DA35 is very good lens without weakness, but too dull

q10 · 05-08-2008, 09:39 PM

i currently go everywhere with the DA40 (i on rare occasions substitute my 50mm SMC Tak macro or my 50mm M 1.4) - it consistently feels too long (occasionally i back into a wall trying to take in the whole scene) and doesn't focus nearly close enough (i find myself flirting with the limits of its closest focusing distance and then cropping or pulling out my diopters and trying again). the FA43 would make one of these issues worse and wouldn't improve on the other nearly enough (when i am wandering around with my Macro-Takumar, i occasionally find myself leaning against its minimum distance too). my basic style of photography is based on the fact that i see the world with my eyes, which offer a normal-lens-type perspective and a pretty damn close nearest focusing distance - most days, i just want myc amera to see with me - so i expect the same performance from it. i don't plan to use my DA35 (due to arrive early next week) at 1:1 very often, but knowing that it'll go that close is insurance - it's a promise that i can lean in as close as i feel safe and the optics won't be the limiting factor. it's true that it's a bit on the slow side - i'll have to wait and see how sharp it is wide open to see how much a care. after all, the FA43 and most fast 50s famously have rather underwhelming sharpness wide open, in which case i can live wihtout those most of the time.

now, if i shot more film (or, hypothetically, full-frame), the FA43 would be a pretty hard-to-refuse proposition with its perfect wide-standard focal length, but on DX it sounds too long to see with my eyes and too short for portraits or distance shooting.

from what i've read, the DA35 is for people like me, who want a lense that will do everything they ask their eyes to do, and do it well, but needn't do much else - we don't want a lense with a memorable effect, we want a lense that we can forget is there so we can focus on what we see. it sounds like you're looking for something else (which is fine - there's not one god-given right way to do this) and so, unsurprisingly, you've been disappointed.

Last edited by q10; 05-08-2008 at 09:46 PM.

ogl · 05-09-2008, 02:05 AM

I think that DA35 is macro lens first of all, the picture of DA35 are not outstanding for me,
bokeh is not special for me. Very common.
But, to say honestly, FA35 is more dull than DA35.

I like something like this
the unofficial Cosina-Voigtlander User Community - Armenian Church

heatherslightbox · 05-09-2008, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by q10

i currently go everywhere with the DA40 (i on rare occasions substitute my 50mm SMC Tak macro or my 50mm M 1.4) - it consistently feels too long (occasionally i back into a wall trying to take in the whole scene) and doesn't focus nearly close enough (i find myself flirting with the limits of its closest focusing distance and then cropping or pulling out my diopters and trying again). the FA43 would make one of these issues worse and wouldn't improve on the other nearly enough (when i am wandering around with my Macro-Takumar, i occasionally find myself leaning against its minimum distance too). my basic style of photography is based on the fact that i see the world with my eyes, which offer a normal-lens-type perspective and a pretty damn close nearest focusing distance - most days, i just want myc amera to see with me - so i expect the same performance from it. i don't plan to use my DA35 (due to arrive early next week) at 1:1 very often, but knowing that it'll go that close is insurance - it's a promise that i can lean in as close as i feel safe and the optics won't be the limiting factor. it's true that it's a bit on the slow side - i'll have to wait and see how sharp it is wide open to see how much a care. after all, the FA43 and most fast 50s famously have rather underwhelming sharpness wide open, in which case i can live wihtout those most of the time.

now, if i shot more film (or, hypothetically, full-frame), the FA43 would be a pretty hard-to-refuse proposition with its perfect wide-standard focal length, but on DX it sounds too long to see with my eyes and too short for portraits or distance shooting.

from what i've read, the DA35 is for people like me, who want a lense that will do everything they ask their eyes to do, and do it well, but needn't do much else - we don't want a lense with a memorable effect, we want a lense that we can forget is there so we can focus on what we see. it sounds like you're looking for something else (which is fine - there's not one god-given right way to do this) and so, unsurprisingly, you've been disappointed.

You said it so well, as I feel exactly the same way. That was one of the frustrations I had with the 43; I wanted to get closer, but the lens wouldn't let me! Once the 35 arrives--problem solved.

