K-x gets good review from Pop Photo, 100mm macro WR gets glowing review!

<p>I just received Pop's latest issue containing these test results. </p>

<p>The K-x received high marks for IQ, and for noise control at higher ISO, but just fair NR at lower ISO. Lower noise actually than the K-7. Its color accuracy was rated as excellent, one factor that diminished the overall score of the K-7 along with its noise score. At ISO 3200, the K-x was rated barely beyond the "acceptable" limit of 3, coming in at 3.2, still much better than the competition. It is interesting, however, that the old K100DS still performed significantly better in Pop's noise test than even the K-x!</p>

<p>Pop's test for noise is by using a noise analyzer machine. I'm sure it has value, but I am always more interested in actual image tests under carefully set up standards, than machine tests. Image tests are presented by others such as dpreview and imaging resource. The K-x review done by imaging resource does indeed feature comparison images for noise, in this case compared with the K-7. They also report the K-x now being among the top selling DSLR models among all brands. Pop Photo has it categorized as a "steal" at its price point in their equipment "guide" section. </p>

<p>Pop's new test report of the Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 macro WR has it classed at the very top. "Superb" in build quality and performance. Excellent sharpness at every aperture tested, virtually "0" distortion, and "0" light falloff/vignetting! Outstanding. One mistake, though. They report the lens length at 4.95 inches. When I saw that, I said "no way"! I measured mine at 3-1/8 inches. I shall write them to correct that. It is the most compact such lens ever! </p>

<p>That settles it! My next purchase will be the Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 macro WR. I was toying with the idea of a long telezoom, but I'm honestly happy with the K20D + DA* 200 f/2.8 and K-x + DA 55-300 f/4-5.8 around my neck for tele at this point. I just want a solid macro next, and the new WR options sound superb!</p>

<p>I had the impression that the new D-FA 100mm WR macro was optically identical to the old one. It's interesting that it scored so high. Were optical tweaks to the new lens? There is only one thing that stops me from buying it; the lack of a focus limiter for faster standard telephoto focusing. Otherwise I'd already have bought one.</p>

<p>The old Pentax D-FA was never tested by Pop Photo, except in the form of the Tokina version which also got top honors for sharpness across the aperture range. Included was a full close focus test. The new Pentax came in with perfect scores for distortion and also light falloff, probably due to the new barrel design. </p>

<p>My old Sigma has a focus limiter. To be honest, I find this to only have an impact if there is a missed focus or difficulty locking focus, where the AF "hunting" will not involve the entire focus range, to include the macro range. Other than that type of circumstance, I can't tell any speed or AF performance difference during ordinary use for tele shooting, between having the switch on "Limit" or on "Full". </p>

<p>Michael K, I'm glad that the AF speed isn't terribly effected by the lack of a focus limiter. One of the biggest conflicts I have is between the Sigma 105mm with the switch and the Pentax 100mm with the WR (and an extra $300). Although $300 is quite the difference, the WR would be very worth the difference.</p>

<p>A nice attribute for the Pentax D-FA 100 macro (both versions) is that they are substantially smaller than most 100mm macro lenses. I believe that the optical enhancements on the new WR version include 9 rounded aperture blades (old version had 8, non-rounded), and the latest SP (Super-Protect) coatings. My recollection on reviews for the old D-FA was that it was slightly lackluster wide open--pretty good in absolute terms but there is no weak competition in 90-105mm macros.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I find this to only have an impact if there is a missed focus or difficulty locking focus"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This happens often enough, don't you think? That's the main reason this feature exists. I also wish there was a limiter but will live with it as is because I like the compact size. I know that there are many Pentaxians concerned about Pentax SDM reliability but this is an application I'd like to see with a fast & quiet motor.</p>

<p>You know, Andrew, I thought about SDM and was glad for its absence, not having to worry about failure. As I thought more about it, it seems with the greater extreme focus range of a macro lens, the motor would get more work than with other type lenses! So good thing it was not included. Probably would have added a bit more weight too. The Limiteds do not feature SDM, so this new macro fits in perfectly with a set of Limited primes!! It is a beauty, and just looking and handling it, one would swear it<em> is</em> another Limited!</p>

