Nice photo's, I rather like the "Rusty Chain".


It looks like, this lens is really not a low light type of lens despite the large aperture. Perhaps that is where I am going wrong as most of the photo's I take are in lower lighting type of situations. Gives me some food for thought. I will take it back out and try it again in a day or so.

It is a great little gem. Beautiful pics in this thread. Esp. the church.
Altought I did feel the same way about this 35. It seems to come with a harder learning curve. I find, on apsc, it is great to capture kids playing Lego! The colours just pop and the FL gives just enough reach to be outside their world.
I have to admit that a bad picture is ugly with it, unlike the 50-135 were the worst composition cab still be pretty.
Keep shooting with it
David

[ChristianRock]

It is a great little gem. Beautiful pics in this thread. Esp. the church.
Altought I did feel the same way about this 35. It seems to come with a harder learning curve. I find, on apsc, it is great to capture kids playing Lego! The colours just pop and the FL gives just enough reach to be outside their world.
I have to admit that a bad picture is ugly with it, unlike the 50-135 were the worst composition cab still be pretty.
Keep shooting with it
David

That is exactly how i got the hang of the 35... I have 3 little boys and the lens is perfect chasing them around. A wider lens would get into their world, and a longer lens usually doesn't capture the whole scene. So from much use I guess I learned it... the amount of detail you get and the "what you see is what you get" results can be very rewarding.

But the composition thing where it can be pretty bad - I find it's the normal field of view that is challenging. That's pretty well documented (I read quite a few interviews and quotes from great photographers and from bloggers as well ). The normal FOV can be very, very rewarding because, in the words of Henri Cartier-Bresson, it's an artistic FOV and gives you a painting-like perspective, because it is exactly how what the eye sees the scene, without wide angle or compression distortion. But it can also be very frustrating because it is harder to get the image "just right". It just demands a bit more from the photographer than a telephoto FOV.

That is exactly how i got the hang of the 35... I have 3 little boys and the lens is perfect chasing them around. A wider lens would get into their world, and a longer lens usually doesn't capture the whole scene. So from much use I guess I learned it... the amount of detail you get and the "what you see is what you get" results can be very rewarding.

But the composition thing where it can be pretty bad - I find it's the normal field of view that is challenging. That's pretty well documented (I read quite a few interviews and quotes from great photographers and from bloggers as well ). The normal FOV can be very, very rewarding because, in the words of Henri Cartier-Bresson, it's an artistic FOV and gives you a painting-like perspective, because it is exactly how what the eye sees the scene, without wide angle or compression distortion. But it can also be very frustrating because it is harder to get the image "just right". It just demands a bit more from the photographer than a telephoto FOV.

You expressed my toughts in a way more articulate fashion! Thanks,
David

[Des]

It has the virtues of a modern lens: resistance to flare and ghosting, even sharpness, consistency, good MTF numbers. It's cheap, it's lightweight - there's a lot to like.

Maybe some of the problem is that it is pleasing but not exciting. Images don't stand out enough compared to a decent zoom. I don't use mine so much since I got the FA 43, which can be awful but when it comes together - wow!

K-30 + DA 35 f2.4

[W.j.christy]

So I took the 35mm out today and took a few shots. On of them was this. Not too bad. I'll try it again in a bit and see if I can do better.