I've read through this thread and there's lots of interesting advice. A few points that you might want to consider:
On macro vs non macro lenses: I have an M 100 f2.8 and a Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro (identical to the Vivitar Series 1 100mm f2.5). With the M lens it takes about a 100 degree turn of the lens to move form infinity to 2 meters focus distance. With the Kiron it takes about a 30 degree twist. Yes - you can keep turning the Kiron forever till it gets to 1:1, but for fine adjustment of focus at longer working distances, non macros are better. (And thanks to Valentin Donisia who taught me this - though I argued the point with him at the time!) Also the Kiron is much bigger and much heavier. On Photodo tests: I value these tests and my experience with the lenses I own has been that there is a good correlation between what Photodo says and my personal impression of lens performance. But bear in mind that those tests are all done with the lens set to infinity focus. A lens that is a dog at infinity is probably a dog close up, but if you have two macro lenses that are very good at infinity, you may actually have one that is very good at 1:1 while the other is excellent at 1:1 - and that's something Photodo can't tell you. So I tend to discount Photodo for macro performance because I don't think it really gets into that. On using Pentax lenses: One of the great things about Pentax is that has maintained backwards compatibility better than any other brand. I agree that many Pentax lenses share an aesthetic quality that sets them apart, and that's a strong reason to use them. But I also relish the ability to use older lenses of other brands with my current gear - like the Kiron and some of the older Rikenon lenses that I favor. So I'd argue that the ability to use these off brand, older lenses, and enjoy their unique characteristics, is all part and parcel of the Pentax experience. And I don't have any qualms about using modern third party lenses if they can do the job adequately. On lens performance in general: In terms of sharpness, if you have good technique you'll see the difference between an average lens and a very good lens, if you have excellent technique you will see the difference between a very good and excellent lens, and if you have totally impeccable technique you can see the difference between an excellent and outstanding lens. Once or twice I've managed to produce shots with my A* 200mm macro (outstanding lens) that beat the best I can do with my Kiron 105mm macro (excellent lens) - but all to often I am the limiting factor, or the realities of the shooting situation are the limiting factor. My two cents - if you want to do macro, most of the 100mm macros out there are pretty good - Pentax (of course) but also Vivitar, Kiron, Tokina, Tamron, etc. So if you want to do macro find out what's available, research what's best, and make a decision. When you get to the point where your technique is so good that you reach the limits of your glass - then upgrade. For portraits - hang onto your M 100 f2.8 - the ability to focus more finely / accurately at the working distance of a portrait will be worth it. - MCC At 05:36 PM 6/12/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Hey gang... > >I currently have the M version of the 100mm f2.8. I really enjoy the results >this lens produces. However, I'm in the market for a macro lens and I want to >know how the f2.8 100mm Macro does for non-macro/portrait work. Is it as >sharp or sharper that the m and a series lenses? > >Thanks. > >Brendan MacRae - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
