Originally posted by Rondec I wonder how much of a difference there is between a 180mm macro and 100mm macro in terms of macro photography. I looked it up and the Pentax Sigma 180mm macro has a minimum focus distance of 46 cm and the DFA 100 macro has 30 cm. That's about 6 inches difference -- it's a real difference, but maybe not worth the extra cost you would get by releasing a second generation DFA *200mm f4 macro. The same would be true if you bump the aperture to f2 -- you are probably talking a 1200 dollar lens then.
Both are 1:1 lenses, so the difference is subject to camera distance, it being nearly double with the 180mm lens, doubled with a 200mm lens. The other difference, and this is actually a fairly big one, is background control. The longer lens sees less of the background as the field of view is very different.
I have 4 macro rigs that I use on a regular basis, the an M50/4 macro, the FA100/2.8WR macro, the FA*200/4macro and the Bellows 100/4. The 100/2.8 and 200/4 are relatively interchangeable, either one is good for general purpose macro work, the 200mm is more comfortable because of the greater working distance, the 100mm is good because it's close enough that a small camera movement goes a long way. I use a macro rail that can be moved sideways as well as forwards and backwards, the 100mm is more comfortable on that piece of gear.
The Bellows 100 is what I use when the subject is really little because I can get greater than 1:1 with it.
I very rarely use the 50mm macro, I find it to be too short most of the time. It also needs an extension tube to go greater than 1:1. I don't mind that, it's not like as if macro photography is ever done in a hurry, but the working distance can be uncomfortable.
---------- Post added Aug 2nd, 2022 at 09:20 AM ----------
Originally posted by pres589 Maybe we can have someone that's seriously used both the Pentax 100 and Sigma 180 or Pentax 200mm macros to join in and share their opinion on how much the longer focal length would appeal to them.
Holds up hand.......
I use the 100mm far more than the 200mm. Both are great lenses (well actually the FA*200/4 macro is one of those sell your firstborn to get one lenses), mostly out of sloth than anything else. The 100mm lens lives in my camera bag, the 200 lives in the same backpack as my FA*300/4.5, A400/5.6 and A*600/5.6. It's heavier to get at....
No excuse, if I truly cared about my photography I would make the effort I suppose, but the 100mm lens does the job just as well as the 200mm most of the time.
I don't know if that answers your question or not. I just checked my Lightroom catalogue and I use the 200mm lens somewhat more than half as much as the 100mm in terms of exposures taken, but I also tend to do more focus stacks with the 200mm lens, so in terms of actual image counts, the 100mm is probably 10:1 over the 200mm.
If a person is only going to have one macro lens, the 100mm focal length is the way to go, but you can't beat the rendering of the FA*200/4 macro. It is lovely. I'd definitely recommend it as a second macro, with the Sigma as a less desirable one since it is actually obtainable and I expect it is a decent enough lens.
Shot with the FA*200/4 macro, this is a 24 exposure focus stack.
[/url]
---------- Post added Aug 2nd, 2022 at 09:28 AM ----------
Originally posted by Rondec I think the interesting thing to me is the question of whether this could be a way forward for the FA limiteds. The big Achilles heel for those lenses is purple fringing and the addition of HD coatings didn't seem to do much for them. I think that if they could keep the FA limiteds a similar size to what they are and fix PF and add sealing, they would be pretty appealing going forward, even if they kept the screw drive.
Unfortunately, coatings aren't a panacea for fringing. The only way to deal with that is to design a lens that doesn't fringe. To get away from fringing in the classic Limited lenses, new optical designs will be required. A new optical design is bound to cause consternation, especially with the 77, which has a well deserved reputation for beautiful three dimensional rendering.
A new optical formula will change the rendering. Whether it's better or worse will be somewhat subjective since Pentax lenses tend to have great rendering anyway, but it will cause great consternation among the purists who like the 77 just the way it is.
It's a little cultish.
---------- Post added Aug 2nd, 2022 at 09:30 AM ----------
Originally posted by brofkand While I personally think there are plenty of SMC Limiteds out there for folks who want them, I agree that Pentax / Ricoh isn't going to do much to them as is. I'm surprised they upgraded to the HD coatings. I think the new D FA 21 is evidence that Ricoh will probably release new D FA Limiteds ... hopefully it doesn't take too long for them to be released!
I suspect they decided to phase out SMC (which has probably had a dozen or more iterations anyway) in favor of HD to simplify manufacturing.
---------- Post added Aug 2nd, 2022 at 09:32 AM ----------
Originally posted by StiffLegged Or maybe they just don’t do SMC coatings any more, so new stock would be HD coated by default. Anyway, a new design 100 macro would reduce PF by better optical design. Good coatings reduce flare by reducing reflections, don’t they?
Correct.
---------- Post added Aug 2nd, 2022 at 09:38 AM ----------
Originally posted by Serkevan It's probably only for as long as they have glass elements. Once they run out, I expect they'll replace the DA 50/1.8 with a near-identical DFA 50/1.8 (or f/1.7 for historical purposes
).
It's not really clever to have your only standard prime be a 1k€ chunk of glass, IMO.
I expect you are correct. I also see the FA lens pirating sales to an extent from the DFA* lens as they are nominally the same focal length and maximum aperture. It seems to me they could update the cosmetics on the FA50/1.4 in much the same way they updated the 35/2, and limit the maximum aperture to f/2 to give more separation between the two lenses.
In the real world, once both lenses are stopped down to f/5.6 or smaller, there isn't much to say between them. It's wide open performance that one is paying for with the DAF* lens.