Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-16-2013, 01:46 AM   #1
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,478
Do I need a 35mm lens????

A while back I invested in almost a complete line of DA Limited prime lenses. After using a zoom for a while I figured I wanted to progress to primes...

Honestly it's taken quite a bit of getting used to but now I am using exclusively primes in my shots. The 40mm limited is a little gem. The 21mm sees a lot of action too. The 70 and 15mm both see action from time to time but not as much as the other two...but I expect as I get more used to the prime lenses they will see even more action...especially as I am able to get out and take photos more often.

Like I said I have all the limited lenses except the 35mm. I also have a manual 50mm f1.4 lens that is pretty good and a F 50mm 1.7...those aren't getting used a lot but from time to time yes. Very much so. Just depends on the inspiration.

My question for discussion purposes is do I really need the 35mm macro? I am sure I would love it like I love the others... and I would find a place for it... but does it seem to others that the 35mm is kind of close to the 40mm in focal length?

Odds are in my LBA I will buy it anyway just to round out the collection but I am putting it out there for discussion... also I see there are two versions of the 35mm. I am sure I will stick with the limited because so far I haven't been disappointed with any limited lens...but what is the main differences (as the price is huge in difference)...

In the end, sell me on the 35mm...why?

I am sure that eventually I will get the 31mm and the other FA lenses as well...but that will be in the future.

(on a side note I think I will also want to get another camera body as well... put one focal length on one and one on the other and it can help minimize lens swapping... on that note though sometimes I put the 40mm on and go all day with that...something I never thought I would do.... so far it seems like the 40 is my heavy use lens.... but I think a second body is in order, especially if I start travelling overseas again more...aside from convenience it will be a backup)...

SO... I want two K5IIs bodies and all those FA lenses and the 35mm limited...but right now I want to focus on the 35mm in the context of what I have already...

05-16-2013, 02:20 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 3,913
The 35 ltd is very close indeed in focal length to the 40. The main difference is the macro ability. I don't own a 40mm but I would expect the IQ to be similar, and the 35ltd has superb IQ.

As you already have other limited lenses you won't be happy with the DAL 35mm f/2.4. It's a tiny bit faster and can be used on film, but the 35 ltd is much better in every other regard: IQ, build quality, features.

Logically, you could get the 35, compare it to the 40 and get rid of the one you least like, but it sounds to me like you'll buy it and then keep both anyway. If I had the money that's exactly what I'd do, just because limited lenses are beautiful things.
05-16-2013, 02:53 AM   #3
Veteran Member
frank's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,202
Since it's to ease your LBA pain, just get it. It's one of the sharpest lenses out there, especially for close field targets (<0.5m), you won't be disappointed.
05-16-2013, 02:56 AM   #4
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,325
I don't have the 35mm limited, but I have the DA 35mm f2.4 and DA 40mm XS. I think the 40mm is sharper and focuses faster. And by all accounts the 40mm ltd is as good as or better than the XS.
Btw, there is also an FA 35mm f2.0. Its not limited, but this might be a rival to the other limiteds because it is f2.0 and full frame. Then there is the 35mm limited, which is highly praised by its owners, and it has the amazing 1:1 macro, if you are into that. This is something that not a lot of lenses allow. For some reason Pentax makes a lot of primes between 31mm and 50mm.
But if you are planning on getting the FA 31mm ltd, then you might not need all the other 35mm lenses. Unless you want macro in that focal length.

05-16-2013, 03:02 AM   #5
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,478
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
As you already have other limited lenses you won't be happy with the DAL 35mm f/2.4. It's a tiny bit faster and can be used on film, but the 35 ltd is much better in every other regard: IQ, build quality, features.

Logically, you could get the 35, compare it to the 40 and get rid of the one you least like, but it sounds to me like you'll buy it and then keep both anyway. If I had the money that's exactly what I'd do, just because limited lenses are beautiful things.
Nailed it. Summed it up perfectly. Couldn't have said it any better myself.
05-16-2013, 03:19 AM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Cambridge, Ontario
Posts: 179
You will never be disappointed in any Limited. I also have the four you have and at one time the 35 Limited. I sold it because I preferred the longer reach of the 100 for macro. I did buy the 31 and use it a lot and my only regret is that I had not bought it sooner.

