having second thoughts about the DA35 macro

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-18-2008, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by hwblanks

I thought I was gung-ho on getting the DA35 macro, but then I started having second thoughts about it. It's as if my 43 is objecting to possibly being replaced. Maybe we're just too attached to each other, I don't know. Anyway, if you could help me out by participating in my poll, perhaps some more objective opinions might help me out here.

I also have a set of manual extension tubes that work pretty well with the 43. See the following link for examples: macro_and_close_ups Photo Gallery by Heather at pbase.com

What would be the best bang for my buck?

Thanks!
Heather

Heather, no offence but I don't understand why anyone would want a 35mm macro.

if we consider that macro really means 1:1 on the sensor, then to achieve this requires the subject to lens distance is equal to the lens to sensor distance, and that to be in focus, this occures at a distance of 70mm, or just under 3 inches away from the subject.

with that little working distance, you get into all sorts of problems with lighting, the ability to get that close,.....

Add to this the absolute need for a tripod, because any in/out movement of the camera will throw off focus, and I think you will have trouble.

If you really want to get into macro, my recommendation is that the longer the lens the better, so that you are not so close to the subject. You have mentioned a couple of 90/100 mm lenses, these would be in my opinion, better.

heatherslightbox · 04-18-2008, 11:47 AM

What I may do is to rent the DA35 to see if it's what I really want before committing to buying it.

To the collective wisdom: Instead of getting the 35mm macro, what do you think about having both a 50 and a 90-105ish macro in the same bag? Would it be too redundant?

I'm going to the beach for a few days next week, so I may take the 43 with me and use it most of the time to see if I really do want to get rid of it.

If I don't get the 35, what I may do is to put any extra money left over after buying the longer macro towards picking up the 21.

Ya'll are not making this easy for me.

Heather

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-18-2008, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by hwblanks

What I may do is to rent the DA35 to see if it's what I really want before committing to buying it.

To the collective wisdom: Instead of getting the 35mm macro, what do you think about having both a 50 and a 90-105ish macro in the same bag? Would it be too redundant?

I'm going to the beach for a few days next week, so I may take the 43 with me and use it most of the time to see if I really do want to get rid of it.

If I don't get the 35, what I may do is to put any extra money left over after buying the longer macro towards picking up the 21.

Ya'll are not making this easy for me.

Heather

in my simplistic view, I have the same view of a 50mm macro as a 35mm macro, you are just too close in. sure the 50mm moves you back an inch, but that is not the same as a 100mm macro that will achieve 1:1 at 8 inches from the subject.

The only real difference between the lenses, is how they show depth. the longer the lens, the flatter the subject appears. shorter focal lengths exagerate the depth somewhat.

as far as the 50mm macro overlapping the 43mm, it is not at all the same lens. the 43mm is faster, and has other uses, and will generally serve you better than the 50mm macro. I don't have any experience with the 43mm, I rely on my 50mm F1.4 when shooting under low light or when wanting limited depth of field,

For general walk around I use my tamron 28-75 F2.8, which can also do 1:3 close up if I want it.

heatherslightbox · 04-19-2008, 05:57 AM

Folks,
I'm still waffling!

The only thing I've decided for sure, based on all the info you've given me is that I do want to get a tele macro. While the images from the DA35 have been impressive, I still wouldn't mind seeing a professional review or 2. There are good reasons to go ahead and get it and there are also good reasons to keep the 43. Maybe if I wait awhile, the price will drop a little more.

The poll closes on Wednesday, so I'm giving myself until then to make up my mind on the DA35.

Heather

nostatic · 04-20-2008, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by hwblanks

Folks,
I'm still waffling!

The only thing I've decided for sure, based on all the info you've given me is that I do want to get a tele macro. While the images from the DA35 have been impressive, I still wouldn't mind seeing a professional review or 2.

you mean a professional review in a magazine or web site that has advertising? I think they are worth the electrons they're printed on...

I'd rather see real world images any day by people who actually shoot pictures, not focus charts and brick walls, but ymmv.

heatherslightbox · 05-08-2008, 07:16 PM

...but I finally found my original post.

The issue is finally resolved--I took the plunge and ordered the DA35 macro from Prodigital2000 and sold the 43. Since I'm going to be at my parents' in Tennessee week after next, I instructed them to send it there instead of my house in Florida. If it shows up before I do, then great! If it shows up while I'm there, still great!