For people who are wondering whether or not they would like the perspective a 35 offers on a cropped sensor, I would encourage you to try an older 35 on a DSLR or a 50 on a FF film camera and see how you like it. I took a couple of photography classes last fall through a community ed programs and the instructor suggested that a 35 on a cropped DSLR would be a great way for a newbie to get started in photography, as you don't have a zoom to distract you. Since it's only 1 focal length, you have to work with it a little to get what you want, which puts more emphasis on composition and technique, rather than how quickly can you get the shot.

Heather

augustmoon · 05-10-2008, 05:07 PM

They are 2 very different lenses more so in color and the way they render images than focal length and focusing distance.

If picking the lens was mostly because of macro need or needing the widest angle, or needing the highest sharpest MTF, then a lot of these posts are valid.

But if the purpose of the lens was to give you the images that looked best to you, then, because you were fortunate to have had both lenses to use and evalute images from, then obviously you picked correctly. Can't fault anyone for picking any one of these 2 lenses.

Enjoy the lens.

Brian

robsphoto · 05-19-2008, 11:40 AM

looking at the 35mm da 2.8 macro too,

just got my voigtlander 58mm 1.4 ,... thought it's not AF, need to get a split screen,
and it's not for distance shots PF/CA, but redition and bookeh is good,
and can't find another flaw,.... thought the zeiss does not extends, but has other flaws,... for all inteded purposes, a perfect lens,....

now thought, I 'd like a 35mm AF macro lens , aka 50mm on crop sensor,....
thinking the voigtlander 40mm 2.0 what comes with a closeup lens, might be an alternative,.... due, the bookeh and redition,.... most of the shots won't be macro anyway, and those lenses do focus, close enough 0.45m , ~1.4 feet,....
and on wider angle, shots, the AF is not that reliable, due, larger are AF points,...

it all, don't make sense, since I already have an 18-50mm 2.8 macro sigma, what does everything,.... faster, but ,... not reliable, nor does it have the redition or pop.

if I could get an full frame , and be better in PS, I'd be shooting zoom,zoooms, but for right now, primes , seam to be the only way, to squeeze, a tiny bit more out it.

anybody tried the 40mm ultron ?

the other option, might be the zeiss 35mm distagon

what you think? should I just shoot my zooms, and stop dreaming ?

Voe · 05-19-2008, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by ogl

I like something like this
the unofficial Cosina-Voigtlander User Community - Armenian Church

Unfortunately the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 is not available in a Pentax mount

roentarre · 05-19-2008, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by robsphoto

anybody tried the 40mm ultron ?

I have 40mm ultron and did a test run some time ago.

Test run 40mm ultron

Given the past 2 months of usage, I could say this lens does produce images more likely to pop, strong contrast even wide open in a different wayf rom pentax fa limited.

My major concern regarding this lens is only its bokeh quality against hightlight. Imperfect circle with blown highlights at times. Otherwise, this lens is surely amazing, having that "pop" quality to the shots.

creampuff · 05-19-2008, 09:54 PM

I'd like some feedback from some DA35mm macro owners on whether it is feasible to shoot 1:2 or 1:1 macro shots using flash. Given the close working distance this lens has, I can say that shooting in available light is fine but my concern is if it is practical to use it with a flash set-up indoors. The concern is that the strobes placement might be an issue. Any thoughts?

ogl · 06-23-2008, 07:45 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.

ogl · 06-23-2008, 08:04 PM

Who has any Pentax lenses - from FA31 till FA43, there is no any sense to buy DA35.
Waste money.

jsherman999 · 06-23-2008, 08:53 PM

I see your point, but I think that the allure of the DA 35ltd macro is that it's the only
wide-normal in the Pentax lineup that can go 1-1. When you acquire it, it
immediately becomes one of the most versatile lenses in your bag because of that.

For example, I have no other single prime that could make these shots:

My FA 50 2.8 macro is the closest I have to that, but as you
know, theres a huge difference between the 50mm and 35mm FOV.

