K/M/A 100/4 Macro vs. F/FA 100/2.8 Macro vs. 3rd-Party
How does the old K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro compare optically to the F/FA 100/2.8 Macro? >From http://www.pbase.com/steephill/image/38667710, it looks like the 2.8 resolves more detail. What about other factors? I've read either here or on DPReview or both that Pentax macros are better than the best 3rd-party macros, including the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105. What about the K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro -- is it also better than the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105? Also, I'm surprised at how much smaller and lighter the new D FA 100/2.8 is compared to its FA predecessor. Does it sacrifice image quality compared to the FA? Thanks, Greg
Re: K/M/A 100/4 Macro vs. F/FA 100/2.8 Macro vs. 3rd-Party
Hello Greg, All I can say is that I used to own the FA 100/2.8 macro and at this point own the Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro. I don't see any real difference in image quality between them. I have heard that the FA 100/2.8 Macro does have some issues with the *istD and CA, but have no direct experience with it. I am more than happy with the Tamron and would probably buy it again over the Pentax if given the opportunity. It is not much cheaper either - at the time of purchase, I believe it was about $30-40 cheaper. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, January 24, 2005, 9:41:06 PM, you wrote: GL> How does the old K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro compare optically to the F/FA 100/2.8 GL> Macro? GL> From http://www.pbase.com/steephill/image/38667710, it looks like the 2.8 GL> resolves more detail. What about other factors? GL> I've read either here or on DPReview or both that Pentax macros are better GL> than the best 3rd-party macros, including the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105. GL> What about the K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro -- is it also better than the Tamron 90 GL> and the Sigma 105? GL> Also, I'm surprised at how much smaller and lighter the new D FA 100/2.8 GL> is compared to its FA predecessor. Does it sacrifice image quality GL> compared to the FA? GL> Thanks, GL> Greg
Re: K/M/A 100/4 Macro vs. F/FA 100/2.8 Macro vs. 3rd-Party
> I've read either here or on DPReview or both that Pentax macros are better > than the best 3rd-party macros, including the Tamron 90 and the > Sigma 105. What about the K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro -- is it also better > than the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105? I would prefer the Sigma 105 EX to either the K or M 100mm Macro as it goes to life size 1:1 as opposed to 1:2 with either Pentax lens, the optical quality of the Sigma is truly excellent as well. I've never used the A, F or FA versions so cannot comment, the only Pentax macro lens I have kept is the 50mm f4. John -- Original Message --- From: "Greg Lovern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:41:06 -0700 (MST) Subject: K/M/A 100/4 Macro vs. F/FA 100/2.8 Macro vs. 3rd-Party > How does the old K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro compare optically to the F/FA 100/2.8 > Macro? > > >From http://www.pbase.com/steephill/image/38667710, it looks like the 2.8 > resolves more detail. What about other factors? > > I've read either here or on DPReview or both that Pentax macros are better > than the best 3rd-party macros, including the Tamron 90 and the > Sigma 105. What about the K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro -- is it also better > than the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105? > > Also, I'm surprised at how much smaller and lighter the new D FA 100/2.8 > is compared to its FA predecessor. Does it sacrifice image quality > compared to the FA? > > Thanks, > > Greg --- End of Original Message ---
Re: K/M/A 100/4 Macro vs. F/FA 100/2.8 Macro vs. 3rd-Party
> I've read either here or on DPReview or both that Pentax macros are better > than the best 3rd-party macros, including the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105. > What about the K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro -- is it also better than the Tamron 90 > and the Sigma 105? I've had the chance to try many a 100-ish macro lens (90mm-105mm), and I do have to say that I've never found one that wasn't at least very good. (Note that I'm not claiming that they're all good, and there might possibly be exceptions.) I suspect that the differences would be fairly small. Fred
