According to the tests the optical performance is quite equal, with perhaps the Pentax slightly behind at the very largest apertures. I have the Sigma which I bought at a good price from a fellow PDMLer - it´s excellent but I do not use it so much so I cannot comment on mechanical durability. Looks good, though. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http:\\www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
----- Original Message ----- From: "Margus Männik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:26 PM Subject: Macro lenses > Hi all, > > the insect season is abot to begin... > last yeaars I have used rather medium > format for macro shots, but now there's > a time to get good macro lens for my > Z-1p. Sigma lens prices have lowered > here lately (Pentax prices stand > firm...). I want this lens also for > "normal" photography, so the AF is > needed. The cheap solution would be > Pentax FA 100/3.5, but the 1:2 ratio is > not satisfying for me. FA100/2.8 is > absolutely ok, but pricey. Sigma 105 > Macro is about 1/3 cheaper, but what's > about the performance and reliability ? > Tamron 90mm - seems to be great > optically, but has strange filter thread > (55mm) and I do not like the handling. > Market of used Pentax lenses is rather > non-existing here and I do not want to > buy lens like this without trying it > first. > > What should I do ? How big are the real > differences between Tamron 90, Sigma 105 > and Pentax FA100/2.8? > > BR, Margus > Tallinn, Estonia >