At this point, this is what my lens kit will look like when my latest purchases arrive:

Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5
Pentax DA55-300/4-5.8
Vivitar S1 105/2.8 macro
Pentax DA35/2.8 macro

This is what I eventually want to add to it:
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6
Pentax DA70/2.4 Ltd.

All that should make for a nice, well-rounded kit, which I hope to complete by mid-2009, at the latest.

Once I get my kit completed, I can take a break for a while and just save money and be ready when Pentax comes out with yet another round of bodies. I don't really need another body at this point, but if Pentax came out with a lightweight body similar to the Olympus E420, I'd be very tempted to pick it up as a second body.

I'm going on vacation and I get to play with new lenses. YAYYYY!!!

Heather

Pentaxke · 05-09-2008, 11:25 AM

Glad to see you took the plunge Heather! Congratulations!

I hope the 35 will be as good as you want it to be (because if not, I guess you will be mad at me

)

Btw: that line up is not bad after all...

ogl · 06-23-2008, 07:50 PM

I don't understand DA35 macro at all.
I think that it's marketing trick. It would be better to make it in plastic and sale cheaper.
LIMITED - it's funny. Tokina makes the same lense.

The picture of DA35 is close to Canon or Nikon. It seems to me that it's not Pentax at all.
Tokina's lense.

Digital, soulless, right and cold. And very dull. I'd like to say - "tiresome".
I can't say nothing good and nothing bad about this lense.
No emotions at all.

DA35 vs DA 40 - not sharper, bokeh is MUCH duller, bigger and heavier. not FF.
DA35 vs FA43 - full failure: slower, sharpness is lower, non-compact, bigger and heavier,
dull, dull and dull...not FF.

DA35 vs FA35/2 - better construction, macro, but slower, more expensive, not sharper.
not FF.

Macro is very specific with such focal length. I don't see any advantages of DA35.
Only to shoot jewelry in macro. Or very small objects.

If we compare DA35 with FA31, FA35, DA40, FA43, it's easy to understand that it's not
successful lens. If I buy fixed-focal lens I'd like to say about picture and bokeh.
About DA35 I can say nothing.

It's not pancake lens, and it's not classical LIMITED. I don't understand why DA35 has mark "LIMITED"

ogl · 06-23-2008, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by nostatic

I think the only reason to ditch a 43 for the 35 is:

a) you often use quick shift on your other lenses and get frustrated with the FA not having

or

b) you live to get pollen on your filter

I find that the 35 is somewhat of a pita as a "macro" because I literally end up touching the subjects sometimes. While I like working that way with a p&s, I don't with a dslr, although I have taken to just "guess shooting" a fair amount and sorting it out later.

There is no way the 35 will take better "walk around" pics than the 43. I just don't believe that. I love my 35, but my 77 has more magic, period. If the 43 is in the same league as the 77, then I wouldn't get rid of it unless you fit the above criteria.

DA35 is weaker than FA43 in any aspects. Don't make myth for yourself.
FA43 is not the same league as FA77, it's in higher league and outstanding lens.

Nesster · 06-24-2008, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by hwblanks

The issue is finally resolved--I took the plunge and ordered the DA35 macro from Prodigital2000 and sold the 43.

At this point, this is what my lens kit will look like when my latest purchases arrive:

Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5
Pentax DA55-300/4-5.8
Vivitar S1 105/2.8 macro
Pentax DA35/2.8 macro

This is what I eventually want to add to it:
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6
Pentax DA70/2.4 Ltd.

All that should make for a nice, well-rounded kit, which I hope to complete by mid-2009, at the latest.

Once I get my kit completed, I can take a break for a while and just save money and be ready when Pentax comes out with yet another round of bodies. I don't really need another body at this point, but if Pentax came out with a lightweight body similar to the Olympus E420, I'd be very tempted to pick it up as a second body.

I'm going on vacation and I get to play with new lenses. YAYYYY!!!

Heather

Heather, congrats on the decision - your set of lenses looks very sensible. Myself, I'd have tried to keep the 43 anyway (I love it on film) but then, I don't sell anything (yet)...

I'd trade my 16-45 for the 17-70, I want at some point the 55-300; instead of the 105 I have a mf Tamron 90; I already have the 70, and would love the superwide zoom.

