[mmichalak]

Hello All,

I recently bit the bullet and upgraded from *istDL2 to K5ii...and a few days ago I decided it was high time I buy a lens too I own the FA501.4, but sometimes I find the field of view too "restrictive" if this makes sense. When I am outside it's not a problem, I just take a few steps back, but indoors it's a problem.

Having heard about the limited lenses, I decided to buy the 35mm 2.8 macro (the newer one with the red ring). Just out of mere curiosity I wanted to see how it compares against two other lenses I own: the Tamron 18-250, and the kit lens (18-55, bought together with the DL2).

So today I went out around London and took some shots,I have included a few crops below...
Original (scaled down):
]

100% crops
Tamron on the left, Ltd in the middle, Kit lens on the right:







I have to say, I am very impressed with the sharpness of the 35mm 2.8macro, as others have noted. From 4.0 to 6.7 it seems to be the sharpest. When viewing photos at 100%, it makes me wonder what the heck I have been doing all these years shooting with the Tamron, To be fair the Tamron is a handy lens when travelling...

Wide open, however, I seem to be getting mixed results, it varies from not ok to just ok Here are crops from 2.8 to 4.5 for the Ltd one:



I suspect shooting landscapes at 2.8 is not particularly clever, but it seems to be kind of similar with more close up photos. Sometimes, the photo is just blurry, other times, it seems much better. I noticed *kind of* a similar thing with my FA50 when shooting at 1.4 or 1.7, but the blurriness from the FA seems to be more pleasant than the Ltd when shooting wide open. That's just my subjective view anyway

Overall, I am pleased and happy with this lens, I can see it becoming my walk around lens. Not sure what to make of the wide open fuzziness, I guess, if I need to shoot at 2.8, I will just have to take some extra shots!

Thanks for reading my post

[LensBeginner]

*snip*

Wide open, however, I seem to be getting mixed results, it varies from not ok to just ok Here are crops from 2.8 to 4.5 for the Ltd one:

*snip*

Dumb question: are you focusing exactly where you cropped, i.e. on the coat of arms?

Congratulations on your upgrade, hope you have lots of fun with your new camera!

[luftfluss]

A LensBeginner may be implying, it seems like the Tammy & kit lens shots might not be perfectly focused because they are softer than I would have expected, as f/5.6 should be of similar sharpness to f/9.5 for both of those lenses.

My own experience is that sometimes lenses do not focus correctly or consistently from 100 ft away.

[LensBeginner]

A LensBeginner may be implying, it seems like the Tammy & kit lens shots might not be perfectly focused because they are softer than I would have expected, as f/5.6 should be of similar sharpness to f/9.5 for both of those lenses.

My own experience is that sometimes lenses do not focus correctly or consistently from 100 ft away.

Yep, nothing beats live view MF with magnification...

[mmichalak]

Dumb question: are you focusing exactly where you cropped, i.e. on the coat of arms?

Congratulations on your upgrade, hope you have lots of fun with your new camera!

I was using the central point for focussing, and I believe I was pointing at the coat of arms. However, I do know from reading around, that what appears to be a tiny rectangle in the screen, actually covers a much wider area, so it could be it has not really focused there.... The thing however is that the whole photo is slightly blurred, so I am not entirely sure what happened -- there isn't much to focus behind the bridge, just grey sky...

After that test, I did not make much fuss about it, I set the aperture to 5.6 and kept shooting around with the Ltd. Some other photos I got are super sharp at 5.6.

Thanks for replying

---------- Post added 10-26-14 at 12:00 AM ----------

To give you an idea of the sharpness at other apertures of the Ltd, this was shot at 5.6. If you are accustomed to the British weather, you will notice there is quite some sun in this one (shot few mins later from the one I originally posted). Also more contrast, clearer sky, and all the buildings are basically opposite of the lens, so I guess this was an "easier" one... Although I did not shot this one at 2.8, or with the other lenses, so I don't know how these would turn out...




Here is a random crop (did not focus there), I would think it's pretty sharp...

[Na Horuk]

Umh, most lenses are less than perfect wide open, most achieve best optics stopped down one or two stops.
The other problem is DoF. At f2.8, the DoF is very shallow. And if you focus near infinity, it gets stretched, so detail is lost. Basically, landscape photos are taken between f4 and f8 (even f16, but diffraction will take a toll above f9 or so). Macro photos are also taken with narrow apertures, often up to f16, because the DoF is extremely shallow at minimum focus. Basically the only time you shoot at f2.8 is when you want shallow DoF, blurry bokeh, or you have very low light.
The other source of error in those photos might be focusing, DoF. First of all, the macro lens has a very flat field of focus, while the other lenses probably do not. It is best to use tripod, live view with magnification (maybe with focus peaking as well), and 2 sec timer (or remote). At f2.8 and lower, there is a big difference between every degree on the focus ring. You would notice this even more pronounced if you used a 50mm f1.4 lens, for example

[officiousbystander]

Also don't fall into the trap of valuing a lens by relative sharpness. Overreliance on this criterion would mean there'd be a few otherwise outstanding lenses that you'd write off. Look at the big picture (literally). You should notice a difference in colour and contrast and flare control. These can be much more important when creating strong images.

[fuent104]

The other problem is DoF. At f2.8, the DoF is very shallow. And if you focus near infinity, it gets stretched, so detail is lost.

