If you want just macro, the 100-ish lenses that go to half life size are _much_ smaller and lighter than their f2.8/full-life-size equivalents.
If I'm in a roaming macro kind of mood, my 100mm f2.8 full-life-size macro stays home! -Lon Ivan Prenosil wrote: > > Hello Pentaxians, > > I desperately need advice - I want to buy macro lens > for my MZ-3, both for shooting macro and portraits. > There are two candidates: > Pentax-FA 100mm/2.8 Macro > Sigma 105mm/2.8 EX > I prefer using Pentax original gear whenever possible, > however this time I am hesitating, there are just too much > reasons why to choose Sigma over Pentax: > > Weight (g): P=600, S=450. > Although Pentax feels very good (once I held it in hands in shop), > considering using on light body (MZ-3) and whole-day trips, > the light weight Sigma seems better choice. > > Handling: > Sigma has much wider focusing ring. > Sigma allows fast switching between MF/AF using focusing ring. > > Lens length (mm): P=103, S=95. > Sigma is slightly better - needs less space in bag. > > Focal length (mm): P=100, S=105. > Sigma is slightly better, both for shooting animals and portraits. > > Price: Sigma is nearly 20 % cheaper. > > Design: absolutely not important, however this particular Pentax lens > does not look much "spectacularly". > > Did I forgot something important ? > > There are some things I know nothing about, so I can't compare them directly > - picture quality (which is the most important) > I usually do 20*30 or 30*40 cm (8*12 or 12*16 inch). > - direction of rotation of focusing ring. > Does Sigma use the correct Pentax style ? > - mechanical construction/quality/durability. > > I asked in several shops, and the Sigma was always praised > as top quality (even by some nearby customers). > > Should I remain "loyal" to Pentax ? Despite all notes above ? > Help !! And thanks for all your comments/advices !! > > Ivan
