DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited

alib99 · 01-18-2008, 05:00 AM

DA limiteds does not have aperture ring.

But I have not seen a macro lens without aperture ring.

mer · 01-18-2008, 05:09 AM

I can understand the DA limiteds not having aperture rings , as they are pancakes ... but yeah... a macro lens without aperture ring is not good. How am I supposed to use it with extension tubes that dont have electronic connections/bellows or reversed.. ? I can't.

blende8 · 01-18-2008, 05:23 AM

Agree.
This is half-baked.

And for a macro lens the focus scale is rather compressed.
Other macro lenses have 5m as the first label, this one has 0.5m!
Look at the silly DoF scale.

Btw. here are the specs of the Tokina version of this lens.
Probably the Pentax version is similar.

Elements/Groups: 9/8
shortest distance: 0.14 m
blades: 9
Filter diameter: 52 mm
73.2 x 60.4mm (diameter x Length)
weight: 340 g

creampuff · 01-18-2008, 07:17 AM

The Tokina looks really ugly when compared to the design of the Pentax.

alib99 · 01-18-2008, 08:06 AM

It seems to have a fancy and different hood.

kb244 · 01-18-2008, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by tux08902

It's a macro lens. That's enough of a special reason!

Except it's a 35mm macro lens, if you have ever worked with a 50mm life size macro you know how close you have to be to the subject to achieve life size results. Now imagine that with a 35mm, I would find it somewhat impractical. Now if it were just 1:2 then perhaps it'll be about the same working distance as a 50 1:1.

kb244 · 01-18-2008, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by alib99

DA limiteds does not have aperture ring.

But I have not seen a macro lens without aperture ring.

Just about any Canon EF lens that are macro (100/2.8, 60/2.8 EFS, Tamron 90/2.8, Sigma 50 and 105 2.8)

While the DA lens (not just 'limited' to limited) do not have aperture rings, you usually don't need them on the cameras they're designed for. And if the lens will cover they do work on some of the newer film bodies that can control the aperture from the body (such as a DA40 on my MZ-6).

kb244 · 01-18-2008, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by mer

I can understand the DA limiteds not having aperture rings , as they are pancakes ... but yeah... a macro lens without aperture ring is not good. How am I supposed to use it with extension tubes that dont have electronic connections/bellows or reversed.. ? I can't.

The argument seems somewhat silly in my opinion. After all you purchase a macro lens so that you do not have to utilize extensions, bellows, or reverse-mounting (all of which are cheaper ways of getting macro without a macro lens.) I mean it would kind of defeat the purpose if you did that with a macro lens.

But if it really bugs you that much buy an FA50 or FA100 macro lens. Both of which seem to make more sense than a 35mm macro as the working distances are much more bearable to achieve lifesize perspective. To me it seems to be marketing vs practicality in marketing a compact-wide macro.

kb244 · 01-18-2008, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by blende8

Agree.
And for a macro lens the focus scale is rather compressed.
Other macro lenses have 5m as the first label, this one has 0.5m!
Look at the silly DoF scale.

Most other macro lens are 50mm or longer, not 35mm. Have you ever compared the distance scale of a 24mm, 35mm to that of a 50mm or 100mm? The wider lens often do go rather quickly from close to infinity. My Tamron 90/2.8 1:1 macro goes from infinity to 3m on it's first label. Macro lens are not really intended for working distances of 15ft+ anyways (that's why they're macro lenses).

Simply put, most of the problems or disadvantages I'm reading in this thread are pretty much non-issue.

creampuff · 01-18-2008, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by kb244

Except it's a 35mm macro lens, if you have ever worked with a 50mm life size macro you know how close you have to be to the subject to achieve life size results. Now imagine that with a 35mm, I would find it somewhat impractical. Now if it were just 1:2 then perhaps it'll be about the same working distance as a 50 1:1.

Even if the subject distance for a lifesize shot is very close on the 35mm macro, it nonetheless will be a useful addition. Simply put, you don't always have to shoot 1:1 macros.

The lens will offer a wider angle of view and depth of field compared to the 50mm macro, which is definitely useful for subjects like food photography, still life, etc. With the 1.5x crop factor, all our lenses have become narrower in angle of view compared to traditional 35mm on film. This lens "restores" the angle of view of the 50mm macro on film cameras.

mer · 01-18-2008, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by kb244

The argument seems somewhat silly in my opinion. After all you purchase a macro lens so that you do not have to utilize extensions, bellows, or reverse-mounting (all of which are cheaper ways of getting macro without a macro lens.) I mean it would kind of defeat the purpose if you did that with a macro lens.

But if it really bugs you that much buy an FA50 or FA100 macro lens. Both of which seem to make more sense than a 35mm macro as the working distances are much more bearable to achieve lifesize perspective. To me it seems to be marketing vs practicality in marketing a compact-wide macro.

