Hi, if i will get 100/3.5, I'll probably end up with 100/2.8 some day anyhow... I know myself. Our local Pentax dealer offered me all mentioned four for testing (I work for a local photo magazine time to time and therefore know those people). First I have to finish some urgent works and after that I'll probably will test those lenses...
BR, Margus Mark Roberts wrote: > >Margus M�nnik wrote: > > > 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. > > I know the Vivitar and Phoenix versions of this Cosina-built lens come > with an adapter (close-up diopter) that enables it to go to 1:1 > magnification. Doesn't Pentax include this? If not, it still ought to e > available somewhere for very little money. > > > FA100/2.8 is absolutely ok, but pricey. > > I have the F version, which is optically identical to the FA, and it is > indeed superb. I did buy it second-hand, though. > > > 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. > > I wouldn't worry too much about any of these from an optical standpoint. > There are very few substandard macro lenses, largely because their > specialized nature means they can be priced higher and this gives the > designers much more freedom to go all-out for image quality. Truthfully, > the reason I bought the Pentax 100/2.8 macro was its reputation for > physical construction, rather than optical quality. The pentax is built > like an tank and I've heard comments about all the others that they're a > bit less ruggedly made. My equipment sometimes has to operate under > adverse conditions (and get kicked about by me in the process!) so I > paid a little extra for the build quality. I love the optics of the > Pentax but wouldn't hesitate to use any of the others you mentioned. > > If you're really on a tight budget, look into getting the 1:1 attachment > for the 100/3.5. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com
