Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

fourmiX · 02-13-2010, 02:59 PM

First; the new SMC Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR

and only for the beauty of the light reflection in the coating

LeDave · 02-13-2010, 03:15 PM

Nice comparison. At the f/2.8 comparison you can clearly see the hexagonal circles on the non-WR compared to the clean circles produced by the WR version.

audiobomber · 02-13-2010, 03:16 PM

I'm really impressed that they added WR and actually decreased the diameter a smidgeon. I assumed the new version would be bigger.

Do you see a difference in IQ? I can't see any significant difference looking at these photos. Maybe something more bokeh oriented would show more?

Thanks for the comparison.

Steinback · 02-13-2010, 03:34 PM

Other than the highlights the images look pretty much the same to me. Do you have to decide which one to keep?

LeDave · 02-13-2010, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

I'm really impressed that they added WR and actually decreased the diameter a smidgeon. I assumed the new version would be bigger.

Do you see a difference in IQ? I can't see any significant difference looking at these photos. Maybe something more bokeh oriented would show more?

Thanks for the comparison.

It's actually lighter too despite having a full metal body and WR. They are pretty much exactly identical in terms of optics and number of blades, so there are very minimal to no difference in IQ at all. The only difference is the bokeh. The WR with circular shaped blades remains circular at wide-open, while the non-WR would need to be stopped down to to achieve the same effect due to it's hexagon shaped blades.

imtheguy · 02-13-2010, 04:42 PM

Really nice post. Thank you for your efforts. I'm sure this will be a very popular read. As far as differences, if LeDave had not pointed out the hexagonal circles my eyes would have have said the two lenses are the same for all intents and purposes. I would be happy with either. Again, great post.

Jodokast96 · 02-13-2010, 06:03 PM

Didn't notice the circles either. But to me, it does seemt the the WR has just the slightest bit more contrast.

stevebrot · 02-13-2010, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by imtheguy

...As far as differences, if LeDave had not pointed out the hexagonal circles my eyes would have have said the two lenses are the same for all intents and purposes...

Me thinks those are octogons...

Steve

stevebrot · 02-13-2010, 06:59 PM

In reference to the diaphragm blades, the new WR has the same number of blades, but Pentax have changed the contour of the blade to a compound curve. The affect is to cast a more circular profile at wider apertures. Very cool idea!

Steve

LeDave · 02-13-2010, 07:07 PM

Lol yeah those are octagons then (I'm one of those dumb people who don't know the difference between octagon and hexagon :P ). Also I am mistaken, the more wide-open it is, the less differences are seen between the circle and octagon, but when stopped down, it becomes more visible. Makes more sense since light scatters much more at a larger aperture opening which doesn't show the octagonal shape from the blades, compared to allowing less light going through at a smaller opening. So the WR version retains its circular bokeh when stopped down while the non-WR loses it, light is more controlled when stopping down, and that's also explains why fast primes are sharper when stopped down.

fourmiX · 02-14-2010, 02:38 AM

Thanks guys

Opticaly they are the same lenses.
Only changed the circular blades, the WR and the "limited" aluminium body (wich is very, very nice; looks like a long 77, about same feeling.
The focus ring is really pleasant.

emr · 02-14-2010, 02:48 AM

Great work, thanks. To my eyes it seems they're virtually identical excluding the slightly different shape of aperture blades and bokeh.

creampuff · 02-14-2010, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

...The only difference is the bokeh. The WR with circular shaped blades remains circular at wide-open, while the non-WR would need to be stopped down to to achieve the same effect due to it's hexagon shaped blades.

I think you got it the other way round.
At maximum aperture, for the non-WR DFA version, all the aperture blades would be retracted so there would be a round oof highlights.
As you use smaller apertures, the DFA oof highlights become progressively smaller and more distinct with the octagons becoming more obvious, not less.
The feel of the WR focusing ring when focusing manually is even better than the FA Limiteds.

CrazyNuts · 02-21-2010, 12:26 AM

Is this lens a 1:1 macro like the old A series?

Might be an alternative to me chasing down a Vivitar 105mm

Jasvox · 02-21-2010, 12:34 AM

Nice shots. When I look closely, I likes the results of the older version better. They seem clearer and more detailed to me.

