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....