But you can never have too many Limited lenses, so go for the 35 if you want it.
05-16-2013, 03:27 AM   #7
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,478
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
But if you are planning on getting the FA 31mm ltd, then you might not need all the other 35mm lenses. Unless you want macro in that focal length.
Good point. For a few hundred extra bucks I can get the 31 and its legendary status. That's something to think about. Surpass the 35macro and save for the 31mm.

If I get the 31 etc etc it will be for speed among other things. I look at the focal length equivalent and to me the more I look at this photography stuff lenses are like colors on a painter's pallet. You might use that color (or lens) every now and then, but when you do it can do big things.

I like sharp lenses. Sharper the better.

I have only been at photography a short while (although i have had good coaching to get me up to speed)... in the end of June it will be a year since I started.

Yes, part of it is LBA but also I am finding out more and more about photography and am discerning more and more as I learn more and more...

As far as macro work goes I don't do a lot of it, although I have experimented with it some. I used a reverse ring and so forth... but I have the tamron 70-200 macro and that one works pretty good in my opinion.

With the 35mm it seems like you would have to get right on top of your subject to shoot whereas with a longer focal length you get in closer without actually getting in closer...

I think over time I will build my collection. Its not something I will do all at once just to have it all. Not by any means. Having tons of gear doesn't make one a better photographer...

But I do think if I have several (at least two) camera bodies mixed with good lenses it can expand one's capabilities and lessen hassles. At the end of the day it still boils down to the creative and artistic eye of who's behind the camera. Already though a lot of my mentors have pushed me into areas where I never thought I would even be thinking about 6 months ago.

Again, having the lenses goes back to the painter's pallet analogy. If you take care of the lenses they will last for years and years on end. Its not like they go bad. But having options that you know how to use can keep things fresh. Those are just some of my thoughts on it. I don't expect the lens to make me personally better, but it can give me fresh ideas in how to look at things and how to creatively look at the world...

Last edited by alamo5000; 05-16-2013 at 04:06 AM.
05-16-2013, 03:36 AM   #8
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,478
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Primes4ever Quote
You will never be disappointed in any Limited. I also have the four you have and at one time the 35 Limited. I sold it because I preferred the longer reach of the 100 for macro. I did buy the 31 and use it a lot and my only regret is that I had not bought it sooner.

But you can never have too many Limited lenses, so go for the 35 if you want it.

I have a lot of stuff that I want. Now I just need to pay for it all. I am not some rich kid...but I am committed to photography. And if I am committed to it and have a desire to have as many options as possible on the table, I can gain years and years of enjoyment from the investment.

Like I said though, I prefer myself to go for quality and sharpness. I am looking at this as a long term investment. 10 years on I could STILL be using the lenses....so in the grand scheme of things... why not go for it?

That said I don't want to double up on unneeded or not unique stuff. For example I have the DA limited, and although they have a different 40 I see no need to duplicate the focal length at this time. There may be some reason to do so (IE with 50mm there are different apertures and so forth and different designs that allow for different effects or whatever)....but in general I want to expand my range...so that I can grow into mastering each lens...and have the option to look at the world in different ways...and capture it too...

05-16-2013, 03:46 AM   #9
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,478
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Primes4ever Quote
I also have the four you have and at one time the 35 Limited. I sold it because I preferred the longer reach of the 100 for macro.

I am in the same school of thought as you are when I think about macro. I don't shoot a lot of 'macro' but it would be nice to have... at this point its not a priority...because that's not what I am into at the moment... I have taken some decent macro shots but I am not focusing in this area...but for real macro I would like a longer reach...for bugs and stuff...

This is one reason why I am questioning the 35mm...that focal length....is it worth the investment for a walking around lens? I am sure as others stated I will love the lens and find a use for it at times... but I am trying to think it through and learn about lens selection just as much as I would like another lens....

