Problems with Macro lenses

tvrrproto48 · 12-27-2020, 02:45 PM

Why do macro lenses seem to have a disproportionate problem with the glass? I have bought used lenses from eBay, Amazon, and BnM stores for decades. I have only owned one true macro lens and that was for my medium format. Well I'm in the market for a 100 2.8 macro. Don't know which version I'll go with yet, A, F, FA, or DA. Searching I find most descriptions for a used macro seems to indicate haze, or separation or fungus. I'm wondering why these conditions attack macros more than any others?

Jeff

stevebrot · 12-27-2020, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by tvrrproto48

I'm wondering why these conditions attack macros more than any others?

I have three dedicated macro lenses, none of which have those problems (two of which bought used). I guess I beat the odds?

Steve

**TwoUptons** · 12-27-2020, 03:10 PM

This seems to be pretty common for any specific "desirable" lens I search for online, not just the macros...

They seem to often be either remarkably overpriced "minty" (were they stored in a chewing gum factory?) or "looks great, ex+++++, has some fungus..."
The latter seems particularly true for lenses from Japan...

But that doesn't always happen... I found a very good deal at the marketplace here on a FA100 f3.5 macro and a good price at KEH for a FA 50mm f2.8. Both lenses have been excellent (though the box the 100 came in looked like it had been drop-kicked, the lens was fine).

-Eric

**aslyfox** · 12-27-2020, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by TwoUptons

. . . I found a very good deal at the marketplace here on a FA100 f3.5 macro and a good price at KEH for a FA 50mm f2.8. Both lenses have been excellent (though the box the 100 came in looked like it had been drop-kicked, the lens was fine).

-Eric

the 3.5 has a .5x ratio not 1x if that is important

the 50mm is a 1x

Remember that the F. FA, and D FA `100mm F2.8 Macros are 1x

all share the same optical design

Quote:

The optical design is the tried-and-proven formula of the previous generation D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro lens, which in turn had inherited the optical design from the well-respected FA 100mm F2.8 and F 100mm F2.8 macro lenses introduced in 1991 and 1987, respectively. . . .

Read more at: Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro Review - Specifications | PentaxForums.com Reviews

I cannot help on the OP's original question though

northcoastgreg · 12-27-2020, 03:25 PM

I've also had good luck with Macros, both old and new. I've had no problem with my DFA 100 Macro, which I bought new over ten years ago. In more recent years, I've purchased a brand new HD DA 35 Ltd Macro, a used A 50/2.8 Macro, and a used FA 50/2.8 Macro, and I've had problems with none of them.

tvrrproto48 · 12-27-2020, 03:42 PM

One listing was from Florida and the rest Japan so it could be high humidity but with that said I have purchased over a dozen used lens over the years and most were from Japan followed by the east coast of the US. Never had an issue. I sold off my 645D system and I'm regretting now parting with the 120 macro. I should have kept it and bought the adapter. I would like to get the A mount 100 2.8 but will have to save up more. I was just wondering if I got one if I would someday have glass issues.

Jeff

**pepperberry farm** · 12-27-2020, 03:55 PM

I have to disagree with the OP also - I have bought used lenses, including macros from 35 to 100mm, with no problems at all...

Bertrand3000 · 12-27-2020, 03:59 PM

There is no reason macro lenses would be more vulnerable than regular lenses when it comes to haze, fungus or element separation.

I have the DFA 50 macro F2.8 and I'm happy with it. Only the too short minimum focus distance bothers me a little.

**Cerebum** · 12-27-2020, 05:00 PM

Sorry, my Tak 100mm f4, Vivitar series 1 105mm and 35mm macro limited have all been bang on

Not a Number · 12-27-2020, 05:03 PM

I have over a half dozen prime macro or enlarger lenses, all bought used and other than a little dust in them no other problems. One prime the distance scale was off but that was easily adjusted and seem accurate compared side by side with another copy of the same lens.

Luck of the draw I would say.

**UncleVanya** · 12-27-2020, 05:55 PM

The f and fa 100 have a propensity foe separation according to a lens repair guy I know. He did a cla on my f 100 f2.8 macro and showed me images of the lens elements and explained what was going on. My guess is that the DA uses a more modern optical cement since he had not experienced this problem with that lens.

But as others have said I don’t think it is a specifically macro related problem. But the F and FA have had a history of this issue or so I’m told. I know I’ve seen copies on eBay with the same issue mine had.

