| | |  |
2.7 Inches | Home » » » Pentax D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens for Pentax and Samsung Digital SLR Cameras | | | | | | | Description: | | LENS PENTAX MACRO PDFA 100mm F2.8 | | | Features: | |
• Pentax Imaging Company Lens, Pentax Macro, Pdfa 100mm, F2.8
• Pentax Imaging Company
• Lens, Pentax Macro, Pdfa 100mm, F2.8
| | | Product Details: | | | Product Length:
| 3.2 inches | | Product Width:
| 3.0 inches | | Product Height:
| 2.7 inches | | Product Weight:
| 0.76 pounds | | Package Length:
| 5.3 inches | | Package Width:
| 5.0 inches | | Package Height:
| 4.4 inches | | Package Weight:
| 1.35 pounds | | Average Customer Rating:
|  based on 9 reviews |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
 ( 9 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
21 of 21 found the following review helpful:
 Good fun lensJul 06, 2008
By H. Liao
"Phresh Phish"
I have made close-up photos with Nikon 60mm f/2.8 and Pentax 100 f/2.8. In comparison, the Nikon 60mm has better resolution. However, I much prefer the 100mm in real life. The Pentax 100mm and other 90mm and 105mm macro lenses allow me to be much further away from the insect so that it doesn't get frightened and move away. The Pentax 100mm is small and light for a macro lens. Given the long working distance and the small lens diameter, I can actually use the built-in flash for a 1:1 macro photo, which is impossible with a 60mm or 50mm macro lens. The 100mm also makes a very decent portrait lens. However, this Pentax lens has two weaknesses. First it is not the sharpest lens I own; the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 is. Second, auto-focus is slow and unreliable, except near infinity. Manual focus is required for close-ups; but the focusing ring is slightly loose and could be more precise.
6 of 6 found the following review helpful:
Smaller than I expected. Fantastic results.Aug 23, 2009
By Michael A. Beacom
"mbeacom"
My first impression of this lens was that it was much smaller than the pictures make it out to be. Only about 3 inches long by 2 inches in diameter. But boy does it make your photos pop. I've been reading a lot of reviews about the new Pentax K7, considering upgrading from my K10D. But one review I read, criticized consumers for wasting time always upgrading their camera body, when what really matters is the glass. Well, I can say, that guy was right. I took the money I was going to use on a new body and spent it on 2 high quality lenses. One of them was this macro. I'm not disappointed. It's like my camera is brand new and my photographic abilities have been improved. I bought this lens for flowers and insects. It works amazingly. At times the focus does "hunt" a bit, but I think that's my camera more than the lens. I was expecting tight, crisp, high detail close ups and that's exactly what I've been getting. I've heard others say this makes a great portrait lens. Well, they're right. I didn't know why until I gave it a shot. Because this lens is macro and has such shallow focus capabilities, it tends to throw the background into a very soft buttery bokeh. This makes your subject really jump out of the photo. The effect is subtle but very pleasing and your portraits will be much improved I promise. So this is a double duty lens and it works great for both. Add to that, it's small and light and it's easy to toss in the camera bag for when you need it. Someone else mentioned the focus action is a bit "crunchy" but I think they may have the focus clamp on. If you accidentally bump that to "on" position, it tried to hold the focus. You can still turn the focus ring though but it requires more effort and makes a slight grinding noise. Don't do this and you'll be just fine.
8 of 9 found the following review helpful:
A difficult lens to reviewSep 19, 2009
By ssgman
"ssgman"
This lens is hard to review since it does have some significant weaknessnes so let me get those issues out of the way:
1) Not a good low light performer. Don't think you are going to set this up in a low lit room and a tripod and get the AF to cooperate unless you provide additional light. You will have to manual focus.
2) No AF limiter, which wouldn't be a problem if 1) wasn't a problem.
Ok, bad news out of the way, lets go over the good news:
1) This lens is TACK SHARP. You won't find a sharper lens. This thing could resolve out to 200mp is my guess, but we won't know about that given the current state of sensors.
2) With well lit situations this lens is an AWESOME macro AND portrait lens.
So the dilemna is how much to punish it for the low light performance. In my view, not much and here's why: For what this lens does well you are not going to find a lens that does better. This lens max's out the categories it does well in (sharpness, color, contrast) when properly lit so I'm going to give it 5 stars. To do otherwise would be like taking points off the Canon 300mm 2.8 because it didn't take decent picures in the house at the last birthday party. One lens cannot be all things to all people.
2 of 2 found the following review helpful:
Sharp performerJun 20, 2010
By Michael McKee
"mystic cowboy"
For the most part I'm very happy with this lens. It's pretty sharp wide open and produces tack sharp images up to f11. f16 is good but by f22 there's noticeable softness. Diffraction kills this lens at what is a very useful aperture for depth of field. Forget sharpness at f32.
The lens is very compact and light for a macro. That's good. It lives in my bag and I use it often. Color is neutral if a bit low in saturation. Contrast is also just a tiny bit low, though both of these factors are easy to correct with a little processing. I generally get good results with autofocus, though that is slow and there is no focus limiter on the lens. Since very close up work requires manual focusing anyway, I don't think that's a real problem.
The lens works well for tight portraiture like head shots. The bokeh from this lens is beautiful, producing great low depth of field images.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
Great little Macro for Flowers, Bugs, etc.Jun 20, 2010
By J. Linton
I have been shooting flowers and small animals for many years. I have used non-Pentax but high quality macro lenses, and extension tubes with good results. Last year I bought this Pentax 100mm 2.8 Macro, the Pentax ring flash, and the new K-7 body. I started photography for fun in 1973 with a Konica; I then switched to a Minolta in College. I worked part-time as a photo stringer for the local paper and Associated Press. I then started using 4x5 cameras, 220 films, and infrared. My favorite cameras became a Pentax 220 film camera and a Pentax ME Super 35mm camera. Believe it or not the lenses were interchangeable (with the correct adapters), small, value priced, and spectacular quality. All of this older film equipment can now be purchased on the internet for great prices. I don't shoot much film any more but the old Pentax film lenses work on my current digital camera with great results.
This Pentax 100mm Macro is light, very sharp, easy to use and almost perfect for the specific use for macro and portrait photography. In my family we have four photographers; this lens quickly became the favorite. I like it so much that it became the lens that I always leave on the K-7 body.
The slow focus problem that has been mentioned I have not noticed because I never autofocus on portraits or macro photography. I almost always use a tripod and use manual focus. I also have a preference for prime lenses; they seem to have a richer feel. You will not regret this purchase; it has made my photo's better, especially the pictures of the bugs and flowers. I will admit that I am going to replace it this week with the WR (Water Resistant) version. I wish I would have bought the WR macro first.
See all 9 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| | |
|
