> 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: [email protected] 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 -------