I think you should watch the Online Photographer site - they've been using
the DA 35 macro on the K20D for a while now, and are preparing a full review
of the lens sometime soon. They call it "really something special", and Carl
Weese has said:

Quote:

About the 35mm 2.8 macro Mike and I will report on in detail at some point: it
makes a superb general purpose "normal" lens (except it's a little longer than I'd
wish for in a normal) that happens also to focus in to 1:1. It's easily the best
more-or-less-normal focal length lens I've used so far for digital capture.

The Online Photographer: Recommended Cameras

.

d.bradley · 06-23-2008, 08:58 PM

ogl,

With these multiple posts, are you fishing for an argument here? I'm sure I or others could put up a pretty good one, but frankly it all comes down to opinion...

ogl · 06-23-2008, 10:30 PM

If anybody can explain without fanatic emotions the strong points of DA35 vs FA31, 35, DA40 and FA43, I can hear with great interest. DA35 is the good example of Pentax's LIMITED speculation in digital era.
DA21, 40 and 70 are pancakes and really GOOD and specific, FA LIMITED are outstanding lenses.
DA35 is nonsense. MACRO LIMITED is funny...trickery.
No outstanding quality of picture or bokeh. No any magic. It's only macro and made of metal.

As for me, it's more Tokina lens than real Pentax.
It's absurd for me that Tokina makes LIMITED.

ogl · 06-23-2008, 10:49 PM

Pentax spoofs fans with name of DA MACRO LIMITED. It's clear as day.
It's disappointment.

thePiRaTE!! · 06-23-2008, 11:17 PM

In all fairness, I'd rather at least have the choice of Tokina and Pentax joint ventures than not. And while it would be nice to have other focal ranges, having multiple choices in similar ranges is more luxury than waste I think. I guess sale figures will answer that though.

FWIW, I didn't love it either, but it seems many do, including noteable critics. Can't be a bad thing. I will say though that all the outsourced assembly inspires no faith in me whatsoever.

05-09-2008, 02:05 AM	#17
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	I think that DA35 is macro lens first of all, the picture of DA35 are not outstanding for me, bokeh is not special for me. Very common. But, to say honestly, FA35 is more dull than DA35. I like something like this the unofficial Cosina-Voigtlander User Community - Armenian Church Last edited by ogl; 05-09-2008 at 02:13 AM.

05-10-2008, 05:07 PM	#19
augustmoon Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Toronto, San Diego, Seattle Posts: 455	Hey OGL They are 2 very different lenses more so in color and the way they render images than focal length and focusing distance. If picking the lens was mostly because of macro need or needing the widest angle, or needing the highest sharpest MTF, then a lot of these posts are valid. But if the purpose of the lens was to give you the images that looked best to you, then, because you were fortunate to have had both lenses to use and evalute images from, then obviously you picked correctly. Can't fault anyone for picking any one of these 2 lenses. Enjoy the lens. Brian

05-19-2008, 11:40 AM	#20
robsphoto Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 42	DA 35mm or voigtlander 40mm looking at the 35mm da 2.8 macro too, just got my voigtlander 58mm 1.4 ,... thought it's not AF, need to get a split screen, and it's not for distance shots PF/CA, but redition and bookeh is good, and can't find another flaw,.... thought the zeiss does not extends, but has other flaws,... for all inteded purposes, a perfect lens,.... now thought, I 'd like a 35mm AF macro lens , aka 50mm on crop sensor,.... thinking the voigtlander 40mm 2.0 what comes with a closeup lens, might be an alternative,.... due, the bookeh and redition,.... most of the shots won't be macro anyway, and those lenses do focus, close enough 0.45m , ~1.4 feet,.... and on wider angle, shots, the AF is not that reliable, due, larger are AF points,... it all, don't make sense, since I already have an 18-50mm 2.8 macro sigma, what does everything,.... faster, but ,... not reliable, nor does it have the redition or pop. if I could get an full frame , and be better in PS, I'd be shooting zoom,zoooms, but for right now, primes , seam to be the only way, to squeeze, a tiny bit more out it. anybody tried the 40mm ultron ? the other option, might be the zeiss 35mm distagon what you think? should I just shoot my zooms, and stop dreaming ?

