hi everyone

wanted to ask your experiences here, i love macro photography. i am looking at the sigma 17 70
and the pentax 35mm macro. has anyone done macro with both. which do u like better
17 70 is obviously more versatile but the quality of the macro is key to me. i would buy the 35mm if
its a better macro and add the 18 135 lens at a later date for versatility . just looking for thoughts
thanks for the help. and btw very happy my dslr choice was a k 50 bought about 7 months ago

norral

[Na Horuk]

The sigma does not even reach 1:2 magnification. The Pentax reaches actual 1:1, true macro! The Pentax 35mm macro is hailed as a great lens for macro as well as regular purposes. It will deliver much better optical quality than the Sigma. The problem is that a lot of third party lens manufacturers label their lenses as "macro" if they give you a slightly closer minimum focus distance than is usual; but these lenses are not truly macro. Generally people accept that macro 1:2 or more magnification. Pentax doesn't label their 50-200mm as macro, but that lens has better than usual magnification as well.
But! One thing to keep in mind is that macro means "close focus". With 35mm, 1:1 magnification has to be very very close, only a couple cm from the lens; but with a 100mm, you have a bigger working distance for the same magnification (of course, the images will look different. Same magnification, but different perspective, space compression, depth of field). So if you want to take photos of spiders or skittish animals, if you want to use flash, the 35mm might not be the best choice. This is why it is usually recommended for macro beginners to get a macro lens with a longer focal length, like Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm, Pentax 100mm. Any of these lenses will deliver great optical quality, Im sure it would beat the Sigma zoom, and pretty much most if not all zoom lenses out there
But I don't want to say bad things about the Sigma 17-70mm. It is a good walkaround zoom, nice and flexible and delivers better image quality than some other zoom lenses. But I wouldn't count on it for actual, true macro. Fixed focal length macro lenses are in a league of their own.

[Docrwm]

Betweem those two - the 35 is the clear winner. I find that for macro autofocus is usually not needed, so you might consider a manual focus macro like the M50 Macro - it's a lot less and a great place to start.

[mee]

right as Na Horuk said.. with 100mm you get a larger working area from which to photograph

That is to say, the larger the focal length of the macro lens, the larger the area from the object you are photographing to your camera. This can be beneficial (larger working area) if photographing anything sensitive to your movement.. such as insects or really anything moving.

Plus you don't block light as much if you are further away than with that 35mm macro which you'd probably have to be right on the object photographed.

It seems you want the versatility of a 35mm lens that also does 1:1 macro. But I think, if you are serious about macro, it is a smarter decision to get a longer dedicated macro lens such as the Tamron 90mm, Pentax 100mm, or Sigma 105mm.

[grahame]

The Sigma 17-70 is a typical "macro" for a zoom: max. magnification of 1:2.3. It is more of a zoom lens with close focus ability.
The 35/2.8 macro is a true macro lens, 1:1 macro, with flat focus plan which means corner to corner sharpness. The zoom clearly can't do that.

It really depends what you shoot: if you are interested in insects or something alike, you might want longer FL, such as 90-105mm lens. these lenses will give you more distance between the lens and the objectives, so you won't scare away the bugs. 35mm macro will almost tough the bug when goes 1:1.
If you just like something doesn't move, 35/2.8 is very good lens to go.

[robthebloke]

The 35 f2.8 is exceptional, extremely versatile, and one of the best lenses you can get for pentax. If you want a fantastic everyday walkaround lens, it's the one to go for in my opinion.

If you want to chase bees around, you might want to consider the 100wr instead, however the 35 is pretty close to perfection. If you don't yet have a high quality normal prime, get it, you won't be dissapointed.

[Hogdriver]

Yes to 35, but....consider the D FA 50 and D FA100 as already mentioned. They are true macro lens, have flexibility to use on full frame (old film or hopeful new digital), and 100 is WR. 100 is a true favorite when out and about in misty and rainy weather.
There plenty of other reasonably priced "older" lens to research. My favorite go to is A 35-70mm f/4. Also, consider extension tubes, pending on what extent your macro work entails.