I already have the DFA 50mm macro . The reason to use it reversed , or with bellows or tubes is to get more than lifesize ... But then again you would tell me to buy a Zeiss Luminar or a Leitz Photar lol

kb244 · 01-18-2008, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by mer

I already have the DFA 50mm macro . The reason to use it reversed , or with bellows or tubes is to get more than lifesize ... But then again you would tell me to buy a Zeiss Luminar or a Leitz Photar lol

Why would I tell you to buy those? I'm simply saying that arguing the 35/2.8 macro as a useless lens simply cuz you can't use bellows, electronic-less extension tubes, or reversing is non-issue, because if you actually buy a 'macro' lens then you wouldn't need those things.

If you want more than lifesize, simply reverse a wider angle lens such as a 35 (non-macro) and there ya go, you'd be surprised (same with extension). So again non-issue cuz you wouldn't need to buy the macro if thats what you intend to do.

kb244 · 01-18-2008, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

Even if the subject distance for a lifesize shot is very close on the 35mm macro, it nonetheless will be a useful addition. Simply put, you don't always have to shoot 1:1 macros.

The lens will offer a wider angle of view and depth of field compared to the 50mm macro, which is definitely useful for subjects like food photography, still life, etc. With the 1.5x crop factor, all our lenses have become narrower in angle of view compared to traditional 35mm on film. This lens "restores" the angle of view of the 50mm macro on film cameras.

Normally when one is shooting food and such, they don't want the camera to be quite that close to the food in terms of working distance. And of course you don't have to shoot at 1:1, but why buy something if the primary marketed capabilities are not so practical? For non-lifesize shots, wide angles do get decently close, food photography as you said could likely be handled by the DA40 I have pretty well and get decently close given the subject nature.

Kaimarx · 01-18-2008, 06:47 PM

Well, its a welcome addition to the Pentax lineup even though its pretty close to the 40. Would've been nice if it was a 28mm or even a 31 to space them out a bit more without dropping the 40 for a even kit. 21,35,55,70 sounds pretty good though.

KFrog · 01-18-2008, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by loudbay

I just stumbled on this picture. Has anyone actually seen the pic before. It looks very nice! Nice to know that Pentax hasn't forgotten about nice primes.

Matt

I've seen it before. I saw it first on dpreview last year. It was overshadowed by the three DA* lenses and the medium format camera.

Pentax to exhibit future products at PMA: Digital Photography Review

01-18-2008, 01:09 PM	#23
kb244 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 372	Ermmm Originally posted by mer I can understand the DA limiteds not having aperture rings , as they are pancakes ... but yeah... a macro lens without aperture ring is not good. How am I supposed to use it with extension tubes that dont have electronic connections/bellows or reversed.. ? I can't. The argument seems somewhat silly in my opinion. After all you purchase a macro lens so that you do not have to utilize extensions, bellows, or reverse-mounting (all of which are cheaper ways of getting macro without a macro lens.) I mean it would kind of defeat the purpose if you did that with a macro lens. But if it really bugs you that much buy an FA50 or FA100 macro lens. Both of which seem to make more sense than a 35mm macro as the working distances are much more bearable to achieve lifesize perspective. To me it seems to be marketing vs practicality in marketing a compact-wide macro.

01-18-2008, 01:13 PM	#24
kb244 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 372	Originally posted by blende8 Agree. And for a macro lens the focus scale is rather compressed. Other macro lenses have 5m as the first label, this one has 0.5m! Look at the silly DoF scale. Most other macro lens are 50mm or longer, not 35mm. Have you ever compared the distance scale of a 24mm, 35mm to that of a 50mm or 100mm? The wider lens often do go rather quickly from close to infinity. My Tamron 90/2.8 1:1 macro goes from infinity to 3m on it's first label. Macro lens are not really intended for working distances of 15ft+ anyways (that's why they're macro lenses). Simply put, most of the problems or disadvantages I'm reading in this thread are pretty much non-issue. Last edited by kb244; 01-18-2008 at 01:20 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA* 16-50 or 35mm limited macro	Ketsuppi11	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	11-20-2008 03:19 AM
For Sale - Sold: FS: DA 35mm Limited macro or FA 77mm Limited	aegisphan	Sold Items	20	04-24-2008 10:47 AM
DA 35mm f2.8 Macro limited	Acliffalay	Pentax News and Rumors	38	01-29-2008 04:16 AM

01-18-2008, 05:00 AM	#16
alib99 Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 90	DA limiteds does not have aperture ring. But I have not seen a macro lens without aperture ring.

01-18-2008, 05:09 AM	#17
mer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Greece Posts: 237	I can understand the DA limiteds not having aperture rings , as they are pancakes ... but yeah... a macro lens without aperture ring is not good. How am I supposed to use it with extension tubes that dont have electronic connections/bellows or reversed.. ? I can't.

01-18-2008, 05:23 AM	#18
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	Agree. This is half-baked. And for a macro lens the focus scale is rather compressed. Other macro lenses have 5m as the first label, this one has 0.5m! Look at the silly DoF scale. Btw. here are the specs of the Tokina version of this lens. Probably the Pentax version is similar. Elements/Groups: 9/8 shortest distance: 0.14 m blades: 9 Filter diameter: 52 mm 73.2 x 60.4mm (diameter x Length) weight: 340 g

01-18-2008, 07:17 AM	#19
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	The Tokina looks really ugly when compared to the design of the Pentax.

