lens has a set focus range where to go.

from my perspective, when shooting macro, the lens should only be set to it's closest focusing point or to which distance you think should be close enough for macro, let it stay in that focus range then just move back and forth for locking focus with your subject.

[Pentaxor]

Okay... kinda torn between...

DA 35mm ƒ2.8 Limited
FA 50mm F2.8
DFA 100mm ƒ2.8 (which is better? FA or DFA?)
FA 100mm ƒ2.8 (which is better? FA or DFA?)
Sigma 180mm ƒ3.5
(The Voigtlander is not an option because reality says it's $1500)

All are vastly different mm's from normal to telephoto.

I'm looking for a great lens that can do 1:1 Macro and fill a gap in my current line up when not using macro for a dual-purpose. Sharpness, 3-D, IQ, and durability/construction is very important. I know the decision is ultimately mine - but please... any advise or recommendations on which I should get? I want to get the most bang for my buck, and POSSIBLY fill some gap in my lens line-up... but still be left with an excellent macro.

My line up is:
Pentax Lenses: 31mm ƒ1.8 FA Limited, 50mm ƒ1.4 FA, 77mm ƒ1.8 FA Limited, 18-250mm DA

if you want to fill the gap, and shoot macro at a comfortable distance or range, something like the 90,100,105 should be your selection.

if you want great IQ and best sharpness, the FA50/2.8 and Sigma 70/2.8 should be your choice. the only downside is you would have a redundant lens or if you are willing to have a redundant lens for the sake of having a great sharpness and overall IQ? or would it be ok for you to have an excellent macro but not the best than the previous two, just to fill that void in your line-up?


all these have excellent built/construction btw.

[creampuff]

This is a good thread for a question I have pondered...

When someone is asking about a AF macro lens to also be used as a portrait lens. I often see it mentioned that someone would chose the Pentax 100 because of it's"Quick Shift AF" like LeDave did here and many others do in other threads.

To me this is not really something I would use as a macro feature since I tend to MF and/or slightly move the camera to achieve focus on macro shots. And I just don't see quick shift AF being all that helpful for portraits when you are relying on AF.

It seems to me the "Focus Limiter" switch on the Tamron would be more useful in an AF macro lens that is going to double as a portrait lens. Sense you dont want the lens cycling thru the entire range every time your re compose a portrait shot.

Am I off base with this thinking?

Is 'quick shift' more important than 'focus limiting' on an Auto Focus Macro lens?


PS I would love the Voigt - 125mm! Or the siggy 180mm

Yes to your question...
I shoot quite a bit of macro, using both the FA and DFA 50mm and 100mm macros. From a practical and usability perspective, Quick Shift is by far more useful than the focus limiter. In a macro lens, the focus throw from minimum focusing distance to infinity is pretty long and the focus limiter merely restricts the lens from hunting across the entire focus range if it can't lock focus while autofocusing. But it will still hunt, just less.

Now with a lens with Quick Shift, one only needs the camera to attain focus and the photographer can then fine tune manually. This is far, far quicker than focusing macro entirely manually especially with skittish subjects like for example a dragonfly. With QS, the camera can quickly lock focus in AF on say the wing or abdomen and you can fine tune to get the eyes into sharp focus. Try shooting manually alone and the dragonfly will probably be long gone as you try to get precise focus and compose in the viewfinder. QS works on macro subjects and it will work on people too.

Frankly I don't even rely on the focus limiter on my FA 100mm much, it's too much of a hassle to use. So I will probably let it go once the new DFA 100mm WR Macro comes out because the new lens has got all I want... QS, better build quality, WR, rounded aperture blades and if the optics is anything like the current DFA, good sharpness and snappier contrast. It has all the makings to be a winner both with macro and portraits.