Macro but which one.

so ive decided to take the plunge and invest in a macro lens. my budget is £450 and i'm looking at the usual suspects the pentax 100mm, tamron 90mm, sigma 105mm.

so i'm looking for some advice from anyone who owns one of these lenses or has owned one.
also i know there may be an alternative i havent mentioned that might be worth considering

I have had them all and they are all good, to be honest I have never come across a bad macro lens.

I kept the Pentax in the end purely because it's made by Pentax and it's a WR lens but I also have a old manual focus Vivitar S1 105mm f2.5 .

yes the weather sealing is a plus

I have the pentax 100mm wr, cost £300 new so well within your budget.

The Pentax 100mm WR is a cracking lens, quite small as well, good for portraits as well being F2.8 and on a PK crop camera is effectively 150mm

looks like the pentax 100mm is winning out so far.

I have used the Pentax and the Sigma. The size and weight difference in favour of the Pentax is pretty important, while the IQ for all three macros is said to be similar. You should just pick the easiest one to find, unless you're after a compact, lightweight WR lens. The Sigma (and Tamron?) lenses have an aperture ring which may also be very useful if you're also a film shooter.

PM sent regarding used 100mm WR.

And the Pentax 100 macro works well with the 1.4x Pentax rear converter to give that extra 'reach'.

Hi,

I've got a SMC PENTAX-FA 1:2.8 MACRO 50 mm and a SMC PENTAX-DFA MARCO 1:2.8 100 mm WR and I actually prefer the older 50 mm lens, it is incredibly sharp.

Not that the 100 mm lens is bad in any way, I just find the 50 mm easier to use and if anything the sharper of the two lens.

Plus the 50 mm FA lens has an aperture ring so it is usable on old film cameras.

Regards
Mike

I have the Pentax 100WR and used to own the Sigma 105 DG EX. I sold the Sigma because I didn't need two macro lenses. However, it all depends on what you intend to use the lens for, is it just for macro work or do you intend other uses? The reason I ask is because the Sigma has a bit of an ace up its sleeve.

It is possibly the best portrait lens I have ever used, much better than the Pentax for this type of work. It has a sublime way of rendering skin tones and also has lovely bokeh. Another reason for selling it was my acquisition of a Pentax DA*50-135, also a superb portrait lens, but I think the Sigma is better, albeit fixed focal length.

For macro work, the Pentax is definitely the better lens, it is noticeably sharper and also being smaller / lighter is easier to handle when not using a camera support. The Pentax also has better build quality I think.

It may help if a few of us post images on the thread taken with each lens? Here are a few:

Sigma 105 Macro, this one with extremely shallow DOF due to extension tubes and wide aperture:





Sigma Macro:





Sigma Portrait:





Pentax Macro:





Pentax Macro:




Regards
David

You cant actually purchase the Sigma 105 new anymore. And they dont make the new verson in a Pentax mount.. So that could narrow your choice.. I had a problem with mine recently. Sent it to Sigma for repair. But they stated they no longer had parts to repair it.. So the Pentax model is looking like a good pick...

superb pictures.
macro mainly flowers i intend to focus on (no pun intended lol )
from those stunning shots they are very close in what they deliver and as portraits are not my thing i think the pentax may edge it with the weather proofing but you can pick up good copies of the sigma for about £170.

might take a look at the 50mm too

decisions........

thanks for posting the pictures that was very helpful and thoughtful.

I would avoid the 50mm, it's not the right focal length for general macro work. I also had that lens and sold it pretty quickly.

Regards
David

What's the going rate for the Sigma 105mm?
Asking as I have one that I may be looking to sell on as I want WR macro and it's sat in my camera bag not being used

i've seen them between £150-£180.