01-18-2008, 08:06 AM	#20
alib99 Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 90	It seems to have a fancy and different hood.

01-18-2008, 12:43 PM	#21
kb244 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 372	Originally posted by tux08902 It's a macro lens. That's enough of a special reason! Except it's a 35mm macro lens, if you have ever worked with a 50mm life size macro you know how close you have to be to the subject to achieve life size results. Now imagine that with a 35mm, I would find it somewhat impractical. Now if it were just 1:2 then perhaps it'll be about the same working distance as a 50 1:1.

01-18-2008, 12:45 PM	#22
kb244 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 372	Originally posted by alib99 DA limiteds does not have aperture ring. But I have not seen a macro lens without aperture ring. Just about any Canon EF lens that are macro (100/2.8, 60/2.8 EFS, Tamron 90/2.8, Sigma 50 and 105 2.8) While the DA lens (not just 'limited' to limited) do not have aperture rings, you usually don't need them on the cameras they're designed for. And if the lens will cover they do work on some of the newer film bodies that can control the aperture from the body (such as a DA40 on my MZ-6).

01-18-2008, 03:36 PM	#25
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Originally posted by kb244 Except it's a 35mm macro lens, if you have ever worked with a 50mm life size macro you know how close you have to be to the subject to achieve life size results. Now imagine that with a 35mm, I would find it somewhat impractical. Now if it were just 1:2 then perhaps it'll be about the same working distance as a 50 1:1. Even if the subject distance for a lifesize shot is very close on the 35mm macro, it nonetheless will be a useful addition. Simply put, you don't always have to shoot 1:1 macros. The lens will offer a wider angle of view and depth of field compared to the 50mm macro, which is definitely useful for subjects like food photography, still life, etc. With the 1.5x crop factor, all our lenses have become narrower in angle of view compared to traditional 35mm on film. This lens "restores" the angle of view of the 50mm macro on film cameras.

01-18-2008, 03:55 PM	#26
mer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Greece Posts: 237	Originally posted by kb244 The argument seems somewhat silly in my opinion. After all you purchase a macro lens so that you do not have to utilize extensions, bellows, or reverse-mounting (all of which are cheaper ways of getting macro without a macro lens.) I mean it would kind of defeat the purpose if you did that with a macro lens. But if it really bugs you that much buy an FA50 or FA100 macro lens. Both of which seem to make more sense than a 35mm macro as the working distances are much more bearable to achieve lifesize perspective. To me it seems to be marketing vs practicality in marketing a compact-wide macro. I already have the DFA 50mm macro . The reason to use it reversed , or with bellows or tubes is to get more than lifesize ... But then again you would tell me to buy a Zeiss Luminar or a Leitz Photar lol

01-18-2008, 05:07 PM	#27
kb244 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 372	Originally posted by mer I already have the DFA 50mm macro . The reason to use it reversed , or with bellows or tubes is to get more than lifesize ... But then again you would tell me to buy a Zeiss Luminar or a Leitz Photar lol Why would I tell you to buy those? I'm simply saying that arguing the 35/2.8 macro as a useless lens simply cuz you can't use bellows, electronic-less extension tubes, or reversing is non-issue, because if you actually buy a 'macro' lens then you wouldn't need those things. If you want more than lifesize, simply reverse a wider angle lens such as a 35 (non-macro) and there ya go, you'd be surprised (same with extension). So again non-issue cuz you wouldn't need to buy the macro if thats what you intend to do.

01-18-2008, 05:09 PM	#28
kb244 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 372	Originally posted by creampuff Even if the subject distance for a lifesize shot is very close on the 35mm macro, it nonetheless will be a useful addition. Simply put, you don't always have to shoot 1:1 macros. The lens will offer a wider angle of view and depth of field compared to the 50mm macro, which is definitely useful for subjects like food photography, still life, etc. With the 1.5x crop factor, all our lenses have become narrower in angle of view compared to traditional 35mm on film. This lens "restores" the angle of view of the 50mm macro on film cameras. Normally when one is shooting food and such, they don't want the camera to be quite that close to the food in terms of working distance. And of course you don't have to shoot at 1:1, but why buy something if the primary marketed capabilities are not so practical? For non-lifesize shots, wide angles do get decently close, food photography as you said could likely be handled by the DA40 I have pretty well and get decently close given the subject nature.

01-18-2008, 06:47 PM	#29
Kaimarx Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Auckland Photos: Gallery Posts: 452	Well, its a welcome addition to the Pentax lineup even though its pretty close to the 40. Would've been nice if it was a 28mm or even a 31 to space them out a bit more without dropping the 40 for a even kit. 21,35,55,70 sounds pretty good though.

01-18-2008, 07:08 PM	#30
KFrog Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Katy, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 294	Originally posted by loudbay I just stumbled on this picture. Has anyone actually seen the pic before. It looks very nice! Nice to know that Pentax hasn't forgotten about nice primes. Matt I've seen it before. I saw it first on dpreview last year. It was overshadowed by the three DA* lenses and the medium format camera. Pentax to exhibit future products at PMA: Digital Photography Review