Sevilla · 12-27-2020, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by tvrrproto48

Why do macro lenses seem to have a disproportionate problem with the glass? I have bought used lenses from eBay, Amazon, and BnM stores for decades. I have only owned one true macro lens and that was for my medium format. Well I'm in the market for a 100 2.8 macro. Don't know which version I'll go with yet, A, F, FA, or DA. Searching I find most descriptions for a used macro seems to indicate haze, or separation or fungus. I'm wondering why these conditions attack macros more than any others?

Jeff

I have quite a few lenses and the only with a little spot of fungi is a 100mm F4. I think there is something to this and may have to do with the fact that a macro lens is more used on the field with close ups and weather and elements in general.

dlhawes · 12-28-2020, 07:42 AM

The D FA 100 f/2.8 is a terrific lens, though it's got the SMC motor that seems to have caused a lot of trouble. Mine's working great, knock on wood.

**UncleVanya** · 12-28-2020, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by dlhawes

The FA 100 f/2.8 is a terrific lens, though it's got the SMC motor that seems to have caused a lot of trouble. Mine's working great, knock on wood.

??????

The FA 100 f2.8 has a screw drive focus system using an in body motor not an in lens motor ( as does the F and DA version including the WR version.) There are no Pentax branded macro lenses with any other type of focus system.

SMC is a coating on the lens elements. Did you mix this up with SDM? SDM is the silent motor system used in some lenses. The early SDM was prone to failure, the newer versions not so much.

tibbitts · 12-28-2020, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by dlhawes

The D FA 100 f/2.8 is a terrific lens, though it's got the SMC motor that seems to have caused a lot of trouble. Mine's working great, knock on wood.

I didn't think any Pentax macro lenses even had a focus motor, much less one of the failure-prone SDM motors.

12-27-2020, 02:45 PM	#1
tvrrproto48 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 41	Problems with Macro lenses Why do macro lenses seem to have a disproportionate problem with the glass? I have bought used lenses from eBay, Amazon, and BnM stores for decades. I have only owned one true macro lens and that was for my medium format. Well I'm in the market for a 100 2.8 macro. Don't know which version I'll go with yet, A, F, FA, or DA. Searching I find most descriptions for a used macro seems to indicate haze, or separation or fungus. I'm wondering why these conditions attack macros more than any others? Jeff

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
aperture problems k 30-- a lenses	niels hansen	Pentax K-30 & K-50	21	07-24-2019 10:41 PM
Solving AF Problems - 8 Common Autofocus Problems - And Their Solutions	interested_observer	General Photography	17	04-27-2016 03:06 AM
Anybody with mirror problems with K30? Focus problems.	simbon4o	Pentax K-30 & K-50	14	08-28-2013 10:39 PM
Any freezing problems with K30?(like those with K5) or any other problems?	simbon4o	Pentax K-30 & K-50	21	01-03-2013 01:54 PM
Need help with exposure problems and snow photography problems, urgent please respond	montezuma	Photographic Technique	7	02-24-2008 05:43 PM

12-27-2020, 02:58 PM	#2
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by tvrrproto48 I'm wondering why these conditions attack macros more than any others? I have three dedicated macro lenses, none of which have those problems (two of which bought used). I guess I beat the odds? Steve

12-27-2020, 03:10 PM	#3
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,213	This seems to be pretty common for any specific "desirable" lens I search for online, not just the macros... They seem to often be either remarkably overpriced "minty" (were they stored in a chewing gum factory?) or "looks great, ex+++++, has some fungus..." The latter seems particularly true for lenses from Japan... But that doesn't always happen... I found a very good deal at the marketplace here on a FA100 f3.5 macro and a good price at KEH for a FA 50mm f2.8. Both lenses have been excellent (though the box the 100 came in looked like it had been drop-kicked, the lens was fine). -Eric

12-27-2020, 03:10 PM	#4
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,581	Originally posted by TwoUptons . . . I found a very good deal at the marketplace here on a FA100 f3.5 macro and a good price at KEH for a FA 50mm f2.8. Both lenses have been excellent (though the box the 100 came in looked like it had been drop-kicked, the lens was fine). -Eric the 3.5 has a .5x ratio not 1x if that is important the 50mm is a 1x Remember that the F. FA, and D FA `100mm F2.8 Macros are 1x all share the same optical design Quote: The optical design is the tried-and-proven formula of the previous generation D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro lens, which in turn had inherited the optical design from the well-respected FA 100mm F2.8 and F 100mm F2.8 macro lenses introduced in 1991 and 1987, respectively. . . . Read more at: Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro Review - Specifications \| PentaxForums.com Reviews I cannot help on the OP's original question though

12-27-2020, 03:25 PM	#5
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	I've also had good luck with Macros, both old and new. I've had no problem with my DFA 100 Macro, which I bought new over ten years ago. In more recent years, I've purchased a brand new HD DA 35 Ltd Macro, a used A 50/2.8 Macro, and a used FA 50/2.8 Macro, and I've had problems with none of them.

