[Peter Zack]

Same for the Sigma 105 and the Tamron 90 and both have the limiters.

[ivoire]

Tamron 90mm DI macro, $390 -$90 rebate = $300

Tamron SP AF 90MM F/2.8 DI MACRO FOR PENTAX (55MM), AF272P700

[heatherslightbox]

Tamron 90mm DI macro, $390 -$90 rebate = $300

Tamron SP AF 90MM F/2.8 DI MACRO FOR PENTAX (55MM), AF272P700

Does anybody know whether or not TriState is an authorized Tamron dealer? I went looking for them on Tamron's website in their list of authorized dealers and I couldn't find them. I don't want to buy from someone and not be able to get the rebate. If TriState is, that that's a great deal.

Thanks!
Heather

[heatherslightbox]

Take a look at this thread and scroll down until you scroll down and see some more examples of what the DA35 can do:
Which macro to supplement my other lenses?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Those pics have me teetering on the edge of pulling the trigger on the DA35 and finding a new home for the 43.

Heather

[FastPhotography]

Get the DFA100 or Tamron 90 and use extension tubes for the 43

probably the most expensive, too.

[k100d]

Take a look at this thread and scroll down until you scroll down and see some more examples of what the DA35 can do:
Which macro to supplement my other lenses?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Those pics have me teetering on the edge of pulling the trigger on the DA35 and finding a new home for the 43.

Heather

those are some nice photos, but are there comparisons to other lenses? hard to believe other lenses wouldn't be just as good for those photos, especially when reduced so small in size

[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.

[aegisphan]

Get the DFA100 or Tamron 90 and use extension tubes for the 43

probably the most expensive, too.

I don't understand this option. 43 and extension tubes for higher magnification than 1:1 would seriously require good lighting. And if you're comfortable with the whole idea, then the Tamron or Pentax would be just redundant. Beyond 1:1 is not needed most of the time.

I would just buy a longer macro. In fact, you can find many that's much cheaper than the DA 35.

[Pentaxke]

those are some nice photos, but are there comparisons to other lenses? hard to believe other lenses wouldn't be just as good for those photos, especially when reduced so small in size

In this thread I posted a comparison between DA 35, 31 ltd, K 35 f/2 and M 40 pancake. My conclusions are that the DA 35 is at least as good as or maybe better than the 31 ltd...

[roentarre]

In this thread I posted a comparison between DA 35, 31 ltd, K 35 f/2 and M 40 pancake. My conclusions are that the DA 35 is at least as good as or maybe better than the 31 ltd...

In fact, Fa 35 f2 is equally good comparing to Fa 31 ltd in terms of sharpness, contrast or even bokeh in some tests on paper. So it is not surprising to find Da 35 f2.8 macro as good as Fa 31 ltd.

But the overall images from Fa 35 f2 is just lacking that overall IQ. Something not to be put on paper. Just like sumicron 50mm is so good but its MTF comparison to Canon 50mm f1.2L is not that impressive. Again, it is not something we can pin it on paper but the lenses do have features that we do not have descriptive terms for.



So Fa 31 ltd in my opinion is really hard to beat. But again, using this forum's common logic, we do not need limited lenses since the kit lens would be good enough for everything including these "close up" shots as macro, the birding protraits of sea gulls (since they are not afraid of humans) or street photography with a nice motion blurr.

[Peter Zack]

In this thread I posted a comparison between DA 35, 31 ltd, K 35 f/2 and M 40 pancake. My conclusions are that the DA 35 is at least as good as or maybe better than the 31 ltd...

Sorry Marc, I can't find the post showing the comparisons. You tested these 4 yourself?

[Pentaxke]

Sorry Marc, I can't find the post showing the comparisons. You tested these 4 yourself?

Forgot to post the link; here it is:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/24889-ultimate-lba.html

Go to page four (although you might not want to miss out on the photos that Frank posted with this little gem.)

[Richard Day]

I shoot mostly flowers, with an occasional small critter thown into the mix.

Heather

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'd second that as well. I have the FA 50 macro and often use it with my Tamron 1.4TC to give me a little extra distance from the subject (effective 70mm). A 100mm is an excellent FL for flowers and bugs.

The 35 macro is very difficult to define for use as a macro (suggestions welcome!) as the working distance as a macro would be tiny. I've heard that it's blindingly sharp, has virtually zero distortion and perfect flat field, so just for those features alone, it's very desireable, not too expensive either.

[nostatic]

random 100% crops from this am

[jsherman999]

.



Why did you have to do that, nostatic? OK. Maybe I'll just block Adorama, B&H and Buydig on my router until I get over this.


.