[chmance]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

What's your experience in coaxing a semi-wide 35mm lens to produce pleasant bokehs?

Anyway, this is what happened to me today. I went for my daily ritual late this afternoon: a walk in the park with my camera and "lens of the day." The latter was the Super Takumar 135 f/2.5. It is a brand new copy I got from a collector, who had fallen on hard times. He shoots with another brand but collects Takumars, which he hardly uses.

So I took it out to the park for a test drive only to find out I did not have the screwmount-to-K-mount adapter. Needless to say, I was so disappointed. The only other lens I had in my bag was the SMCP K 35mm f/3.5. Not wanting to waste my trip to the park, I went ahead and took pictures of flowers using this 35mm. I challenged myself to produce pictures with pleasant bokehs with this semi-wide legacy glass. All these pictures, with the exception of the last two (red rose and foliage) were taken with the lens wide open; the last two were taken at f/5.6.

Am pleasantly delighted that this lens, never meant to produce gorgeous bokehs, can actually decently deliver the goods. Two conditions must be met though: (1) lighting must preferably be diffused/soft and (2) subject must be at minimum focusing distance or close to it. Enjoy these photos, which are straight out of my K20D. The only thing I did was resized the pictures.

I would imagine the faster siblings of my SMCP 35mm f/3.5 would produce even better bokehs. I would love to see your pictures.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by chmance; 06-28-2015 at 12:05 AM.

[Ray Hines]

Some nice shots Charlie. I usually use my Tamron 90mm for this type of shot but I've just got myself a new smc 35mm f/2.4 so I think I might give it a try later. It'll be interesting to see what comes out.

[LensBeginner]

LoL... I took a picture almost identical to your first one last week, same flower, colors, background, composition and all... the coincidence!
Nice set!

[chmance]

Some nice shots Charlie. I usually use my Tamron 90mm for this type of shot but I've just got myself a new smc 35mm f/2.4 so I think I might give it a try later. It'll be interesting to see what comes out.

Hi Ray,

Thanks. I normally use a similar lens (SMCP M 100mm f/4 macro) for this kind of shots. This 35mm f/3.5 really surprised me not just with its smooth OOF rendering but its sharpness and ideal depth of field for flower shots. I would imagine your faster 35mm would produce even better bokehs.

Cheers!

Charlie

---------- Post added 06-28-15 at 01:06 AM ----------

LoL... I took a picture almost identical to your first one last week, same flower, colors, background, composition and all... the coincidence!
Nice set!

Thanks for the compliment LensBeginner. Am not surprised you took a nearly identical picture. Creative minds think alike and foolish ones seldom differ. Hahaha!

Ciao!

Charlie

---

Last edited by chmance; 06-29-2015 at 01:01 AM. Reason: typos

[Ray Hines]

Here you go Charlie. The first is with my Tamron 90mm 1:1 Macro, taken a few days ago. The 2nd & 3rd have just been taken using my smc 35mm AL lens at closest focus.

#1 90mm 1:1 Macro 1/125 at f/2.8 ISO 320 (pp in LR & PS, uncropped)



#2 35mm 1/250 at f/2.8 ISO 100 WB set to Daylight in LR also slight increase in Vibrance, also in LR



This is #2 with a 100% crop.



#3 35mm 1/200 at f/5.6 ISO 400 WB set to Daylight in LR also slight increase in Vibrance, also in LR



I couldn't get an exact copy of #1 as the light is different and the tub with it in has been moved. That's also why there seems to be so many more flowers around, I was shooting from the other side with the 90. It looks like you can get some nice Bokeh using a 35mm but you have to have the right background. It's never going to be like a 90mm or 100mm macro lens but it can be good. At f/5.6 it's showing to much detail in the background. Even at f/2.8 bright colours will really show up so it's best to remove anything that may distract from the focus item. A fun experiment, even if I did get my arse wet 'cos it's been raining I'll certainly be giving it another try sometime.

[chmance]

Thanks for doing your own investigation Ray.

The Tamron shot is a quintessential macro shot. Lovely! I like the understated pp. I can see that it is hard to replicate No 1 or come reasonably close to that using the DA 35mm. Your assessment is right that one has to be mindful of the background. Keep brightly coloured and brightly lit objects away from the frame and that 35mm will be just fine. I wonder if underexposing a bit would help deemphasize the background . By the way, my first and second shots were 1 stop underexposed.

Cheers!

Charlie

[Ray Hines]

Thanks for the comment re the Tamron shot, I'm actually quite proud of that shot as everything worked, for a change

I'll have another go after work tomorrow and I'll underexpose some shots. I might even try some other lenses I have, 30-70 and 50 f/1.7, I'll keep the 30-70 down at 30 though. If I remember rightly they both give good bokeh but I can't remember using them for flower shots without a Raynox.

Here's one taken with the 50 f/1.7 but with a Raynox DCR 150 attached, it will be interesting to see the difference without.

[chmance]

Thanks for the comment re the Tamron shot, I'm actually quite proud of that shot as everything worked, for a change

I'll have another go after work tomorrow and I'll underexpose some shots. I might even try some other lenses I have, 30-70 and 50 f/1.7, I'll keep the 30-70 down at 30 though. If I remember rightly they both give good bokeh but I can't remember using them for flower shots without a Raynox.

Here's one taken with the 50 f/1.7 but with a Raynox DCR 150 attached, it will be interesting to see the difference without.

Hi Ray,

That's the thing with having a job. It gets in the way of our passion.

I've heard that Raynox close-up lenses are wonderful and it shows in that shot (a dandelion?). I've also heard they are pricey ... which is not surprising given the amount of fine details and contrast in that photo. Just lovely!!!

I did a follow-up study which may interest you https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/298604-part...ant-bokeh.html. This is an inexpensive way to turn wide angle lenses into creative tools for close-up or semi-macro work.

Regards,

Charlie

[Ray Hines]

I wouldn't call the Raynox pricey, you can pick one up for 75 Canadian Dollars on Amazon, about the same as I paid in the UK. If you want cheap Macro I find it much better than tubes, and much cheaper than a dedicated macro lens

---------- Post added 06-29-15 at 04:10 PM ----------

Ok, here's another little test using the Pentax SMC 35mm f/2.4 AL lens on my k-r. The left hand images are using the lens at its closest focus the right hand images are the same but with a Raynox DCR 250 attached.

As you can see without the Raynox the bokeh is already starting to disappear even at f/3.5. But stick the Raynox on it and you have fairly nice bokeh even at f/22. Ok it's not 1:1 Macro but how much of what we see actually is? And it's not the macro we're talking about here it's the bokeh. If you like flowers,and you like bokeh there really is nothing stopping you no matter what lens you have. You might have to stick a cheap Raynox on it or even some tubes but you CAN isolate those flowers against some nice bokeh if you want to.

*The images are uncropped and SooC.