Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-18-2008, 05:00 AM   #16
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
Veteran Member
blende8's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bremen, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,484
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
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
The Tokina looks really ugly when compared to the design of the Pentax.

01-18-2008, 08:06 AM   #20
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 90
It seems to have a fancy and different hood.
01-18-2008, 12:43 PM   #21
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by tux08902 Quote
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
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by alib99 Quote
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, 01:09 PM   #23
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 361
Ermmm

QuoteOriginally posted by mer Quote
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
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by blende8 Quote
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.
01-18-2008, 03:36 PM   #25
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
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
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
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
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by mer Quote
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
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 361
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
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
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
Senior Member
KFrog's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Katy, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 294
QuoteOriginally posted by loudbay Quote
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
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm f/2.8 macro, da 35mm f/2.8, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:04 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top