In other words, lots of approval and envy from my end

thePiRaTE!! · 06-24-2008, 07:22 AM

Hiya Nesster (sorry for the sidetrack). Your name popped out as I've been thankfully adopting your viewfinder T4Ls on flickr the last few days - (Kelly Sereda is my name in there).

Smallish world! (and thanks

)

K.

**I now return you to your regularly scheduled DA35 chat**

heatherslightbox · 06-24-2008, 09:24 AM

While the 17-70 stays on the camera most of the time now, the 35 is fighting for that position.

I still want the Sigma 10-20, which will most likely be my next major lens purchase. I think at this point, though I'm going to hold off on the 70 and get a 50/1.4 instead. I am also considering the 21, but we'll see. I'd like to finish my lens kit up sometime in my life (ha ha!), so my plan at this point is to get the 10-20 and 50 and then take a break from buying lenses for a while and see how that works. If I find that I'm using primes more often, then I may see about getting the 21 & 70.

I'm going on a long weekend trip towards the end of next week and I may just go with a 2-lens kit--my 35 and the 55-300, along with a flash and monopod, as I will be going to an aquarium and a baseball game. If I take the 17-70 along, I'll probably just use it at the aquarium only and keep the 35 on the rest of the time, unless I need the tele.

Heather

MikePerham · 06-24-2008, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by k100d

that screams out 100mm macro to me :P
and the DA21 is a great lens, really good for snapshot style photos and makes the camera a lot smaller too

I find the 100 a bit long for this kind of work. Still using mine from my film days, but would like something a bit wider. Hey Pentax, if you are listening, what about a 60-120 true macro focusing zoom (like Nikon's now discontinued but much loved 70-180).

Mike.

View Poll Results: Which macro option should I go with?
Get the 35, anyway, the 43 is just jealous.	19	38.78%
Get the DFA100 or Tamron 90 and use extension tubes for the 43	16	32.65%
Get the 100/3.5 macro + either the DA21 or DA70	8	16.33%
Go for the 77 + extension tubes for it and the 43	5	10.20%
Get the Raynox diopoter and use it on all my lenses	1	2.04%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

05-08-2008, 07:16 PM	#51
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599 Original Poster	I had to dig a little... ...but I finally found my original post. The issue is finally resolved--I took the plunge and ordered the DA35 macro from Prodigital2000 and sold the 43. Since I'm going to be at my parents' in Tennessee week after next, I instructed them to send it there instead of my house in Florida. If it shows up before I do, then great! If it shows up while I'm there, still great! At this point, this is what my lens kit will look like when my latest purchases arrive: Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 Pentax DA55-300/4-5.8 Vivitar S1 105/2.8 macro Pentax DA35/2.8 macro This is what I eventually want to add to it: Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 Pentax DA70/2.4 Ltd. All that should make for a nice, well-rounded kit, which I hope to complete by mid-2009, at the latest. Once I get my kit completed, I can take a break for a while and just save money and be ready when Pentax comes out with yet another round of bodies. I don't really need another body at this point, but if Pentax came out with a lightweight body similar to the Olympus E420, I'd be very tempted to pick it up as a second body. I'm going on vacation and I get to play with new lenses. YAYYYY!!! Heather

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA35 Macro Ltd	lutzvo	Post Your Photos!	2	03-01-2009 01:46 PM
For Sale - Sold: DA35/2.8 macro	heatherslightbox	Sold Items	8	01-05-2009 08:18 AM
Sunset with the DA35 macro	heatherslightbox	Post Your Photos!	10	11-03-2008 06:50 PM
NEW DA35 SDM (not the macro one) on the way	joele	Pentax News and Rumors	22	03-14-2007 04:57 AM

04-18-2008, 11:13 AM	#46
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by hwblanks I thought I was gung-ho on getting the DA35 macro, but then I started having second thoughts about it. It's as if my 43 is objecting to possibly being replaced. Maybe we're just too attached to each other, I don't know. Anyway, if you could help me out by participating in my poll, perhaps some more objective opinions might help me out here. I also have a set of manual extension tubes that work pretty well with the 43. See the following link for examples: macro_and_close_ups Photo Gallery by Heather at pbase.com What would be the best bang for my buck? Thanks! Heather Heather, no offence but I don't understand why anyone would want a 35mm macro. if we consider that macro really means 1:1 on the sensor, then to achieve this requires the subject to lens distance is equal to the lens to sensor distance, and that to be in focus, this occures at a distance of 70mm, or just under 3 inches away from the subject. with that little working distance, you get into all sorts of problems with lighting, the ability to get that close,..... Add to this the absolute need for a tripod, because any in/out movement of the camera will throw off focus, and I think you will have trouble. If you really want to get into macro, my recommendation is that the longer the lens the better, so that you are not so close to the subject. You have mentioned a couple of 90/100 mm lenses, these would be in my opinion, better.