<p>I got my Issue as well and have been wanting to read it, but the mag is currently being shuffled between two of my kids. Glad to hear it fared well. :)</p>

<p>Interestingly, the K-x isn't all that impressive at lower ISO.</p>

<p>Below ISO 400 the Nikon and Canon cameras dominate it. It's only above ISO 1600 that it takes off in the noise/resolution area.</p>

<p>For people that live above ISO 400, the K-x (minus it's flaws like no focus points) looks like a winner, for people that generally shoot below 400 (myself) this looks like a pass.</p>

<p>That said, for a camera marketed at beginner and intermediates, this looks like a winner. I figure those people are more apt to shoot at above 400 to get better shutter speeds with slow lenses, no tripod, and just the on camera flash. It also looks like a potential winner (based on price) as a decent backup/high ISO rig for those with a K-7.</p>

<p>I just got my K-7 for $850 taxes and (what turned out to be overnight) shipping included. If you get a good deal on a K-x your total cost could be about the same as the K-7's opening price ($1300)...so 2 for 1.</p>

<p>I'd be a little weary of the focus limiter on the WR 100 Macro. I used the 35mm DA macro on two occassions for several months, and it is a sweet lens, I absolutely loved it. But it was a slow focuser, and if it started hunting (busy scene or low contrast scene) you had to switch to manual.</p>

<p>The WR 100 might be a bit better, but I think people will be a little more frustrated then they think at various times.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Almost forgot a nagging quible I have developed with Pop Photo, and what will probably end my subscription.</p>

<p>They decided to put this "pro/amateur" scale on the articles and reviews, although the scale is completely arbitrary.</p>

<p>Explain this too me. How does the impeccably built DA 35mm (a lens I truly think is excellent), which Pop Photo scored above the Canon version in the same review for IQ, less professional than the Canon version? <br /><br />If we factor in superior build, superior optics, there is no reasonable way that the Canon gets a better rating.</p>

<p>Also, the K-7 gets a lower rating on the pro-am scale to the E-3 (a camera I used to hold as the flagship for non 24x36mm sensored cameras), but the K-7 is superior (and not by just a little) in almost every area. If Olympus were to release an E-5 it would probably be almost a clone of the K-7.</p>

<p>What the heck?</p>

<p>I understand Pop Photo is trying to make itself relevant in a world of vanishing print media, but this arbitrary scale is going to lose another subscription, I'll just read the few reviews I want to read at the news stand.</p>

<p>Yes, but the Pop Photo test was using the kit lens. How much better would it have been had they used one of the limited lenses?</p>

<p>I don't read these magazines because I have a little resource at my fingertips that is more comprehensive, more practical, far more timely and filled with nice people.</p>

<p>If you drop me a line I'll tell you what it is.</p>

<p>I don't put much stock in this amature/pro assessment thing. I rather ignore such ratings as meaningless. Seems that everyone has their own set of standards to go by. In the case of Pop Photo's assigning a place on a scale, it seems to me they are doing it more by whether a pro photographer would be more likely to use this particular product, with its features and style, not so much that performance, build, etc are better or worse. But I agree with you Justin- why should it matter that pros are more likely to find it suitable for their needs? We buy a product because it meets our needs, offers high performance with very good features, and is of very high quality. </p>

<p>To me, the K20D could be considered a pro-style camera because its controls and features would be attractive to some pro photographers in some fields. But I bought it for my own particular needs, and for its high quality. If I were to do certain types of pro work I'd be happy to use it for that. Certainly, a Nikon D3x would more often wind up in the hands of a pro photographer. It often fits their particular needs, but for my own set of interests, it does not fit some of my needs. </p>

<p>If one could find the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP 1:1 Macro for close to half the price of the new Pentax 100 WR, would you go for it? Weather sealing aside, what does everyone think of this lens in comparison? What about used?</p>

 

<p>The Tamron is supposedly one of the best macros available, I'm sure compared to the Pentax the differences are neglible, in the end when comparing good glass, it probably just comes down to the sealing and price point.</p>

