> The drawback of the 200mm macro is that it is harder to get to > high magnifications
Another drawback is that "it is harder to get to high [enough a position" if you are shooting a subject from above. That is, the greater working distance of a 200mm Macro can be helpful, but it also ~requires~ that the subject sometimes be pretty far away, so that you might end up needing a stepladder to be able to shoot a ~moderately~ small object from above, for example. > 100mm macros are abundant. [snip] I'd look for a 90 - 100 mm > f2.8 lens that goes to 1:1 without adapters. I agree. In my case: 1. I have never tried a 100-ish macro lens (90mm to 105mm) that was not at least very good, both Pentax and third-party lenses. 2. I sold my A* 200/4 Macro a while back, since I just didn't use it much. I found that the A 100/2.8 Macro, and a passing parade of 100-ish macros that I've been trying, were all very, very good, too, and were all more convenient to use. Fred
