Sorry to bother you with my personal dilemmas.

Three years have passed since I switched to Pentax and I still haven't got a limited.

The four I am considering are DA 21, 35 (macro), 40 mm, and 70mm.

I can only afford one of these.

My sole criterion is that the lens be so sharp that my Tamron 90 macro pales in comparison.

I have been to the DA Limited Lens Club and I am equally impressed by all four lenses.

I am leaning towards the macro, but since I already have 35 f/2.4, I am not sure if it will be a wise
investment unless I sell the one I own. I also have the feeling that the 35 f/2.8 is nothing special,
because it is already being sold as Tokina.

So, what say ye?

[MPrince]

I only have two of the four you are considering, the 40 and the 70. For my copies, the 70 is sharper than the 40. I rented the 21 once, and didn't think it any sharper than a $90 Sigma 24mm I had at the time.

[Aristophanes]

None of these lenses will outdo your Tamron 90 sharpness. I have all these lenses (had the DA 35 macro) and the Tamron and it is hard to beat a dedicated long macro in sharpness across the frame.

I love the 70 for people photos. It's a fantastic, light, compact lens with a wonderful 'voice'. It is, however, the closes in FL to your 90, though much smaller.

The 40 is exceptional IMO for its focus speed and versatility. It is, however, very close in FL to the DA 35mm's. You would split hairs between the speed/sharpness/rendition of the 40's and 35's.

The DA 21 is an interesting lens because it is wide angle, and very compact. It is a lovely, versatile lens in a market where most wide are huge.

If I was in your shoes I would get the 21, simply because the 35/40 you have mostly covered already at great value and priceerformance. Wides are generally not sharpness demons so asking for it to out-perform a macro...not going to happen. The 21's strength is its perspective and versatility in a small package. The weakness of the APS sensor is wides and the 21 gets that done nicely.

The 70 is hard to pass up. If your shooting style is more towards a longer FL tele end of things, then I'd get the tele. That said, I use my Tamron 90 as a long tele/portrait lens a lot, so in your case it can do double duty. The knock on the Tamron is size and slow focusing. The 70 is much superior and has a better rendition IMO.

So if you're lacking a wide in the bag and want to travel light, the 21. If you're looking for a a tele-FL and portrait monster, the 70. Your DA 35/2.4 is not something I'd add to at or near the FL.

Good luck.

[Groove]

Sorry to bother you with my personal dilemmas.

Three years have passed since I switched to Pentax and I still haven't got a limited.

The four I am considering are DA 21, 35 (macro), 40 mm, and 70mm.

I can only afford one of these.

My sole criterion is that the lens be so sharp that my Tamron 90 macro pales in comparison.

I have been to the DA Limited Lens Club and I am equally impressed by all four lenses.

I am leaning towards the macro, but since I already have 35 f/2.4, I am not sure if it will be a wise
investment unless I sell the one I own. I also have the feeling that the 35 f/2.8 is nothing special,
because it is already being sold as Tokina.

So, what say ye?

I have the 21, 40 and 70. The 70 is the sharpest, and I would choose it if I could only have one

[dagaetch]

It's really about which focal length you're more likely to use. What kind of shooting do you do mostly? I have the 40mm limited and really enjoy it, it's a pretty good length for a casual walk around lens.

Mprince: Either you got a poor copy of the DA21 or you were unusually lucky with your Sigma - or both.

Aristophanes: Why did you get rid of the 35 macro? When I said sharper than the Tamron 90, I was referring to non-macro work. And I already have the Sigma 10-20.

Groove: The 70mm definitely looks impressive.

dagaetch: I am either-wide-angle-or-telephoto. Give me a 35mm and I am usually at a loss as to what I should be doing. I use the 35 mm at family gatherings only.

[dagaetch]

dagaetch: I am either-wide-angle-or-telephoto. Give me a 35mm and I am usually at a loss as to what I should be doing. I use the 35 mm at family gatherings only.

Well then I think you've just narrowed your choices down to two between the 21 and 70. My personal thought would be, since you already have the Tamron 90mm, get the 21mm. That gives you three primes: 21mm, 35mm, and 90mm. But really - you know better than the rest of us which length you're more likely to shoot at.

[Docrwm]

I have had the 15 - 40 - 43 - 70 and if you like wide I'd suggest you broaden your consideration to include the 15Ltd. I sold the 40 and that was a hard decision but I needed to offset the great deal I got on a 43 and they are nearly identical in FoV and the 43 is faster plus I have the 35/2.4. The 15 really is tiny for a UWA lens and is just outstanding on things like flare and color rendition IMHO.

