I should mention in passing that it is a myth that macro lenses are sharper than others. People get this impression since they are seeing small things writ large due to the magnification power, but comparing objects at the same magnification tells a different story.

The DA 16-45mm is indeed sharper than the FA 100mm or D-FA macros, for example. Though the sharpest lens in the Pentax line-up is likely the FA43 Limited. (I say "likely" since Photozone has not tested every lens.) The maximum MTF values are 2320, 2100, 2200 and 2420 respectively, though this does not tell the whole story. The FA macro attains this peak at f/8 and the D-FA at f/5.6. Stopped down to a more realistic f/16 the values are significantly reduced.

But intrinsic lens sharpness is by no means as important as your macro shooting techniques. Getting greater DOF puts more of the subject in focus which is preferable to a slightly sharper but thinner DOF.

I cannot compare the Photozone values for the Sigma in question since it was tested on a Canon. However, it came out lower than the Pentax equivalents. Again: not a real issue.

Similar here, except I use the DA12-24 in the wide end. It is simply far too versatile for me to replace it with any three primes.

Matt, I think you are sorted with what you have. Moving from the K20D to the K-r would be a downgrade in my opinion, but you can do instead what Don suggested and save for the K-5.

If the vibration is visible in the viewfinder then the tripod is not doing its job. It should take a whole lot of vibration to get that much shift. Even vibrations you cannot see will blur the image at high magnifications, so vibrations you can see are way too much to tolerate.

I posted that since it is nothing anyone shouldn't be able to easily do. This was with the Vivitar Series 1 105mm, which is a very nice macro but then again so are many others. If 1:1 is a problem I suggest sticking with 1:2 until you have perfected your technique. Cutting back the magnification by half makes an enormous difference in usability but can still give you some cool images.

The insect was not moving at the it me. Real challenges occur when plants are moving in a breeze (to give one common example).

Oh yeah, I have an entire article on this topic which I hope will be helpful.

What do you like to shoot? You mention landscapes and "everyday stuff" -- would that be street portraits? I don't think there's any reason to buy a special lens for Mongolia unless you want weather sealing for the dust. Instead, buy a lens that will be generally useful for how you like to shoot.

Do you like to shoot auto-focus or manual? Auto-aperture or manual? Those questions will dictate whether some older bargain lenses might meet your needs.

How important is ultimate IQ? From your line-up I am guessing that you prefer to have your options open rather than spend a lot on the "ultimate" IQ.

How much do you want to carry? One or two light lenses can do a fine job while leaving you more free to concentrate on the experience of the trip. or would you prefer to be documenting everything? How many bodies will you take?

And finally, what is your budget? Again, from your line-up I am guessing it is moderate. Otherwise you would already own both DA* zooms and would have no questions.

John has the answers: stop down a lot, focus stack, plenty of light and a strong tripod so the camera cannot move even a smidgen.

That said, I took this single frame at 1:2 hand-held in available light.

[IMG]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5184/5635928077_1ddd06b1f2_b.jpg[/IMG]

You need to post some images so we know what your expectations and problems are.

For me, hard hood always, UV filter never. A hood protects better than a filter and potentially increases rather than decreases IQ.

As for sensor cleaning I would never randomly blow dust and particles around the inside of my camera. Arctic Butterfly For The Win!

1. Yes

2. I don't understand you. It may be that some objects near infinity turn out to focus at infinity. Not sure if that addresses any part of what you are asking.

Please note that the range of what will register as "in focus" to the camera is actually wider than what you might actually see as in focus.

Alberto, I believe your conclusions are valid. I also doubt the 645D prices will drop soon. Better to get/use what you need now rather than waiting for some ill-defined future.

Maybe you should "do some research". The NEX-FS100 is the prosumer version of the F3. And it already has competition from Panasonic - sheesh! Last time I looked, it was a video camera that will cost six grand in the most basic configuration. It's also huge compared to the K-5. Absolutely incomparable. You may as well go on about 70mm cine cameras and how they invalidate anything Pentax has ever done.

Threads like this always go off into la-la land. Because it's much easier to fantasise than actually compare like to like.