I'm curious, what did you mean by "it gets stretched?" This photo was clearly focused close to infinity, but I'm clueless about what you meant, or why detail is lost.

[LensBeginner]

I'm curious, what did you mean by "it gets stretched?" This photo was clearly focused close to infinity, but I'm clueless about what you meant, or why detail is lost.

Technically (and theoretically) the plane of focus is bidimensional, there's one and only distance (linear) at which objects are in focus.
DoF is a zone of acceptable focus, in which all things appear reasonably sharp.
DoF is greater at infinity than at close range, you can also understand that intuitively by looking at the distance scale on your lenses: near distance marks are close together, while the farther ones are more spaced out.

[mmichalak]

@Na Horuk
Yes, I understand that the lens are often less perfect when wide open. It's a similar story with my FA50 at 1.4 or 1.7, I rarely shoot at those apertures. I have not taken any landscape photos with the FA50 at those apertures either, so I cannot tell how it looks, I suspect it will be soft too. It's just that I had read many reviews online about how sharp this Ltd lens is, even when wide open.*MY* view is that it's not *that* sharp wide open (not judging by a single photo on this!). In DxoMark, they even go that far saying that this "red" version lens is less sharp than the "green" version, but also conclude by saying "it’s likely the lens has been optimized for future models with high pixel density sensors". Tested on a K3, it achieves a higher score it seems. But there is no way I am upgrading to a K3 for this reason , I got my K5ii not that long ago!!!

I would also think that with the focusing point that far away, DoF would not be that relative... But I am good with using the lens one or two apertures above 2.8 anyway.


@officiousbystander
That's a good point. This was just something I did out of curiosity to see what the sharpness on this Ltd is all about. My criterion for buying this lens was that it offers a more natural perspective than my FA50, so it's handier when shooting photos of people indoors. Also, I never had a macro or limited lens, so I wanted to give that a go.

The reason I bought the Tamron ages ago was the flexibility at all ranges, so it has been the lens that stays on the camera most of the time. I have taken some very nice photos with that lens as well. Most of the time I have been carrying the FA50 with me for portraits and shallow depth, while the Tamron is on the camera. With the upgrade to the K5ii, this combo became quite heavy; the 35Ltd is a good "compromise" for the photos I am shooting, and my hope is that I will use my camera on more occasions now.

For the record, I should also point out that in the photos I took, the Ltd has no vignetting, the colours have more contrast, and there is less flare, so it's obvious the lens has high quality optics. It's of course unfair to compare a prime to a zoom, this was just done for fun.

[kh1234567890]

So today I went out around London and took some shots,I have included a few crops below...

If those are near centre frame crops then I would tweak the AF adjust to be right at infinity on the zooms, it should be better than that.

My DA18-55WR and DA35 Macro at f/5.6, centre frame. My DA35 Macro is pretty reasonable even wide open.

[Na Horuk]

I would also think that with the focusing point that far away, DoF would not be that relative...

Oh yes, it still is. Especially near infinity, there is a big difference between focusing on 2km or on 100km or on actual infinity. Of course, the distance scale does not have all of these markings. I would really recommend you redo a landscape f2.8 photo, but try different focusing techniques. Try regular focusing, then manually focus back to near focus; next try live view AF, and defocus back to near; next try live view with digital zoom and manual focus. Maybe you can even try the same wonderful bridge.
And if you want to do a true sharpness test, try the lens somewhere around 50cm from the subject. That should be pretty sharp even at f2.8. Take a photo of a tilted newspaper or magazine, so you will clearly see where the text is sharp and where it is OoF.

[EarlVonTapia]

Hello All,

I recently bit the bullet and upgraded from *istDL2 to K5ii...and a few days ago I decided it was high time I buy a lens too I own the FA501.4, but sometimes I find the field of view too "restrictive" if this makes sense. When I am outside it's not a problem, I just take a few steps back, but indoors it's a problem.

Having heard about the limited lenses, I decided to buy the 35mm 2.8 macro (the newer one with the red ring). Just out of mere curiosity I wanted to see how it compares against two other lenses I own: the Tamron 18-250, and the kit lens (18-55, bought together with the DL2).

So today I went out around London and took some shots,I have included a few crops below...

. . .

Thanks for reading my post

Nice comparison. At f9.5 the kit lens and superzoom look pretty good!

E

[tibbitts]

it makes me wonder what the heck I have been doing all these years shooting with the Tamron

I think it depends on how you usually use the lens. It might be that for a photo like in the example, you might normally use at least f9.5 with a zoom, applying the usual guideline of 2-3 stops down for performance. And probably use a tripod, so camera motion wouldn't be an issue. So there'd be a lot less difference in performance than some of the photos suggest.

However, there's no doubt that having better performance at higher shutter speeds can be extremely useful for when you have potential subject or camera motion, or need limited depth of field. That capability really adds to versatility. And better performance in contrast/flare/vignetting definitely helps. But you have to consider that capability vs. time spent changing lenses, so either way you might have gotten some photos with one lens that you might not have with the other.

[fuent104]

Technically (and theoretically) the plane of focus is bidimensional, there's one and only distance (linear) at which objects are in focus.
DoF is a zone of acceptable focus, in which all things appear reasonably sharp.
DoF is greater at infinity than at close range, you can also understand that intuitively by looking at the distance scale on your lenses: near distance marks are close together, while the farther ones are more spaced out.

I am familiar with depth of field. it appeafrs that the person who posted the commenf I questioned is speaking about something different.