[WPRESTO]

For combination walk-around AND true macro, definitely the 35mm over the 17-70, BUT, for strictly walk-around (no macro) the 17-70 is vastly more versatile. A downside of the 35mm (as noted by grahame) is that the lens-to-subject distance is very short as you get below perhaps a 1:5 ratio. 35mm it too short for live insects in the field, but it is excellent for subjects such as flowers. If I were purchasing, I'd get both a Sigma 17-70 for general walk around AND a used Pentax manual-focus macro for close-ups with the choices being (in preferred sequence): 100mm f2.8 SMCA, 100mm f4 SMCA, 50mm f2.8 SMCA. 90~105mm* (as stated by mee) is the best general-purpose macro focal length, good for flowers and live insects. The 50mm f2.8 is an excellent lens and can be obtained for a very reasonable price - and could be used for insects if you are slow-careful-persistent (beetles, fine; hover fly, difficult).

*Almost all K-mount macro lenses of 90~105mm focal length have excellent IQ, including those made by Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and Lester Dine, and it doesn't matter if they are newer AF or older MF.

[JeffB]

Be really sure you can work within the limitations of the 35mm limited macro. The focusing (auto and manual) is very slow. This is the case with every true macro lens I have ever used. That makes any real macro lens a bit frustrating to use as a basic walk-around / everyday lens. It does give you a "normal" (~50mm) field of view. So be sure that works for you as a single focal length.

That Sigma lens is not a very powerful macro tool since it only does 1:3 magnification. You can get nearly the same with the excellent Pentax 18-55mm kit lens.

For pure macro work never underestimate the importance of having a reasonable working distance from the subject. Look carefully at the lens specs for the 35mm and 100mm macro lenses. The "minimum focusing distance" shown for a lens is distance from the focal plane not from the front of the lens! Here is a good illustration

47mm lens length of 35mm Limited Macro
+ 45mm Pentax K mount flange distance
= 92mm focal plane to front of lens distance
- 139mm minimum focusing distance
= 47mm actual distance of subject from front lens element

So if you want 1:1 magnification using the 35mm Limited lens your subject needs to be less than 2 inches away from the front glass!

This is an issue with any relatively wide macro lens. The same math for the 100mm macro lens gets you 1:1 with the subject 174mm (~7 inches) away. 7 inches is really close. 2 inches is really, really close and almost impossible in reality since you will end up blocking your light of accidentally bumping the subject.

I use the FA 100mm Macro for 2 reasons: more reasonable working distance and weather sealing.

If you want to experiment with true 1:1 macro and beyond I'd suggest looking for an old manual focus non-macro Pentax-M lens and a set of extension tubes. The math gets a little complicated figuring out the exact working distance with extension tubes and depends on the original lens specs you start with. There is a nice calculator here. The downside to extension tubes is you cannot quickly switch to "normal" lens use without removing the tubes.

[bigdog2590]

thanks guys u made up my mind for me. its the 35mm im not a bug guy but i am a flower guy. later on ill add the 18 135 wr and that will complete my lens set. appreciate the help

norral

[Na Horuk]

Oh yeah, for natural light flowers the DA 35mm f2.8 macro is great. High quality lens all around, be sure to post some photos in the tiny flowers and bigger flowers and macro flowers threads when you get some shooting days

[WPRESTO]

Good choice if you do primarily flowers. Couple pieces of advice: 1) switch to manual focus at greater than about 1:5 repro; 2) at extreme close-up range (1:2 to 1:1) you may have to move the camera & lens fore-aft to obtain focus* - - probably the best, most reasonably priced unit to do this is the Velbon super-mag slider (about $130 from B&H);** 3) carry a small, collapsible diffusing panel; and/or 4) carry some small reflectors such as 5X6 pieces of foam-core or mounting board, white one side and possibly painted silver or gold on the other. Most flowers look best in soft light without harsh, dark shadows.

*If you're working inside in a studio using strobes, move the subject to get into focus; this works well with both flowers and live insects.
**The Velbon has a fore-aft movement for focusing and a shorter right-left adjustment. The right-left part can be removed easily to make the main unit more compact for field use. If you use a quick release system such as Arca-Swiss, a base unit can be mounted atop the right-left part of the Velbon and you'll have two fine-distance-focus adjusters, one for field, one for inside.

[Digitalis]

ts the 35mm im not a bug guy but i am a flower guy.

You can still do flower shots with longer macro lenses, a 35mm macro lens will suit your purposes just fine but it might limit your opportunities. You never know: you might develop an interest in photographing bees or butterflies on the flowers. Longer macro lenses simply give you more options on the kind of subject matter you can pursue - however for pentax, long macro lenses are a bit of a rarity.


Pentax K5IIs - Pentax SMCP-FA*200mm f/4 ED MACRO


Pentax K5IIs - Pentax SMCP-FA*200mm f/4 ED Macro + AF160FC Ringflash