Is the Pentax 100mm Macro WR Worth it?

Eagle_Friends · 04-12-2010, 08:34 PM

I'm looking into buying a macro lens and it has come down to the 100mm WR vs. the Tamron 90mm.

The Tamron is nearly half the cost of the WR, but if the image quality of the WR is THAT much better, I would not mind spending the extra.

Thoughts guys?

RioRico · 04-12-2010, 08:47 PM

I lust for the WR.

I want to stick it on my K20D and go crawling around in muck and mud, sand and foam, in duststorms and locuststorms and shitstorms and jello-wrestling tournaments. I want to get close up to the funky action.

I want to get into tidepools and sea-lion roosts and termite nests and decaying beached whale carcasses and Republican pr0n parlours and storm drains and the undersides of ostriches and emus and zombis.

There are some places you just can't go without weather sealing.

Voe · 04-13-2010, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Eagle_Friends

The Tamron is nearly half the cost of the WR, but if the image quality of the WR is THAT much better, I would not mind spending the extra.

Thoughts guys?

IMO the image quality of the Pentax 100mm WR is not that much better if at all. What you are paying for is the exclusive build quality and WR. Also you get a longer focal lenght which for a macro is a good thing to have.

Another thing is that with the Pentax 100mm WR you get the removal of CA/PF by using Pentax K7 camera.

I have the 100mm WR and it's a sweet lens. It's bokeh even stopped down will show better rounded highlighted OOF circles than non WR 100mm or Tamron 90mm.

Stephen_B · 04-13-2010, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

I lust for the WR.

I want to stick it on my K20D and go crawling around in muck and mud, sand and foam, in duststorms and locuststorms and shitstorms and jello-wrestling tournaments. I want to get close up to the funky action.

I want to get into tidepools and sea-lion roosts and termite nests and decaying beached whale carcasses and Republican pr0n parlours and storm drains and the undersides of ostriches and emus and zombis.

There are some places you just can't go without weather sealing.

Just remember the WR stands for Weather Resistant - the lens is not weather sealed like the DA*s - so maybe the Republican pr0n parlours should stay off limits

I have the older non WR version and I have to say it is a beautiful lens.

Voe · 04-13-2010, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Stephen_B

Just remember the WR stands for Weather Resistant - the lens is not weather sealed like the DA*s - so maybe the Republican pr0n parlours should stay off limits

Never heard of a Pentax WR lens being less WR than another Pentax WR lens. Is this based on manifacturer data or is it just a claim?

leadbelly · 04-13-2010, 04:57 AM

Is this true? That the DFA WR macro is "less" resistant than the DA*s? All along I thought they had the same resistance...

GeneV · 04-13-2010, 05:09 AM

It is doubtful that I will ever be interested because the trade off of the WR for the aperture ring is not worth it. I can't use it on my WR film body, the LX. Also, I think a WR zoom that covers most of the FL you are likely to use on a hike or slog makes sense. Back in the 80s, I used the 100mm/4 macro a lot on film. It is a great FL, but it is not a lens that is used so much that I would just leave on the body. When you start needing to change lenses frequently, the WR is not as useful.

farfisa · 04-13-2010, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Voe

Never heard of a Pentax WR lens being less WR than another Pentax WR lens. Is this based on manifacturer data or is it just a claim?

Yeah, the DA* series is supposed to have better sealing. From the Pentaximaging site:

The DA* series
"The tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction enhances durability for use in both rainy and dusty conditions..."

The WR series
"Weather-resistant to handle damp, inclement conditions."

emr · 04-13-2010, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by farfisa

Yeah, the DA* series is supposed to have better sealing. From the Pentaximaging site:

The DA* series
"The tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction enhances durability for use in both rainy and dusty conditions..."

The WR series
"Weather-resistant to handle damp, inclement conditions."

And how's the AW (All Weather) of new 645D lenses in comparison?

emr · 04-13-2010, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Is the Pentax 100mm Macro WR Worth it?

Well, I certainly hope so since I just ordered one!

**jpzk** · 04-13-2010, 06:55 AM

Pleased to see this thread because, at one time, I was tempted to sell my Tamron 90 Macro and get one of those new Pentax 100 Macro WR.
But, I still get some decent shots with the Tammy so maybe the IQ difference would not be that great?
Anyone has comparative shots between the Pentax vs. the Tamron?
JP

**montman** · 04-13-2010, 07:44 AM

100mm Macro WR at 2.8 (piece of fence wiring)

yeatzee · 04-13-2010, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Eagle_Friends

I'm looking into buying a macro lens and it has come down to the 100mm WR vs. the Tamron 90mm.

