DFA lens

[Nanoo]

Been thinking of getting a macro lens but also equally wanting a lens that can shoot street candids. Saw this DFA 100mm f2.8 lens in the pentax imaging website. Price seems very reasonable and the built looks solid.
Is this lens discontinued or in anyway out of stock in singapore?
Any peeps using this lens? Any feedback / pictures to share?
Thanks in advance.

 

[ricsal]

Been thinking of getting a macro lens but also equally wanting a lens that can shoot street candids. Saw this DFA 100mm f2.8 lens in the pentax imaging website. Price seems very reasonable and the built looks solid.
Is this lens discontinued or in anyway out of stock in singapore?
Any peeps using this lens? Any feedback / pictures to share?
Thanks in advance.

They already discussed about this lens. Please check thru the Pentax thread. The whole thing including Pricing and performance.

Edit: Here is the link

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=679456

if you go thru again, U can also find Fengwei's hands-on test.

 

[aaron80]

Is TS referring to the old DFA 100mm Macro or the new DFA 100mm Macro WR?

 

[pinholecam]

They already discussed about this lens. Please check thru the Pentax thread. The whole thing including Pricing and performance.

Edit: Here is the link

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=679456

if you go thru again, U can also find Fengwei's hands-on test.

TS is referring to this one
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/129-pentax-smc-d-fa-100mm-f28-macro-review--test-report
This is the pre WR 100/2.8 macro. Its cheaper than the WR version.
AFAIK all the 100/2.8 macros are comparable in performance.

 

[Nanoo]

TS is referring to this one
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/129-pentax-smc-d-fa-100mm-f28-macro-review--test-report
This is the pre WR 100/2.8 macro. Its cheaper than the WR version.
AFAIK all the 100/2.8 macros are comparable in performance.

Thanks pinholecam..ya, that's the one.
Thanks ricsal for the link.
Thanks aaron.

 

[Baracus]

TS is referring to this one
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/129-pentax-smc-d-fa-100mm-f28-macro-review--test-report
This is the pre WR 100/2.8 macro. Its cheaper than the WR version.
AFAIK all the 100/2.8 macros are comparable in performance.

Except for the "better construction" of the aperture blades in the WR version for a rounder bokeh. But who cares about bokeh anyway. :dunno::bsmilie:

 

[pinholecam]

Except for the "better construction" of the aperture blades in the WR version for a rounder bokeh. But who cares about bokeh anyway. :dunno::bsmilie:

yeah forgot that part.
I'm more of a tech guy, so I only know sharpness. The artsy fellas know how to review bokeh better..

 

[creampuff]

Used both the older and now discontinued DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro and the current DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR. Both are great lenses but I feel the newer DFA 100 WR does have the edge at wider apertures. Older version could occasionally get highlight blooming when shooting at a very bright light sources wide open. If you need an aperture ring (for use with extension tubes or bellows), then the older version is the one to go for as the current WR version does away with the old style aperture ring altogether. Current WR version has better build quality and nicer OOF bokeh. Both are very sharp lenses and give nice images with snappy contrast.

 

[pinholecam]

TS,

Go read up more on the subject. Go to the Macro subforum and do a google as well. Very importantly look at photos. It will help you get an idea to the lens and technique that is needed. It may not necessarily mean that a macro lens will give you what you want/like.
Eg. very small insect shots where you can see the compound eyes are often done with reversed lenses (ie. not straight off 1:1 lens like a 100mm macro)

A macro lens is convenient, as you can go very near the subject without the hassle of adding on attachments (and removing them when you move to other non macro subjects). To me this is the primary advantage. Its obviously costly.

There are excellent examples using all the various macro setups (ie. closeup filters, extension tubes, reversed lens, macro lenses). I don't think there is a bad setup, but some might be cheaper/more convenient/easier to get higher magnification.

my few cents.

 

[pentriot]

Except for the "better construction" of the aperture blades in the WR version for a rounder bokeh. But who cares about bokeh anyway. :dunno::bsmilie:

When shooting macro, I always use f8 & above to obtain better dof if flash is used.

 

[Nanoo]

TS,

Go read up more on the subject. Go to the Macro subforum and do a google as well. Very importantly look at photos. It will help you get an idea to the lens and technique that is needed. It may not necessarily mean that a macro lens will give you what you want/like.
Eg. very small insect shots where you can see the compound eyes are often done with reversed lenses (ie. not straight off 1:1 lens like a 100mm macro)

A macro lens is convenient, as you can go very near the subject without the hassle of adding on attachments (and removing them when you move to other non macro subjects). To me this is the primary advantage. Its obviously costly.

There are excellent examples using all the various macro setups (ie. closeup filters, extension tubes, reversed lens, macro lenses). I don't think there is a bad setup, but some might be cheaper/more convenient/easier to get higher magnification.

my few cents.

Thanks for your few cents input...
After conversion, it has amount to millions...