06-23-2008, 10:49 PM	#29
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Pentax spoofs fans with name of DA MACRO LIMITED. It's clear as day. It's disappointment. Last edited by ogl; 06-23-2008 at 11:16 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA35 Limited Macro - a really nice lens!!	dugrant153	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	57	04-11-2009 07:06 PM
DA35 is very good lens without weakness, but too dull	ogl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	05-04-2008 05:58 AM
I'd like to talk about K200D weakness	ogl	Pentax News and Rumors	45	01-28-2008 04:34 AM
K100D weakness	leaton	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	11-06-2006 11:57 PM

05-08-2008, 09:39 PM	#16
q10 Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 32	i currently go everywhere with the DA40 (i on rare occasions substitute my 50mm SMC Tak macro or my 50mm M 1.4) - it consistently feels too long (occasionally i back into a wall trying to take in the whole scene) and doesn't focus nearly close enough (i find myself flirting with the limits of its closest focusing distance and then cropping or pulling out my diopters and trying again). the FA43 would make one of these issues worse and wouldn't improve on the other nearly enough (when i am wandering around with my Macro-Takumar, i occasionally find myself leaning against its minimum distance too). my basic style of photography is based on the fact that i see the world with my eyes, which offer a normal-lens-type perspective and a pretty damn close nearest focusing distance - most days, i just want myc amera to see with me - so i expect the same performance from it. i don't plan to use my DA35 (due to arrive early next week) at 1:1 very often, but knowing that it'll go that close is insurance - it's a promise that i can lean in as close as i feel safe and the optics won't be the limiting factor. it's true that it's a bit on the slow side - i'll have to wait and see how sharp it is wide open to see how much a care. after all, the FA43 and most fast 50s famously have rather underwhelming sharpness wide open, in which case i can live wihtout those most of the time. now, if i shot more film (or, hypothetically, full-frame), the FA43 would be a pretty hard-to-refuse proposition with its perfect wide-standard focal length, but on DX it sounds too long to see with my eyes and too short for portraits or distance shooting. from what i've read, the DA35 is for people like me, who want a lense that will do everything they ask their eyes to do, and do it well, but needn't do much else - we don't want a lense with a memorable effect, we want a lense that we can forget is there so we can focus on what we see. it sounds like you're looking for something else (which is fine - there's not one god-given right way to do this) and so, unsurprisingly, you've been disappointed. Last edited by q10; 05-08-2008 at 09:46 PM.

05-09-2008, 02:31 AM	#18
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	Originally posted by q10 i currently go everywhere with the DA40 (i on rare occasions substitute my 50mm SMC Tak macro or my 50mm M 1.4) - it consistently feels too long (occasionally i back into a wall trying to take in the whole scene) and doesn't focus nearly close enough (i find myself flirting with the limits of its closest focusing distance and then cropping or pulling out my diopters and trying again). the FA43 would make one of these issues worse and wouldn't improve on the other nearly enough (when i am wandering around with my Macro-Takumar, i occasionally find myself leaning against its minimum distance too). my basic style of photography is based on the fact that i see the world with my eyes, which offer a normal-lens-type perspective and a pretty damn close nearest focusing distance - most days, i just want myc amera to see with me - so i expect the same performance from it. i don't plan to use my DA35 (due to arrive early next week) at 1:1 very often, but knowing that it'll go that close is insurance - it's a promise that i can lean in as close as i feel safe and the optics won't be the limiting factor. it's true that it's a bit on the slow side - i'll have to wait and see how sharp it is wide open to see how much a care. after all, the FA43 and most fast 50s famously have rather underwhelming sharpness wide open, in which case i can live wihtout those most of the time. now, if i shot more film (or, hypothetically, full-frame), the FA43 would be a pretty hard-to-refuse proposition with its perfect wide-standard focal length, but on DX it sounds too long to see with my eyes and too short for portraits or distance shooting. from what i've read, the DA35 is for people like me, who want a lense that will do everything they ask their eyes to do, and do it well, but needn't do much else - we don't want a lense with a memorable effect, we want a lense that we can forget is there so we can focus on what we see. it sounds like you're looking for something else (which is fine - there's not one god-given right way to do this) and so, unsurprisingly, you've been disappointed. You said it so well, as I feel exactly the same way. That was one of the frustrations I had with the 43; I wanted to get closer, but the lens wouldn't let me! Once the 35 arrives--problem solved. For people who are wondering whether or not they would like the perspective a 35 offers on a cropped sensor, I would encourage you to try an older 35 on a DSLR or a 50 on a FF film camera and see how you like it. I took a couple of photography classes last fall through a community ed programs and the instructor suggested that a 35 on a cropped DSLR would be a great way for a newbie to get started in photography, as you don't have a zoom to distract you. Since it's only 1 focal length, you have to work with it a little to get what you want, which puts more emphasis on composition and technique, rather than how quickly can you get the shot. Heather