The Tamron is nearly half the cost of the WR, but if the image quality of the WR is THAT much better, I would not mind spending the extra.

Thoughts guys?

No, the IQ is not that much better. They only thing the pentax has in the IQ department, unless im confused, is that with bokeh highlights while stopped down will still be circular instead of jagged (dependent on the aperture). In macro, atleast the macro I do, there are never bokeh highlights so this means nothing to me. Also i remember reading the optics are the same from the DFA 100mm, which in several tests was shown as worse optically that the Tamron (though all modern day macro lenses are amazing optically inclluding the DFA). I looked into the DFA (the WR was not out a year ago obviously), Tamron, and sigma and remember seeing several sources say this (If I can find them I will link them). I chose the sigma based on the reviews and prices at the time and haven't lusted one bit for the DFA WR macro... its honestly not appealing to me whatsoever. YMWV as always

Edit: Oh and I almost forgot, with no aperture ring means no extension tubes unless you can source the extremely expensive and rare auto pentax ones. This is because 99% are manual and you need an aperture ring or you will be shooting wideopen no matter what. I shoot macro with extension tubes 80% of the time I take the sigma out. Yes you can buy cheap auto teleconverters but in my search for 3 cheap 2x auto TC's I've yet to get one on ebay. People have wised up to this long ago....

Mike Cash · 04-13-2010, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Stephen_B

maybe the Republican pr0n parlours should stay off limits

And maybe you should strive to limit your politically oriented jabs to the subforum created specifically to contain them.

Jodokast96 · 04-13-2010, 11:18 AM

Any reviews on the Tamron? Not that I place a lot of confidence in PopPhoto, but their recent test of the Pentax shows distortion almost off the charts good.

As to the extension tubes, Pentax is not the only option. I've got a set of Kenko's I picked up at a camera shop locally for $45. They are not a place for scoring bargains either as most lenses sell cheaper in the Marketplace than these guys sell for. But I do think I made out ok with this one.

04-12-2010, 08:34 PM	#1
Eagle_Friends Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 971	Is the Pentax 100mm Macro WR Worth it? I'm looking into buying a macro lens and it has come down to the 100mm WR vs. the Tamron 90mm. The Tamron is nearly half the cost of the WR, but if the image quality of the WR is THAT much better, I would not mind spending the extra. Thoughts guys?

04-13-2010, 07:44 AM	#12
montman Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Kansas City Photos: Gallery Posts: 576	Mmmm.... Bokeh.... 100mm Macro WR at 2.8 (piece of fence wiring)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Pentax D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Announced	Zebooka	Pentax News and Rumors	222	01-09-2010 03:51 PM
For Sale - Sold: PENTAX FA 100mm 2.8 MACRO	mayoapo	Sold Items	14	07-25-2009 12:52 PM
Pentax 100mm A Macro	Substitute	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	01-13-2009 06:38 AM
SMC-M 100mm f/4 Macro worth getting?	Kim	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	11-27-2006 09:58 AM

04-12-2010, 08:47 PM	#2
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I lust for the WR. I want to stick it on my K20D and go crawling around in muck and mud, sand and foam, in duststorms and locuststorms and shitstorms and jello-wrestling tournaments. I want to get close up to the funky action. I want to get into tidepools and sea-lion roosts and termite nests and decaying beached whale carcasses and Republican pr0n parlours and storm drains and the undersides of ostriches and emus and zombis. There are some places you just can't go without weather sealing.

04-13-2010, 12:32 AM	#3
Voe Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery Posts: 719	Originally posted by Eagle_Friends The Tamron is nearly half the cost of the WR, but if the image quality of the WR is THAT much better, I would not mind spending the extra. Thoughts guys? IMO the image quality of the Pentax 100mm WR is not that much better if at all. What you are paying for is the exclusive build quality and WR. Also you get a longer focal lenght which for a macro is a good thing to have. Another thing is that with the Pentax 100mm WR you get the removal of CA/PF by using Pentax K7 camera. I have the 100mm WR and it's a sweet lens. It's bokeh even stopped down will show better rounded highlighted OOF circles than non WR 100mm or Tamron 90mm.

04-13-2010, 02:20 AM	#4
Stephen_B New Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Fremantle Posts: 16	Originally posted by RioRico I lust for the WR. I want to stick it on my K20D and go crawling around in muck and mud, sand and foam, in duststorms and locuststorms and shitstorms and jello-wrestling tournaments. I want to get close up to the funky action. I want to get into tidepools and sea-lion roosts and termite nests and decaying beached whale carcasses and Republican pr0n parlours and storm drains and the undersides of ostriches and emus and zombis. There are some places you just can't go without weather sealing. Just remember the WR stands for Weather Resistant - the lens is not weather sealed like the DA*s - so maybe the Republican pr0n parlours should stay off limits I have the older non WR version and I have to say it is a beautiful lens.

