[paperbag846]

Hey everyone!

I know this is a common topic, but I have not seen anything specifically on flare resistance.

I really do love (and miss) the 40. Colour and sharpness from that lens were just pronominal.

I have seen some VERY magnificent samples of the DA 35 macro for "normal" stuff. What caught my eye was that the lens would not flare, no matter what.

In this case I am talking about shots of sunlight through the trees (or clouds), where there was 0 flare, but clearly defined shafts of sunlight. My 15 can do that sort of thing, but with my 50, forget it.

I'm curious whether the 35 outperforms the 40 in this regard. I remember the 40 handling most types of flare well, but not to the same extent as my DA 15. Does the 35 handle these sorts of situations better than the 40?

I'm not so much in need of a macro (although perhaps I would make use of it for general close-focus stuff, I don't think that would be too often). The major reason I would shell out for the 35 would be: A) better spacing from my 50, and B) superior flare resistance.

Thanks everyone. Sorry for beating and old, dead horse .

[v5planet]

Hey everyone!

I know this is a common topic, but I have not seen anything specifically on flare resistance.

I really do love (and miss) the 40. Colour and sharpness from that lens were just pronominal.

I have seen some VERY magnificent samples of the DA 35 macro for "normal" stuff. What caught my eye was that the lens would not flare, no matter what.

In this case I am talking about shots of sunlight through the trees (or clouds), where there was 0 flare, but clearly defined shafts of sunlight. My 15 can do that sort of thing, but with my 50, forget it.

I'm curious whether the 35 outperforms the 40 in this regard. I remember the 40 handling most types of flare well, but not to the same extent as my DA 15. Does the 35 handle these sorts of situations better than the 40?

I'm not so much in need of a macro (although perhaps I would make use of it for general close-focus stuff, I don't think that would be too often). The major reason I would shell out for the 35 would be: A) better spacing from my 50, and B) superior flare resistance.

Thanks everyone. Sorry for beating and old, dead horse .

Unfortunately I don't own the DA40, so I can't directly compare them for you. In general I find the flare resistance of the 35 to be superlative. Based on your description above, I'm assuming this photo of mine may be one that you stumbled upon:



The 35 was my first lens and I honestly didn't even understand what lens flare was until I started playing around with older glass. I don't think you'll be disappointed in its performance in this regard, regardless of how it may stack up directly against the DA40.

There are other considerations though... The 35 has a very long focus throw owing to its close focus ability, and while this makes it a joy to manually focus (at close range anyway), it does not have the snappiest AF in the world. Coming from the DA40 you may find this slightly off-putting.

[v5planet]

In fact, I think I have seen substantially more lens flare with my DA15 than I ever saw with the 35... though this might be because I point the DA15 at the sun a lot more often

[Rondec]

Having owned both (I just own the DA 35 now), flare resistance is a little better on the DA 35. Not sure why that is because, it has more glass than the DA 40. Certainly its hood isn't particularly substantial.

[stanic]

I don`t own the 40 ltd, but the 35 ltd macro is one of my best lens and it`s flare resistance really works for me
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/u3lrGBkK7cEIzoOwCCHbfw?feat=directlink
but if you force it you can of course get some - check the area under the sun (PP`ed in LR)
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kRPfS9mtkrWySTN8fzBqKw?feat=directlink

[paperbag846]

V5planet - yes, that was the photo that piqued my interest!

I imagine that compared to the DA 40, the AF will not exactly be impressive. However, quickshift AND af should be pretty quick.

I've seen images from the 35 that imply look unreal. Thanks everyone for your input. I think I want to do more of a formal test (I'm in no rush, anyways), but I am quite curious.

I wouldn't consider either if pentax would make a DA limited 28mm in any form. Cest le vie.

[dgaies]

I imagine that compared to the DA 40, the AF will not exactly be impressive.

This is true.

However, quickshift AND af should be pretty quick.

Quick-shift does help if you're going between close and more distant subjects. However, even discounting the time to pre-focus manually, the DA40 is not surprisingly quicker to lock in most instances.

On the original topic of flare resistance, I can't say I've really had any issues with either in terms of flare, but then again, I've never compared them directly so I couldn't say how exactly the 40 compares to the 35.

[v5planet]

Quick-shift does help if you're going between close and more distant subjects. However, even discounting the time to pre-focus manually, the DA40 is not surprisingly quicker to lock in most instances.

