[Knock]

I'm in the market for a good macro lens in the 100mm range. I prefer a fixed focal length over a zoom. I'm comfortable with the M42 mounts, but not opposed to K mounts. I have a SMC macro tak 50mm/f4 that I love and, but often I wish I had a little more reach. I've had my eye on the SMC macro tak 100mm/f4. I've also read about Kiron 105mm/2.8, and similar Vivitar lenses (which I believe were made by Kiron). The Kirons that I've seen are usually at least twice as much as the tak 100mm macro. The Kirons seem to be very highly regarded. Does anyone have experience with both of these lenses? And if so, is the performance of the lens worth the extra money? What would give me the best bang for my buck? Are there any other lenses out there that I should include in my decision (Sigma, Tamron)?

[bobpur]

Sigma 90mm, " A " Mount as good as my Tamron and smaller. Only does 1/2 but I find it enough and can add the extra
lens for more.
Sigma 90mm F2.8 Macro Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
If you can find one ( I have one for Nikon ) Vivitar 135mm close focus
Vivitar Auto Close Focusing (1:2) 135mm f/2.8 Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[Sliver-Surfer]

The tamron adaptall 2.5/90mm is the most versatile mf 100mmish macro I have. I prefer it to the Pentax-a 4/100mm. I am more of a fan of 50mm for macro how ever.

[aoeu]

SMC Pentax-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro

It lives on my camera. Unlike the other lenses mentioned it is compatible with PTTL flash units.

And is 1:1

---

Last edited by aoeu; 01-09-2015 at 12:23 PM. Reason: Adding a fact.

[Not a Number]

The Kiron macro well deserves its reputation for image quality and quality of build and is well worth it if you can find it for a good price. Especially if you can find it with "A" contacts. The obvious advantages over the Pentax 100mm manual focus macros (either screw mount or K-mount) are f/2.8 vs f/4 and infinity to 1x magnification. The Pentax MF lenses require an extension tube or add-on closeup lens for 1x power - at the loss of infinity focus.

Unfortunately the reputation has increased demand for the Kiron macro and inflated the price what I feel is about twice of what it should sell for. Still, you can sometimes get it for around 200 dollars in excellent condition on eBay. Look for listings that don't specify the mount but are obviously K-mount with contacts and keep your mouth shut about it. So, yes, I think it is worth the extra dollars but only if you can get good price.

Otherwise you might be better off getting a more modern lens like some of the Sigma lenses.

However the Pentax 100mm macros are fine lenses in themselves. As the saying goes nobody made a bad macro prime lens.

[jatrax]

As the saying goes nobody made a bad macro prime lens.

+1 If you are trying to pick one 100mm macro from another you are splitting hairs. You are not going to see any real difference in the real world. Go by features and price. Any of the Pentax 100mm are superb I have had 4 different ones and honestly cannot tell one photo from another. Obviously one with 'A' contacts is easier to use. However, I have seen older Pentax-A and Pentax-M lenses go for almost as much as brand new DFA 100mm ones. So shop carefully and understand that scarcity is altering the price more than quality in some of these.

[Canada_Rockies]

I use an M 100/4 macro as my macro lens. Downsides, f/4, 1:2, manual exposure, manual focus. Upsides, as sharp as any, use a 50mm extension tube to give 1:1 when needed. Less money than most because of the two downsides listed, neither of which I find even inconvenient. Manual exposure saves me matching exposures in post. Manual focus puts me in CIF all the time. 1:2 is plenty for bugs from bee size up.

[shooz]

Considering your love of the M50 focal length, don't discount the Sigma 70. although discontinued in K mount, it's one of the finest macros I've ever used.

[jrpower10]

+1 on the FA 100 f2.8. Has advantages, such as autofocus and focus limiter when not doing macro (I switch to manual when doing macro but use the lens as a short tele also), and, as said, PTTL flash compatible.

[RAART]

I have Tamron MF 90mm lens with A contacts and without also the original extender and it is very good. I have also plastic fantastic Vivitar 105mm AF and it is identified in EXIF as Pentax, guess they are identical and it is also very good. My 50mm Olympus macro is excellent but usually I need more working distance and therefore not too much used. I really like my bellows with 100mm F4 pre-set Pentax M42 lens on it and this will be my choice if I can use it. As someone mention above flash compatibility, personally I am not worried about this as I use manual flashes with radio triggers (dirt cheap Cowboy Studio ones) anyway and do not miss anything there. But if you like to know here is my personal macro lenses preference (for reasonable amount of money): Vivitar Series 1 90mm, Olympus 50mm, Tamron SP 90mm, etc. I plan to get Sigma AF macro just to have it but prior this I need to sell Tamron...

[DSims]

The Kiron is excellent (I had the Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5 version w/ A contacts). The IQ is outstanding. But it's a bit big and heavy - not a problem for using it, but in reality I left it out of my bag and it stayed home most of the time. Also, like many (perhaps most) macros, it's not so strong at infinity or even "normal" (i.e. portrait and beyond) focusing distances.

I ended up keeping the inexpensive Cosina 100/3.5 (recommended), which is also very light in weight. And I got the D FA 100 WR macro. The 100 WR goes with me when I think I might need a macro - it's relatively light, small, and it's very versatile (due to good performance at infinity, WR, and AF, amongst other characteristics). The good news is that most all macro lenses are pretty good in IQ, so you don't have to go to the top of the line models just yet.

I think I liked the IQ from the Vivitar 105/2.5 just as much as (perhaps slightly more than) the 100 WR, but the best lens is the one you have with you.

[Bruce Clark]

You could also consider Sigma 105mm 1:2.8 DG Macro. It has 1:1 capability. Minimum focus distance 0.3m. I can't compare it to any of the others as I have not used any other macro lens.

[old4570]

Vivitar 90mm or 105mm
Sigma 105 , Early MF 90mm is 1:2
Tamron 90mm SP Di
Tamron 90mm adaptalls - You might get the blue dot !
Kiron 105 and all the lenses based on it , sure ..
Pentax 100mm .. ( all good ) but I would avoid M42 ... Especially for macro ..

[lmd91343]

I've had more than 10 dedicated macro lenses, including Vivitar 105, 90, 90-180, Cosina 100, Canon (2x), Pentax. None of them were/are bad.

The one whose images I like the best is the SMC Macro Tak 100/4. It is probably the best deal available now costing less than $200 at KEH.

[mtngal]

I started out with the Phoenix 100 macro - it does 1:2 natively but came with a matched adapter (i.e., dioper) that took away infinity but allowed it to do 1:1. It was very light plastic and very inexpensive new (I think the AF version was $100 new) - it was marketed under a whole bunch of different names. The optics were excellent, far better than you would expect from such an inexpensive lens. If you happen to see one with it's matched adapter for a reasonable price, it would be worth a look. I then bought the Viv Series 1 105 macro (Kiron with the A settings) and I wasn't sure it was all that much better than the Phoenix as far as optics, just a whole lot better built. As was pointed out, the Viv is pretty heavy, which didn't bother me all that much until I started to have some medical issues and couldn't use it for more than a few minutes at a time.

I recently bought the Pentax 100WR - it's very capable, much lighter so I can shoot it without pain, and I like the bokeh. The Viv could be harsh at times. I don't have any incentive to sell the Viv and I love it dearly, so I'll most likely just keep it for now, especially since I regretted selling the Phoenix not long after I sent it off.