05-19-2008, 03:50 PM	#21
Voe Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery Posts: 719	Originally posted by ogl I like something like this the unofficial Cosina-Voigtlander User Community - Armenian Church Unfortunately the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 is not available in a Pentax mount

05-19-2008, 08:47 PM	#22
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Originally posted by robsphoto anybody tried the 40mm ultron ? I have 40mm ultron and did a test run some time ago. Test run 40mm ultron Given the past 2 months of usage, I could say this lens does produce images more likely to pop, strong contrast even wide open in a different wayf rom pentax fa limited. My major concern regarding this lens is only its bokeh quality against hightlight. Imperfect circle with blown highlights at times. Otherwise, this lens is surely amazing, having that "pop" quality to the shots.

05-19-2008, 09:54 PM	#23
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	I'd like some feedback from some DA35mm macro owners on whether it is feasible to shoot 1:2 or 1:1 macro shots using flash. Given the close working distance this lens has, I can say that shooting in available light is fine but my concern is if it is practical to use it with a flash set-up indoors. The concern is that the strobes placement might be an issue. Any thoughts?

06-23-2008, 07:45 PM	#24
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	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.

06-23-2008, 08:04 PM	#25
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Who has any Pentax lenses - from FA31 till FA43, there is no any sense to buy DA35. Waste money.

06-23-2008, 08:53 PM	#26
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	I see your point, but I think that the allure of the DA 35ltd macro is that it's the only wide-normal in the Pentax lineup that can go 1-1. When you acquire it, it immediately becomes one of the most versatile lenses in your bag because of that. For example, I have no other single prime that could make these shots: My FA 50 2.8 macro is the closest I have to that, but as you know, theres a huge difference between the 50mm and 35mm FOV. I think you should watch the Online Photographer site - they've been using the DA 35 macro on the K20D for a while now, and are preparing a full review of the lens sometime soon. They call it "really something special", and Carl Weese has said: Quote: About the 35mm 2.8 macro Mike and I will report on in detail at some point: it makes a superb general purpose "normal" lens (except it's a little longer than I'd wish for in a normal) that happens also to focus in to 1:1. It's easily the best more-or-less-normal focal length lens I've used so far for digital capture. The Online Photographer: Recommended Cameras .

06-23-2008, 08:58 PM	#27
d.bradley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 631	ogl, With these multiple posts, are you fishing for an argument here? I'm sure I or others could put up a pretty good one, but frankly it all comes down to opinion...

06-23-2008, 10:30 PM	#28
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	If anybody can explain without fanatic emotions the strong points of DA35 vs FA31, 35, DA40 and FA43, I can hear with great interest. DA35 is the good example of Pentax's LIMITED speculation in digital era. DA21, 40 and 70 are pancakes and really GOOD and specific, FA LIMITED are outstanding lenses. DA35 is nonsense. MACRO LIMITED is funny...trickery. No outstanding quality of picture or bokeh. No any magic. It's only macro and made of metal. As for me, it's more Tokina lens than real Pentax. It's absurd for me that Tokina makes LIMITED.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2008, 11:17 PM	#30
thePiRaTE!! Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Calgary, AB Photos: Gallery Posts: 942	In all fairness, I'd rather at least have the choice of Tokina and Pentax joint ventures than not. And while it would be nice to have other focal ranges, having multiple choices in similar ranges is more luxury than waste I think. I guess sale figures will answer that though. FWIW, I didn't love it either, but it seems many do, including noteable critics. Can't be a bad thing. I will say though that all the outsourced assembly inspires no faith in me whatsoever.