04-18-2008, 11:47 AM	#47
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599 Original Poster	What I may do is to rent the DA35 to see if it's what I really want before committing to buying it. To the collective wisdom: Instead of getting the 35mm macro, what do you think about having both a 50 and a 90-105ish macro in the same bag? Would it be too redundant? I'm going to the beach for a few days next week, so I may take the 43 with me and use it most of the time to see if I really do want to get rid of it. If I don't get the 35, what I may do is to put any extra money left over after buying the longer macro towards picking up the 21. Ya'll are not making this easy for me. Heather

04-18-2008, 01:01 PM	#48
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by hwblanks What I may do is to rent the DA35 to see if it's what I really want before committing to buying it. To the collective wisdom: Instead of getting the 35mm macro, what do you think about having both a 50 and a 90-105ish macro in the same bag? Would it be too redundant? I'm going to the beach for a few days next week, so I may take the 43 with me and use it most of the time to see if I really do want to get rid of it. If I don't get the 35, what I may do is to put any extra money left over after buying the longer macro towards picking up the 21. Ya'll are not making this easy for me. Heather in my simplistic view, I have the same view of a 50mm macro as a 35mm macro, you are just too close in. sure the 50mm moves you back an inch, but that is not the same as a 100mm macro that will achieve 1:1 at 8 inches from the subject. The only real difference between the lenses, is how they show depth. the longer the lens, the flatter the subject appears. shorter focal lengths exagerate the depth somewhat. as far as the 50mm macro overlapping the 43mm, it is not at all the same lens. the 43mm is faster, and has other uses, and will generally serve you better than the 50mm macro. I don't have any experience with the 43mm, I rely on my 50mm F1.4 when shooting under low light or when wanting limited depth of field, For general walk around I use my tamron 28-75 F2.8, which can also do 1:3 close up if I want it.

04-19-2008, 05:57 AM	#49
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599 Original Poster	Folks, I'm still waffling! The only thing I've decided for sure, based on all the info you've given me is that I do want to get a tele macro. While the images from the DA35 have been impressive, I still wouldn't mind seeing a professional review or 2. There are good reasons to go ahead and get it and there are also good reasons to keep the 43. Maybe if I wait awhile, the price will drop a little more. The poll closes on Wednesday, so I'm giving myself until then to make up my mind on the DA35. Heather

04-20-2008, 02:51 PM	#50
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by hwblanks Folks, I'm still waffling! The only thing I've decided for sure, based on all the info you've given me is that I do want to get a tele macro. While the images from the DA35 have been impressive, I still wouldn't mind seeing a professional review or 2. you mean a professional review in a magazine or web site that has advertising? I think they are worth the electrons they're printed on... I'd rather see real world images any day by people who actually shoot pictures, not focus charts and brick walls, but ymmv.

05-09-2008, 11:25 AM	#52
Pentaxke Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 476	Glad to see you took the plunge Heather! Congratulations! I hope the 35 will be as good as you want it to be (because if not, I guess you will be mad at me ) Btw: that line up is not bad after all...

06-23-2008, 07:50 PM	#53
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	I don't understand DA35 macro at all. I think that it's marketing trick. It would be better to make it in plastic and sale cheaper. LIMITED - it's funny. Tokina makes the same lense. The picture of DA35 is close to Canon or Nikon. It seems to me that it's not Pentax at all. Tokina's lense. Digital, soulless, right and cold. And very dull. I'd like to say - "tiresome". I can't say nothing good and nothing bad about this lense. No emotions at all. DA35 vs DA 40 - not sharper, bokeh is MUCH duller, bigger and heavier. not FF. DA35 vs FA43 - full failure: slower, sharpness is lower, non-compact, bigger and heavier, dull, dull and dull...not FF. DA35 vs FA35/2 - better construction, macro, but slower, more expensive, not sharper. not FF. Macro is very specific with such focal length. I don't see any advantages of DA35. Only to shoot jewelry in macro. Or very small objects. If we compare DA35 with FA31, FA35, DA40, FA43, it's easy to understand that it's not successful lens. If I buy fixed-focal lens I'd like to say about picture and bokeh. About DA35 I can say nothing. It's not pancake lens, and it's not classical LIMITED. I don't understand why DA35 has mark "LIMITED"

