Originally posted by reh321 100mm is an awkward length for me; even in “FF” it is too long for landscapes, and even in “APS-C” too short for many animal photos I take. I suppose I could use it on a “Q”, where it would give basically the same view 300mm gives me on “APS-C”. No thanks for now; I’ll wait and see if any future camera bodies interest me.
Eh? 90-100mm is about the sweet spot for portable macro lenses; shorter focal length gets you very close to the subject at 1:1 magnification, and while longer FL obviously gives you more working distance, it also means the lens will inevitably be larger. It's also a fantastic length for portraits, and there are many older macros in this range where excellent macro sharpness meets delicious rendering (Two very well-known 90mm f/2.5 examples are the Tamron model 52B and Tokina AT-X, a.k.a. "Bokina". There's also the Voigtlander 90mm and 125mm SL lenses, or... you know,
the very much loved Pentax DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR ).
Honestly, I might be interested, depending on the rendering. The current one I don't really like enough to warrant substituting my Tamron, and it's gonna be competing with the DFA21 for funding, but who knows...