Jason

02-13-2010, 02:59 PM	#1
fourmiX Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: France Photos: Gallery Posts: 140	Short comparaison 100mm Macro D-FA vs NEW D-FA WR First; the new SMC Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR and only for the beauty of the light reflection in the coating

02-13-2010, 07:07 PM	#10
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Lol yeah those are octagons then (I'm one of those dumb people who don't know the difference between octagon and hexagon :P ). Also I am mistaken, the more wide-open it is, the less differences are seen between the circle and octagon, but when stopped down, it becomes more visible. Makes more sense since light scatters much more at a larger aperture opening which doesn't show the octagonal shape from the blades, compared to allowing less light going through at a smaller opening. So the WR version retains its circular bokeh when stopped down while the non-WR loses it, light is more controlled when stopping down, and that's also explains why fast primes are sharper when stopped down. Last edited by LeDave; 02-13-2010 at 07:12 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
100mm f2.8 macro FA vs new 100mm mavro f2.8 DA	stemked	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	08-23-2010 01:34 PM
Comparaison 10-24 vs18-55-vs17-70	bobmaxja	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	05-09-2010 12:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC M 100mm f4 Macro (M100/4 Macro) (Worldwide)	C2H4	Sold Items	1	05-02-2010 09:06 PM
Macro performance on long vs. short lenses	harmonica2	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	03-20-2010 10:22 AM
Short review of ‘jiakgong’ 4-way macro focusing rails	jfsavage	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	9	06-17-2009 08:20 PM

02-13-2010, 03:15 PM	#2
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Nice comparison. At the f/2.8 comparison you can clearly see the hexagonal circles on the non-WR compared to the clean circles produced by the WR version.

02-13-2010, 03:16 PM	#3
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	I'm really impressed that they added WR and actually decreased the diameter a smidgeon. I assumed the new version would be bigger. Do you see a difference in IQ? I can't see any significant difference looking at these photos. Maybe something more bokeh oriented would show more? Thanks for the comparison.

02-13-2010, 03:34 PM	#4
Steinback Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: GTA, ON, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,673	Other than the highlights the images look pretty much the same to me. Do you have to decide which one to keep?

02-13-2010, 04:38 PM	#5
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Originally posted by audiobomber I'm really impressed that they added WR and actually decreased the diameter a smidgeon. I assumed the new version would be bigger. Do you see a difference in IQ? I can't see any significant difference looking at these photos. Maybe something more bokeh oriented would show more? Thanks for the comparison. It's actually lighter too despite having a full metal body and WR. They are pretty much exactly identical in terms of optics and number of blades, so there are very minimal to no difference in IQ at all. The only difference is the bokeh. The WR with circular shaped blades remains circular at wide-open, while the non-WR would need to be stopped down to to achieve the same effect due to it's hexagon shaped blades.

02-13-2010, 04:42 PM	#6
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	Really nice post. Thank you for your efforts. I'm sure this will be a very popular read. As far as differences, if LeDave had not pointed out the hexagonal circles my eyes would have have said the two lenses are the same for all intents and purposes. I would be happy with either. Again, great post.

02-13-2010, 06:03 PM	#7
Jodokast96 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Erial, NJ USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,134	Didn't notice the circles either. But to me, it does seemt the the WR has just the slightest bit more contrast.

02-13-2010, 06:51 PM	#8
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by imtheguy ...As far as differences, if LeDave had not pointed out the hexagonal circles my eyes would have have said the two lenses are the same for all intents and purposes... Me thinks those are octogons... Steve

02-13-2010, 06:59 PM	#9
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	In reference to the diaphragm blades, the new WR has the same number of blades, but Pentax have changed the contour of the blade to a compound curve. The affect is to cast a more circular profile at wider apertures. Very cool idea! Steve

02-14-2010, 02:38 AM	#11
fourmiX Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: France Photos: Gallery Posts: 140 Original Poster	Thanks guys Opticaly they are the same lenses. Only changed the circular blades, the WR and the "limited" aluminium body (wich is very, very nice; looks like a long 77, about same feeling. The focus ring is really pleasant.

02-14-2010, 02:48 AM	#12
emr Guest	Great work, thanks. To my eyes it seems they're virtually identical excluding the slightly different shape of aperture blades and bokeh.

02-14-2010, 07:11 PM	#13
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Originally posted by LeDave ...The only difference is the bokeh. The WR with circular shaped blades remains circular at wide-open, while the non-WR would need to be stopped down to to achieve the same effect due to it's hexagon shaped blades. I think you got it the other way round. At maximum aperture, for the non-WR DFA version, all the aperture blades would be retracted so there would be a round oof highlights. As you use smaller apertures, the DFA oof highlights become progressively smaller and more distinct with the octagons becoming more obvious, not less. The feel of the WR focusing ring when focusing manually is even better than the FA Limiteds.

02-21-2010, 12:26 AM	#14
CrazyNuts Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 180	Is this lens a 1:1 macro like the old A series? Might be an alternative to me chasing down a Vivitar 105mm

02-21-2010, 12:34 AM	#15
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Nice shots. When I look closely, I likes the results of the older version better. They seem clearer and more detailed to me. Jason

Short comparaison 100mm Macro D-FA vs NEW D-FA WR

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!