06-23-2008, 07:54 PM	#54
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by nostatic I think the only reason to ditch a 43 for the 35 is: a) you often use quick shift on your other lenses and get frustrated with the FA not having or b) you live to get pollen on your filter I find that the 35 is somewhat of a pita as a "macro" because I literally end up touching the subjects sometimes. While I like working that way with a p&s, I don't with a dslr, although I have taken to just "guess shooting" a fair amount and sorting it out later. There is no way the 35 will take better "walk around" pics than the 43. I just don't believe that. I love my 35, but my 77 has more magic, period. If the 43 is in the same league as the 77, then I wouldn't get rid of it unless you fit the above criteria. DA35 is weaker than FA43 in any aspects. Don't make myth for yourself. FA43 is not the same league as FA77, it's in higher league and outstanding lens.

06-24-2008, 04:01 AM	#55
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by hwblanks The issue is finally resolved--I took the plunge and ordered the DA35 macro from Prodigital2000 and sold the 43. At this point, this is what my lens kit will look like when my latest purchases arrive: Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 Pentax DA55-300/4-5.8 Vivitar S1 105/2.8 macro Pentax DA35/2.8 macro This is what I eventually want to add to it: Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 Pentax DA70/2.4 Ltd. All that should make for a nice, well-rounded kit, which I hope to complete by mid-2009, at the latest. Once I get my kit completed, I can take a break for a while and just save money and be ready when Pentax comes out with yet another round of bodies. I don't really need another body at this point, but if Pentax came out with a lightweight body similar to the Olympus E420, I'd be very tempted to pick it up as a second body. I'm going on vacation and I get to play with new lenses. YAYYYY!!! Heather Heather, congrats on the decision - your set of lenses looks very sensible. Myself, I'd have tried to keep the 43 anyway (I love it on film) but then, I don't sell anything (yet)... I'd trade my 16-45 for the 17-70, I want at some point the 55-300; instead of the 105 I have a mf Tamron 90; I already have the 70, and would love the superwide zoom. In other words, lots of approval and envy from my end

06-24-2008, 07:22 AM	#56
thePiRaTE!! Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Calgary, AB Photos: Gallery Posts: 942	Hiya Nesster (sorry for the sidetrack). Your name popped out as I've been thankfully adopting your viewfinder T4Ls on flickr the last few days - (Kelly Sereda is my name in there). Smallish world! (and thanks ) K. I now return you to your regularly scheduled DA35 chat

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2008, 09:24 AM	#57
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599 Original Poster	While the 17-70 stays on the camera most of the time now, the 35 is fighting for that position. I still want the Sigma 10-20, which will most likely be my next major lens purchase. I think at this point, though I'm going to hold off on the 70 and get a 50/1.4 instead. I am also considering the 21, but we'll see. I'd like to finish my lens kit up sometime in my life (ha ha!), so my plan at this point is to get the 10-20 and 50 and then take a break from buying lenses for a while and see how that works. If I find that I'm using primes more often, then I may see about getting the 21 & 70. I'm going on a long weekend trip towards the end of next week and I may just go with a 2-lens kit--my 35 and the 55-300, along with a flash and monopod, as I will be going to an aquarium and a baseball game. If I take the 17-70 along, I'll probably just use it at the aquarium only and keep the 35 on the rest of the time, unless I need the tele. Heather

06-24-2008, 04:58 PM	#58
MikePerham Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Prince George, BC Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 642	Originally posted by k100d that screams out 100mm macro to me :P and the DA21 is a great lens, really good for snapshot style photos and makes the camera a lot smaller too I find the 100 a bit long for this kind of work. Still using mine from my film days, but would like something a bit wider. Hey Pentax, if you are listening, what about a 60-120 true macro focusing zoom (like Nikon's now discontinued but much loved 70-180). Mike.