Pentax 50mm vs 100mm Macro: Minimum Focusing Distance

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by Indiana Jones, Aug 3, 2003.

  1. Hi.

    I am considering a new 50mm f2.8 SMC-FA Macro from BandH versus a used
    100mm f2.8 SMC-F Macro
    The used 100 SMC-F is $75 more, but as I understand is a highly regarded

    Pros of the 50mm: I already have 52mm UV filter, polarizer etc, which
    reduces costs. 50mm would be brand new vs used 100mm
    Pros of the 100mm: It would be nice to have a fast 100mm , plus the added
    distance between the subject when in Macro mode.

    When reading the specs of B&H (maybe should double check at, the
    min focusing distance of the 50mm is 20cm vs 30cm for the 100mm.

    Everyone seems to make such a big deal about the min focusing distance diff.
    between these two lenses, but 10cm does not seem that significant to affect
    how you work with a close up subject (ie - youre still damn close either
    way). Not having any experience with them though, I dont really know.

    Any comments about min. focusing difference, or what would you choose?


    Indiana Jones, Aug 3, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Indiana Jones

    Mark Roberts Guest

    I have the F-100/2.8 macro and can testify that it's a *very* good lens
    indeed. Boz's Pentax page gives the minimum focusing distances for the
    50mm and 100mm as 19cm and 31cm, respectively. I suppose the difference
    isn't that great but it could be significant in some circumstances,
    especially when using flash. Also a lot easier to work around plants and
    such. That extra 12cm can be a godsend - I wouldn't want to have to work
    any closer than the 100mm lens gets me. YMMV.
    Mark Roberts, Aug 4, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Indiana Jones

    Jeremy Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    I suppose the difference
    One other consideration that comes to mind is that there may be less
    perspective distortion when shooting three-dimensional objects with the
    100mm, because your lens isn't quite as close to the subject as is the 50mm.

    Analogous to shooting portraits with a normal lens vs. a short tele--the
    nose and ears may appear too big when using the normal lens (especially if
    the camera is relatively close to the subject's face), but the use of a
    short to medium telephoto compresses the perspective, flattening out the
    protruding parts and making them appear more natural.

    I own both the SMC TAkumar 50mm and the SMC Takumar 100mm macros (in the
    older screw mount) and I find that I rarely use the 50mm--the 100mm's larger
    magnification is really welcome.
    Jeremy, Aug 7, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.