Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.
I've wrung just about every ounce of sharpness I can get out of
MY third-party lenses. I have a Vivitar 80-200mm lens that I consider extremely sharp. You have seen some of my posts using it. I have a Sigma 28-80mm 1:2 macro (close focus?) lens that is also very sharp. I have used a reversing ring with a SMC Pentax f:1.4, 50mm lens that gave me what I consider "exceptional" sharpness and color saturation with at least 1:1 magnification. I have a 28mm Sears macro that has turned in results that has garnered some very high praise. But.... nothing I've ever accomplished even comes close to the absolutely incredible images I see posted here by members using the brand-name, high-end, dedicated macro lenses. Eaglem's flower photos are mind-boggling! But, as hard as I try, I can't hold a candle for him to trip his shutter by! The same with some of the images mtux posts as well as many others. You simply cannot produce images like that with the lenses I'm using. Impossible!
It's obvious to me that the lenses I have.... as good as they might be.... are what they are. I think I have done well with them. I think I have pushed them to their maximum potential, which ain't half bad,
sometimes. But, I'm ready to move on and move up. I would like to have one of every GOOD, dedicated macro lens on earth, but I will consider myself a lucky man if I end up with only one. So, I'm on a mission to investigate what's available, what the pros and cons are of each and which one will give me the biggest bang for my buck.
I'm not a wealthy man and money is a factor in just about every facet of my life. I'm single, live alone and have a fixed income. But, I'm determined to have one of the lenses that will allow me to no longer carry the jock-straps of those who post these magnificent images!
(No offense meant, gays/gals!)
I have physical limitations that preclude me from getting down on my knees to get close to my subject, so most of my photography will be either standing up... or, bending over for short periods of time. Also, I do a lot of desk-top shooting if I can bring my subject indoors. I like photographing flowers and weeds and stuff like that. I'm not into the incredibly close-up photos of fly's eyes, so, I don't need a lens that will produce almost microscopic enlargement. Also, I'd like to do some bird photography, but I think to expect a lens to be capable of doing both high-end, quality macro shots AND get the knife-edge sharpness of some of the bird photos is nothing more than a pipe dream. I've got a Pentax-K, f:5.6, 400mm that will do for now. The birds can wait!
So.... back to the original question in the thread title: Comments or opinions please on the Sigma f:2.8, 105mm macro lens. How does it stack up against the Pentax line of dedicated macros.... for instance, the 100mm that I asked about a couple of days ago? If one is better than the other, why so? How about focal length? Which will allow me to stand off at a reasonable distance and still get the images I seek?
Thanks for your patience.