Pic below was taken with the Tamron 70-200mm macro...

05-16-2013, 04:51 AM   #10
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
I am in the same school of thought as you are when I think about macro. I don't shoot a lot of 'macro' but it would be nice to have... at this point its not a priority...because that's not what I am into at the moment... I have taken some decent macro shots but I am not focusing in this area...but for real macro I would like a longer reach...for bugs and stuff...

This is one reason why I am questioning the 35mm...that focal length....is it worth the investment for a walking around lens? I am sure as others stated I will love the lens and find a use for it at times... but I am trying to think it through and learn about lens selection just as much as I would like another lens....

Pic below was taken with the Tamron 70-200mm macro...
Good grief - that spider image is absolutely stunning! I may have to add that lens to my wish list. Does it work well with a teleconverter?
05-16-2013, 06:23 AM - 1 Like   #11
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,641
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
Do I need a 35mm lens????
If you don't have a 35 mm the answer is "of course you do", what a daft question, LBA rules OK.
05-16-2013, 06:31 AM   #12
Veteran Member
steve1307's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,128
the Tamron 70-200 "macro" strictly speaking isnt a true macro lens. It can only do a 1:3 magnification.

Still that's an excellent closeup, I guess maybe taken @200mm close to the MFD of about 1metre. (maybe a bit of a crop too, about 1/2 linear dimension?)

To get the same shot filling the frame (with no crop) with a Pentax DFA100 macro you'd be about 1ft away from the spider and you might need f32 !! to get the similar DOF in a single shot.

With a DA35 macro you'd be so close the hood would have to be pulled in as it would just about touch the spider.

Both the 100macro and 35macro are tack sharp and excellent resolution can handle crops so you don't really need to be that close for a shot like this, but I'm just trying to illustrate the difference.


I have the 35macro and the FA43 bought about a month apart, I forget which order. this was before the 100macroWR was released.
They are pretty close in FL and I prefer the 43 for "people" shots and the 100 for objects & macro. As a result the 35 hasn't been used a lot in the last year.
I've just confused maters by buying an FA31. Maybe the 35macro will go

If money (or dedication) no object Then DFA100WR for macros and FA31 for everything else.
But having said that the DA35macro is a capable and versatile lens worthy in any collection.

Last edited by steve1307; 05-16-2013 at 06:42 AM.
05-16-2013, 07:15 AM   #13
Senior Member
dboeren's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 148
You've got a 40mm you like. You've got a 21mm you like. 35mm I think is too close to 40mm, so I'd go for the 31mm. Higher quality than the 35mm and it nicely splits the gap you have. Simple reasoning, but there you go
05-16-2013, 07:24 AM   #14
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,615
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
This is one reason why I am questioning the 35mm...that focal length....is it worth the investment for a walking around lens?
One of the many great things about the DA 35 Ltd Macro
is that when you're using it as your single walk-around lens,
you have the macro ability for whatever you come across.

Here's an example from one such random walk-around encounter:

05-16-2013, 09:47 AM   #15
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,478
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ikershaw Quote
Good grief - that spider image is absolutely stunning! I may have to add that lens to my wish list. Does it work well with a teleconverter?

Thanks! It was sheer luck of being in the right place at the right time. Have no idea if it will work with a TC. Never used one.

Last edited by alamo5000; 05-16-2013 at 11:27 AM.
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!
40mm, 50mm, body, fa, k-mount, length, lenses, lot, note, pentax lens, slr lens, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do I need a Kit Lens telegazz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 04-11-2012 11:00 PM
Do I need a zoom lens? wasure Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 18 03-02-2012 02:23 PM
I have a stock and 50mm lenses.. do I need 35mm and lower? SRG01 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 06-19-2011 10:39 PM
Do I need a new lens trishytee Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 35 01-11-2011 01:11 AM
do I need a new size lens houstonmacgregor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 08-16-2008 06:02 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:32 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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