135mm macro or 100mm macro

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Pentax 67 SLR : One Thread

Has anyone compared the performance of the 100mm macro and 135mm macro? I'm considering purchasing one of these lenses but am unable to rent them for comparison.

-- Joe Piano (j.lepiano@sympatico.ca), January 16, 2002

Answers

There was a test on the 100 macro in Pop Photography when the lens first came out. The performance was excellent when not using the "Life Size" converter. But I remember that the lp/mm when using the converter were not that great. I only own the 135 Takumar (optically identical to the Pentax 135)and it is hard to flaw.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), January 18, 2002.

I don't have a test to submit, but just wanted to add that I too would like to hear any comparison. I have ready access to a friends 135mm, and love it. I use it for headshots, products, etc., and if she would let me, I would just adopt it as my "normal" lens (I have never used it as a true macro, as in 1:1 with the tubes and all; I use 35mm for that). If the 100mm isn't in some way obviously superior to the 135mm, I will just pick up a used 135 at a camera show or off ebay. I think I remember looking through the end of the year lens-test indexes, and once again the magazines haven't gotten around to testing most medium format gear. I guess there is no pay off, since the advertising dollars are in 35mm.

-- Carl Tower (cjtowerman@yahoo.com), January 16, 2002.

I have and so far love the 135. The glass is set back so far you'd have to shoot directly into the sun to get lense flair. I looke for it used for a while, but found no better deal than new from Focus for $489. Focus supports photonet.

-- Kevin L. Keller (kkeller@wilsav.com), March 01, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