04-13-2010, 04:54 AM	#5
Voe Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery Posts: 719	Originally posted by Stephen_B Just remember the WR stands for Weather Resistant - the lens is not weather sealed like the DA*s - so maybe the Republican pr0n parlours should stay off limits Never heard of a Pentax WR lens being less WR than another Pentax WR lens. Is this based on manifacturer data or is it just a claim?

04-13-2010, 04:57 AM	#6
leadbelly Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 597	Is this true? That the DFA WR macro is "less" resistant than the DA*s? All along I thought they had the same resistance...

04-13-2010, 05:09 AM	#7
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	It is doubtful that I will ever be interested because the trade off of the WR for the aperture ring is not worth it. I can't use it on my WR film body, the LX. Also, I think a WR zoom that covers most of the FL you are likely to use on a hike or slog makes sense. Back in the 80s, I used the 100mm/4 macro a lot on film. It is a great FL, but it is not a lens that is used so much that I would just leave on the body. When you start needing to change lenses frequently, the WR is not as useful.

04-13-2010, 06:17 AM	#8
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	Originally posted by Voe Never heard of a Pentax WR lens being less WR than another Pentax WR lens. Is this based on manifacturer data or is it just a claim? Yeah, the DA* series is supposed to have better sealing. From the Pentaximaging site: The DA* series "The tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction enhances durability for use in both rainy and dusty conditions..." The WR series "Weather-resistant to handle damp, inclement conditions."

04-13-2010, 06:24 AM	#9
emr Guest	Originally posted by farfisa Yeah, the DA* series is supposed to have better sealing. From the Pentaximaging site: The DA* series "The tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction enhances durability for use in both rainy and dusty conditions..." The WR series "Weather-resistant to handle damp, inclement conditions." And how's the AW (All Weather) of new 645D lenses in comparison?

04-13-2010, 06:25 AM	#10
emr Guest	Quote: Is the Pentax 100mm Macro WR Worth it? Well, I certainly hope so since I just ordered one!

04-13-2010, 06:55 AM	#11
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Pleased to see this thread because, at one time, I was tempted to sell my Tamron 90 Macro and get one of those new Pentax 100 Macro WR. But, I still get some decent shots with the Tammy so maybe the IQ difference would not be that great? Anyone has comparative shots between the Pentax vs. the Tamron? JP

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-13-2010, 10:45 AM	#13
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by Eagle_Friends I'm looking into buying a macro lens and it has come down to the 100mm WR vs. the Tamron 90mm. The Tamron is nearly half the cost of the WR, but if the image quality of the WR is THAT much better, I would not mind spending the extra. Thoughts guys? No, the IQ is not that much better. They only thing the pentax has in the IQ department, unless im confused, is that with bokeh highlights while stopped down will still be circular instead of jagged (dependent on the aperture). In macro, atleast the macro I do, there are never bokeh highlights so this means nothing to me. Also i remember reading the optics are the same from the DFA 100mm, which in several tests was shown as worse optically that the Tamron (though all modern day macro lenses are amazing optically inclluding the DFA). I looked into the DFA (the WR was not out a year ago obviously), Tamron, and sigma and remember seeing several sources say this (If I can find them I will link them). I chose the sigma based on the reviews and prices at the time and haven't lusted one bit for the DFA WR macro... its honestly not appealing to me whatsoever. YMWV as always Edit: Oh and I almost forgot, with no aperture ring means no extension tubes unless you can source the extremely expensive and rare auto pentax ones. This is because 99% are manual and you need an aperture ring or you will be shooting wideopen no matter what. I shoot macro with extension tubes 80% of the time I take the sigma out. Yes you can buy cheap auto teleconverters but in my search for 3 cheap 2x auto TC's I've yet to get one on ebay. People have wised up to this long ago....

04-13-2010, 11:15 AM	#14
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Stephen_B maybe the Republican pr0n parlours should stay off limits And maybe you should strive to limit your politically oriented jabs to the subforum created specifically to contain them.

04-13-2010, 11:18 AM	#15
Jodokast96 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Erial, NJ USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,134	Any reviews on the Tamron? Not that I place a lot of confidence in PopPhoto, but their recent test of the Pentax shows distortion almost off the charts good. As to the extension tubes, Pentax is not the only option. I've got a set of Kenko's I picked up at a camera shop locally for $45. They are not a place for scoring bargains either as most lenses sell cheaper in the Marketplace than these guys sell for. But I do think I made out ok with this one.