<p>If you aren't one to need/want the sealing, go tamron, but if you think that having a sealed lens is worth a few bucks go Pentax.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Robin wrote:<br>

I don't read these magazines because I have a little resource at my fingertips that is more comprehensive, more practical, far more timely and filled with nice people.<br>

If you drop me a line I'll tell you what it is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Too me, I still love good ole fashion mags. I still get quite a few in the mail and I look forward to them. 8-)</p>

 

<p>Yeah, I'm with Javier. Opinions based on some sort of controlled conditions do offer some value. Doesn't mean they are perfect, but at least represent a good stab at reality.</p>

<p>The Tamron and Sigma macro lenses are very good, to be sure. I have to go back a few years for really good, comprehensive macro reports. Not done anymore. As I recall, the old close focus tests revealed most macro lenses are geared for better sharpness at mid and smaller apertures, because these apertures are used more often for increased DOF in macro work. The performance of the Pentax D-FA and Tokina sibling being excellent from wide open throughout small apertures as well, center and corners, is a very rare result for any close focus test!! For CaNikon shooters, the Tokina version is available, which does have the limiter switch and is well-built, but much bulkier and heavier than the Pentax. (Pop Photo- November 2005, page 70)</p>

<p>Michael --<br>

So would you purchase the new D-FA 100 f/2.8 for $699 or consider the Tamron 90 f/2.8 Di SF if you could find it for just over $400 new or well under $400 used? I won't hold you to your opinion, just curious what factors would be part of your decision.<br>

I'm considering buying something now and trying it out at the Albany Tulip Festival on May 7-9th in a few weeks. I haven't decided if I'm going, and my wife and I are still requesting time off from work. But it would be a fun "first use" of the lens.</p>

<p>The Pop Photo article is now on-line: http://www.popphoto.com/reviews/lenses/2010/04/lens-test-pentax-d-fa-100mm-f28-wr-macro<br>

I'm just about to pull the trigger for this for $699 at B&H.</p>

<p>Trigger pulled. ;)<br>

There goes making/saving any money on my K100D body and DA* 50-135 f/2.8 lens sales. Now I'm a couple hundred in the hole with the K-x and D-FA 100 f/2.8 Macro purchases. ;)</p>

<p>Bryan, if your reasoning is like mine, you will like what you find upon getting this lens. From what I have seen, the Tamron and Sigma are close in optical quality. The Sigma may have an edge in build. The Pentax is superior to these already fine lenses in optical quality, with the build of the plastic Pentax version being a bit under par, though not terrible. The new Pentax WR version is built better than any. For me, the limiter switch is a relatively minor issue, which I'll get along without to have the reduced size advantage. My old Sigma has one, but I found I used that feature infrequently. Others may be different. I found that the switch can reduce the hunting time of a mis-focus somewhat when shooting in the tele range, but the hunting time still takes much longer than a non-macro lens upon misfocus. All macros have a much longer focus rotation and extention mechanism, and are thus unavoidably slower to go even partly through the range.</p>

<p>I can't recall if you have any of the Limiteds, but if you do you'll see the resemblance right away. This one apparently is designed to approach that kind of quality.</p>

<p>The tulip festival should be a fine time to put it to use!</p>

<p>Yeah. Again, if I was going to buy the Tamron 90 f/2.8, I should have done so when they were $459 - $60 rebate at B&H through last December. But I waited. So I just decided to pull the tigger for the $699 D-FA 100 WR at B&H. LBA in full effect. Despite the bigger price tag, I'm kinda glad I waited. It sounds like the best macro for a K mount right now, at least around the same focal.</p>

<p>Can't get a bad macro lens among these! But the advantages for the new Pentax are- WR (a biggie), new rounded blades for bokeh, anti smudge coatings, Quick shift to MF touchup, new svelt design, top notch optics, and very high build quality.</p>

<p>The fact of Pentax having SR in the camera body is a clear advantage. Canon and Nikon both make a macro model in the 100mm range having shake reduction in the lens. They cost from about $900-950. They are approximately 1-1/2 inches longer, and weigh approximately <em>twice</em> as much as the Pentax!! They take 62mm and 67mm filter size respectively, whereas the Pentax takes 49mm.</p>