Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: DFA 100 Macro WR - Brief Hands-on Impressions

Monday, March 29, 2010

DFA 100 Macro WR - Brief Hands-on Impressions

Have a chance to play with my friend's new DFA 100 Macro WR lens in the weekend, my brief first impressions about the lens are as follows (let's see how the new DFA version is compared against the old):-

1. Mechanically, I would say this is a refurbished old DFA 100 Macro with a FA 31 (Black) Limited design and look!

2. The lens barrel is all metal, it feels really cold but I don't like the fact that fingerprints and moisture will leave on the naked and bare barrel just so easily!

3. The MF damping now goes completely Limited, which means silky smooth manual focusing with more damping but yet even slower Auto Focusing! (Sightly, the old one is not that fast, already!)

4. The weather-sealing rubber ring at the lens mount is now in sharp Red colour, which I don't like subjectively! Why? Only Sony lenses look like that!

5. I don't like the comparatively thin double lines of hard-carved MF ring against the thick and wide rubberised MF ring of the old version DFA, which practically is easier to hold and turn! (Applies also to the Quick-Shift Focusing..)

6. The Aperture Ring is now omitted and so does the "Focus Clamp" as well, which both you can find in the old version. So, this new DFA 100 has the least practical function against all its predecessors, except it is weather-sealed. However, I don't think it's logical enough to design a Limited-style focus scale window for a weather-sealed lens anyway, as water will be trapped inside eventually (although the water should not be able to go inside the lens). (Well, btw, I just wish to ask: WHO will do Macro works Under the Rain??)

7. Optically, I don't find any big difference for the old and new versions. The glass elements look the same, the coating and colour look the same and more importantly, the image rendition seems to be the same! (This is nothing scientific and systematic, though - just my brief impression.)

So, would I recommend the new 100 WR? Honestly speaking, I actually prefer the old version if I had the choice and if I had to choose, as I prefer the FA version over the original DFA, too! I like the optical performance and colour response of the old FA 100 Macro more and it does have a Focus (Range) Limiter, which is much useful, practically! In fact, the Focus Limiter is practically the real utility for one to use the AF function of Pentax AFSLRs for doing macro works!

Besides, the old DFA has aperture ring which is a practical and useful feature, especially you have a film camera that need it. In fact, even when I use my DFA 100 on my Canon 5D, the operation is really superb as I can control the aperture using my left hand whilst my right hand is holding the shutter release - similar to the design concept and operation of the MZ-S. The best thing when it is put on my 5D is that I can see the DoF and focus in real-time, thanks to the stopped down metering. I have to do MF, though (and of course).

Last but not least, the wide/thick rubberised MF ring of the old DFA is practically more useful than the thin but might be better looking one of the new DFA. For macro shootings, MF is very important IMHO especially for Pentax system which has slow AF which is particularly even more slow with Macro lenses. Frankly, I am quite disappointed for this new version of the Macro 100 doesn't have an Ultrasonic AF motor, nor the re-introduction of the Focus Limiter.

My final words? It seems that now Pentax/Hoya put more weight on aesthetics than on practical usability when they introduce new lenses. If you need a 100 macro right now, I highly recommend that you should get the last stock of the old version DFA 100, as it has been discontinued already. The old version is just (much) cheaper, practically more usable and optically the same! Well, if you need to shoot flowers or insects outdoor under the rain(!?), just do it and get the new DFA! :=o ;-D

Comments (17)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
WHO will do Macro works Under the Rain??

Talk about a weird question...

Some macro shooters will photograph (still or video, btw) under the rain to get those beautiful rain drops falling on spider webs, on ants colonies and such.

And in humid environements, like jungles, swamps and humid forests, for instance, WR is sure a bonus. Otherwise, humidity can find its way inside quite rapidly.

And anyway, this is also a 100mm tele lens, so it can be useful for normal tele applications as well, like shooting under the rain.
3 replies · active 784 weeks ago
Or, should I type "*During* raining" instead of "*Under* the rain"? :-) (which should be the same anyway..)
Except that for normal tele applications it would have been nice not to omit an AF limiter... I think this new Pentax is the only 100mm macro without one on the present market...
The original DFAs don't have that neither, they only have a "focus clamp". :-(
I'm surprised you forgot to mention this new macro features rounded aperture blades.
To me, this is the most important feature it offers over the old DFA version. Out of focus areas will look much better with this WR macro than with the previous macro lenses (both DFA or FA).
Just for that, I'd get it over the previous versions.
Also, DFA versions are more contrasty than the older FA (see photozone).
4 replies · active 783 weeks ago
I don't find any obvious difference on the construction and appearance of aperture blades between the new and old lenses and I do believe "round" aperture is usually a marketing gimmick on nice bokeh. In fact, bokeh of the original DFA and the FA are not that bad, or, actually nice, but so do most of the macro lenses, as they should be.
The bokeh difference is obvious and if you have both lenses, you could easily compare the out of focus bokeh between the two lenses as was done here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=...
The WR produces much nicer OOF.
Interesting comparison and thanks. But btw I think aperture blade shape and form is only one of the factors that contributes to the bokeh rendition and it could be just a matter of taste afterall for the shape. The optical formula of the lens is actually the major affecting factor here, which I bet the old and new DFA do share the same optical design and possibly manufacturing process as well.

As you can see from bokeh of my above linked samples produced by the original DFA 100, the OOF areas are already quite smooth. Completely rounded apertures may be a welcome addition but in practical terms, I doubt if it is really so important against what is thought, unless one wants to find another strong reason for the "upgrade", as the justification.
I agree, the rounded blades is just one parameter of the bokeh. In fact, it only eliminates square-like OOF highlights by making them more round, thus more pleasant. The bokeh itself is really related to the optical formula as you said.
I have a macro lens with focus limiter. It is not very useful feature - i'd trade it for WR macro with QSF without hesitation. C'mon RH, don't just spread the same uninformed comments that we already read hunderd times. Write something useful again.
3 replies · active 783 weeks ago
I don't think QSF is a really important feature. In fact, I would either choose AF or MF most of the time before taking each shot and seldom use the QSF.

But however, do note that the MF ring of the new DFA is not as easy and comfortable to hold and use as the old one. And if you find QSF is particularly important, this would be a real concern.
Do you shoot macro a lot? When shooting live macro outdoors, with QSF I can assign AF to the dedicated AF button and have the camera all the time in AF mode - manually focusing, ony using AF when I want to. It is very comfortable and to me it much exceeds the usability of focus limiter on my sigma macro lens.
The old version DFA does also have the QSF. Btw, thanks for the tips on how to utilise QSF in a different way!
I own the old F 100 2.8 Macro and I am proud of it. It is sharp even wide open, compared to a Canon EF 100mm Macro, the Canon lens is crap.
2 replies · active 783 weeks ago
which version of Canon 100mm macro are you refering to? The one I use is perfectly ok. (USM, not L)
I believe the F 100 is a superb lens and the EF 100 is not that bad. YMMV, though!
I'm talking about the EF 100mm 2.8 Macro non-USM. The EF 24,35 and 50mm 1.4 USM suck too. For me, it looks like all sub-L lenses are more or less mediocre, they gave me always blurry pictures. Pentax and Nikon lenses are far superior when it comes to picture quality, sharpness.

Post a new comment

Comments by