In my experience with the 35, prefocusing didn't always help all that much. It would often just ignore the region I had MF'ed to and go whirling through its full range hunting. But then, I did do a lot of photography in low light in the deeps of the forest, so maybe I'm biasing the results. My K-7's AF module was also apparently out of alignment and front focused horrendously, so I ended up using the 35 as a MF lens anyway for the first several months I owned it.

[paperbag846]

In my experience with the 35, prefocusing didn't always help all that much. It would often just ignore the region I had MF'ed to and go whirling through its full range hunting. But then, I did do a lot of photography in low light in the deeps of the forest, so maybe I'm biasing the results. My K-7's AF module was also apparently out of alignment and front focused horrendously, so I ended up using the 35 as a MF lens anyway for the first several months I owned it.

Something to think about.

I'm not going to be using this lens so much as a macro, so perhaps the 35 isn't the perfect lens for me.

Ahh how I wish the 21 was a 24.

I know that's picky, but I already have the 15 and I don't need a 21 *that* badly alongside the 15.

My other concern with the 35 is that it won't be quite wide enough for me to use it as a normal.

But I want that flare resistance real bad.

[dgaies]

In my experience with the 35, prefocusing didn't always help all that much. It would often just ignore the region I had MF'ed to and go whirling through its full range hunting. But then, I did do a lot of photography in low light in the deeps of the forest, so maybe I'm biasing the results. My K-7's AF module was also apparently out of alignment and front focused horrendously, so I ended up using the 35 as a MF lens anyway for the first several months I owned it.

Yeah, that's why I said it might help in certain situations, but you're probably right about it not being that helpful overall. To be honest, I don't pre-focus with the 35 too often, nor have I found the speed of the 35 to be a major issue. The 40 is faster, but the 35 is usually fast enough (if that makes sense).

Now on my 100WR, I find pre-focusing can be very helpful in quite a few circumstances.

[v5planet]

Yeah, that's why I said it might help in certain situations, but you're probably right about it not being that helpful overall. To be honest, I don't pre-focus with the 35 too often, nor have I found the speed of the 35 to be a major issue. The 40 is faster, but the 35 is usually fast enough (if that makes sense).

Now on my 100WR, I find pre-focusing can be very helpful in quite a few circumstances.

That's fair - it's only actually slow to focus if it hunts and has to wheel through the short range end. Although in my experience when it starts doing that it's not actually going to ever find focus and quick shift be damned, in AF-S if you don't get a lock you can't take a shot. Unfortunately, in the environments I was using the 35 this tended to happen a lot.

paperbag - for what it's worth I kind of find the 35's FOV a bit boring. I briefly had a 28mm Takumar and agree that that FOV is a lot more appealing; however that lens flared and was fiercely contrasty in even slightly bright lighting (highlights bloomed like a bitch and shadows burnt their edges intensely). Selling the 28mm Takumar didn't encourage me to use the 35Ltd anymore though.

It is quite fine optically, but I don't get much use out of it. I will say though that I think you'll prove yourself wrong about not using it as a macro much -- if you ever get your hands on it and realize just how close you can stick that front element up to something and still focus on it you'll find ALL sorts of excuses for extreme closeups

[paperbag846]

It is quite fine optically, but I don't get much use out of it. I will say though that I think you'll prove yourself wrong about not using it as a macro much -- if you ever get your hands on it and realize just how close you can stick that front element up to something and still focus on it you'll find ALL sorts of excuses for extreme closeups

Yes the 35 looks like something I would have a lot of fun with.

I'm also with you on the 28mm. I had a 28mm f2.8 that was a very good lens, but not THAT much better than my kit lens, so I sold it after about a year. It did flare pretty badly (worse than the kit).

If I could find a lens that has the resolution of the 28, with better bokeh handling, and phenomenal flare resistance, FOV between 24mm - 28mm, I would pay handsomely for it.

What I'm really talking about is a digital equivalent of the FA 43 ltd, with DA ltd flare resistance. I was thinking the DA 35 might work as a compromise, but now I think it might not really be the right one for my needs.

[stanic]

in AF-S if you don't get a lock you can't take a shot

if you disable AF with shutter button and use AF button instead, than this is not going to happen

[v5planet]

if you disable AF with shutter button and use AF button instead, than this is not going to happen

I did not know this - thanks!

[stanic]

I did not know this - thanks!

you`re welcome