I have had the 15 - 40 - 43 - 70 and if you like wide I'd suggest you broaden your consideration to include the 15Ltd. I sold the 40 and that was a hard decision but I needed to offset the great deal I got on a 43 and they are nearly identical in FoV and the 43 is faster plus I have the 35/2.4. The 15 really is tiny for a UWA lens and is just outstanding on things like flare and color rendition IMHO.

The price is a factor in my case. In my part off the world, the DA 15 costs double the amount of the ones I have on my shortlist.

[lytrytyr]

Three years have passed since I switched to Pentax and I still haven't got a limited.
The four I am considering are DA 21, 35 (macro), 40 mm, and 70mm.
I can only afford one of these.
My sole criterion is that the lens be so sharp that my Tamron 90 macro pales in comparison.

Help me out: I don't understand the sense of buying a Limited lens
just because it might be sharper than a telephoto macro.

The Limited lenses are great (I use 15/35/70),
but there are other lenses that are sharper.

I also have the feeling that the 35 f/2.8 is nothing special,
because it is already being sold as Tokina.

The fact that the DA 35/2.8 was jointly done with Tokina
in no way detracts from its virtues.

In fact, if I were ever to defect to the dark side,
one of my first purchases would probably be that Tokina,
in order to replace my DA 35/2.8.

Help me out: I don't understand the sense of buying a Limited lens
just because it might be sharper than a telephoto macro.

The Limited lenses are great (I use 15/35/70),
but there are other lenses that are sharper.


The fact that the DA 35/2.8 was jointly done with Tokina
in no way detracts from its virtues.

In fact, if I were ever to defect to the dark side,
one of my first purchases would probably be that Tokina,
in order to replace my DA 35/2.8.

I am not sure I know what you are getting at. It seems to be an attempt at applying cold logic to decisions partly resting on emotive factors.

Person X would like to purchase a limited lens and he would like to purchase the sharpest limited available. There is hardly anything more to it.

[Docrwm]

The price is a factor in my case. In my part off the world, the DA 15 costs double the amount of the ones I have on my shortlist.

Ah, I had no idea. Of course there is the marketplace here.

[Kozlok]

Dominic, The limited lenses are all sharp. They are all very very sharp. Unless you print extremely huge prints all the time, or really like pixel peeping, the sharpness difference can be ignored. There are many reasons to choose one over the other, but really, sharpness isn't one of the more significant ones. My DA40 is sharper than my 15 at pretty much any aperture. The DA12-24 is sharper than the 15. My 35 macro is sharper than the 15. Your 90mm, and probably your 10-20 is sharper than it as well. I would still choose it if I were in your shoes. It renders colors and light in an amazing way. There is no "90mm macro controls my mind" thread. There is no "DA12-24 controls my mind" thread. There is a reason for the "15mm limited controls my mind" thread.

If you buy the 15mm used here on the forum, you can sell it easily for what you paid for it, so there is 0 risk to trying one out. I would think someone in Europe will sell one at some point.

Then you could go walking about with a 15/35/50/90 set, and that's a really great way to walk around, leave the zooms at home.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. This is my favorite shot of mine with the 15 (just look at that amazing dynamic range! Most lenses would be crushed by that much light along with that much shadow):





All that said, if you really really don't want the 15, of the 4 you listed, the 21 seems your best bet, and the 40 seems the least useful (although I really love mine).

[cali92rs]

dagaetch: I am either-wide-angle-or-telephoto. Give me a 35mm and I am usually at a loss as to what I should be doing. I use the 35 mm at family gatherings only.

Since you already have the 35mm f2.4, I wouldnt consider the 40mm nor the 35mm ltd, and especially given the statement above. I think you would also have a hard time finding usage since the 35 and 40 are so close in terms of field of view.

That leaves the 70mm or the 21mm. Given that choice, I presonally would choose the 70mm. Just me personally, I do not think the 21mm is wide for me to consider. That is 100% subjective of course.

:

Astounding that you do not need 10000 Euro equipment to achieve something as great as this.

I am slowly browsing through the DA Lens Club gallery.

My ranking thus far - purely subjective of course - is as follows:

1) 70
2) 21
3) 15

There is a very close race between the three.

4) 35
5) 40

What do you make of the 35 mm macro? I am in the process of getting rid of my 35 2.4.