12-27-2020, 03:42 PM	#6
tvrrproto48 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 41 Original Poster	One listing was from Florida and the rest Japan so it could be high humidity but with that said I have purchased over a dozen used lens over the years and most were from Japan followed by the east coast of the US. Never had an issue. I sold off my 645D system and I'm regretting now parting with the 120 macro. I should have kept it and bought the adapter. I would like to get the A mount 100 2.8 but will have to save up more. I was just wondering if I got one if I would someday have glass issues. Jeff

12-27-2020, 03:55 PM	#7
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,661	I have to disagree with the OP also - I have bought used lenses, including macros from 35 to 100mm, with no problems at all...

12-27-2020, 03:59 PM	#8
Bertrand3000 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Posts: 2,009	There is no reason macro lenses would be more vulnerable than regular lenses when it comes to haze, fungus or element separation. I have the DFA 50 macro F2.8 and I'm happy with it. Only the too short minimum focus distance bothers me a little.

12-27-2020, 05:00 PM	#9
Cerebum Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Lancaster Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,828	Sorry, my Tak 100mm f4, Vivitar series 1 105mm and 35mm macro limited have all been bang on

12-27-2020, 05:03 PM	#10
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	I have over a half dozen prime macro or enlarger lenses, all bought used and other than a little dust in them no other problems. One prime the distance scale was off but that was easily adjusted and seem accurate compared side by side with another copy of the same lens. Luck of the draw I would say.

12-27-2020, 05:55 PM	#11
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	The f and fa 100 have a propensity foe separation according to a lens repair guy I know. He did a cla on my f 100 f2.8 macro and showed me images of the lens elements and explained what was going on. My guess is that the DA uses a more modern optical cement since he had not experienced this problem with that lens. But as others have said I don’t think it is a specifically macro related problem. But the F and FA have had a history of this issue or so I’m told. I know I’ve seen copies on eBay with the same issue mine had.

12-27-2020, 06:49 PM	#12
Sevilla Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 66	Originally posted by tvrrproto48 Why do macro lenses seem to have a disproportionate problem with the glass? I have bought used lenses from eBay, Amazon, and BnM stores for decades. I have only owned one true macro lens and that was for my medium format. Well I'm in the market for a 100 2.8 macro. Don't know which version I'll go with yet, A, F, FA, or DA. Searching I find most descriptions for a used macro seems to indicate haze, or separation or fungus. I'm wondering why these conditions attack macros more than any others? Jeff I have quite a few lenses and the only with a little spot of fungi is a 100mm F4. I think there is something to this and may have to do with the fact that a macro lens is more used on the field with close ups and weather and elements in general.

12-28-2020, 07:42 AM	#13
dlhawes Guest	The D FA 100 f/2.8 is a terrific lens, though it's got the SMC motor that seems to have caused a lot of trouble. Mine's working great, knock on wood.

12-28-2020, 07:46 AM	#14
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by dlhawes The FA 100 f/2.8 is a terrific lens, though it's got the SMC motor that seems to have caused a lot of trouble. Mine's working great, knock on wood. ?????? The FA 100 f2.8 has a screw drive focus system using an in body motor not an in lens motor ( as does the F and DA version including the WR version.) There are no Pentax branded macro lenses with any other type of focus system. SMC is a coating on the lens elements. Did you mix this up with SDM? SDM is the silent motor system used in some lenses. The early SDM was prone to failure, the newer versions not so much.

12-28-2020, 09:40 AM	#15
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	Originally posted by dlhawes The D FA 100 f/2.8 is a terrific lens, though it's got the SMC motor that seems to have caused a lot of trouble. Mine's working great, knock on wood. I didn't think any Pentax macro lenses even had a focus motor, much less one of the failure-prone SDM motors.