[Clavius]

That looks very much like a loss of contrast due to haze, which I've never heard of on a DA35 f/2.8 before, but it's possible. Loss of contrast would also make the lens appear less sharp. Have you done the "flashlight test" to see if the optics all look good?

Nope... Actually, I don't know what the flashlight test is.

Edit: Just googled and did the test. Upon first inspection it looked fine. But then when I did the same to a lens that doesn't produce the haze I saw the difference. With the flashlight test the DA 35 produces the same blueish / greyish cast inside the lens.

---

Last edited by Clavius; 06-20-2016 at 10:59 AM.

[BigMackCam]

Nope... Actually, I don't know what the flashlight test is.

Edit: Just googled and did the test. Upon first inspection it looked fine. But then when I did the same to a lens that doesn't produce the haze I saw the difference. With the flashlight test the DA 35 produces the same blueish / greyish cast inside the lens.

Right. It could be haze after all, then... Depending on how much you liked the lens previously, I think it would be worth getting it serviced - that haze (if it is haze) can likely be removed and you'd be back to taking nice crisp, contrasty pictures again.

One last thing... and apologies if I'm stating the obvious, here... but have you gently cleaned both the front and rear elements, just to make sure there's nothing external causing the effect?

[Clavius]

One last thing... and apologies if I'm stating the obvious, here... but have you gently cleaned both the front and rear elements, just to make sure there's nothing external causing the effect?

That's ok, you never know. Sadly though, it's definitely not external.

Any ideas what I did wrong in using/storing this lens? I always keep it in the camera bag together with two moist absorption things.

[lithedreamer]

As an alternative to keeping the 35 or going for the 100, consider the DFA 50mm Macro? It's reviewed as quite sharp, and on FF should still give you a nice wide FOV.

[BigMackCam]

That's ok, you never know. Sadly though, it's definitely not external.

Any ideas what I did wrong in using/storing this lens? I always keep it in the camera bag together with two moist absorption things.

Honestly, I don't know... If it is haze (and it sounds like it is to me), that's unusual - to the best of my knowledge - on newer lenses. It's typically associated with the internal lubricants of the lens forming droplets that adhere to the optical elements, I believe. How warm does your equipment get while stored? My understanding is that a hot / humid environment could potentially accelerate haze forming. Also, I know you use absorption bags, but how often do you change them? They have a very limited life span unless dried out frequently. All that said, it still seems strange on a newer lens... Are you the original owner? If not, perhaps the previous owner was less careful about storing their lenses? Honestly, though, there are better qualified people than me here on the forum, and I'd wait to see what other comments / advice you get. I own a couple of older lenses with haze, but I've never seen a newer model with it.

[Clavius]

Honestly, I don't know... If it is haze, it's very unusual - to the best of my knowledge - on newer lenses. It's typically associated with the internal lubricants of the lens, I believe. How warm does your equipment get while stored? My understanding is that a hot / humid environment could potentially accelerate haze forming. Also, I know you use absorption bags, but how often do you change them? They have a very limited life span unless dried out frequently. All that said, it still seems strange on a newer lens... Are you the original owner? If not, perhaps the previous owner was less careful about storing their lenses. Honestly, though, there are better qualified people than me here on the forum, and I'd wait to see what other comments / advice you get. I own a couple of older lenses with haze, but I've never seen a newer model with it.

Yes, I'm the original owner. None of my other lenses seem to be suffering from it. And they are stored in the same place in my studio. (I've been feverishly checking them in the past half hour.) My studio does get very hot in the summer though. So I'm going to stored them in a cooler place of my home.

[BigMackCam]

Yes, I'm the original owner. None of my other lenses seem to be suffering from it. And they are stored in the same place in my studio. (I've been feverishly checking them in the past half hour.) My studio does get very hot in the summer though. So I'm going to stored them in a cooler place of my home.

I think that's a good precaution

I'm sure your lens is repairable, and I think it would be worth doing if you were previously happy with it. Let us know how you get on?

[osv]

I've been searching high and low for good recent Pentax MTF charts, but It's near impossible to find these. Does anybody have a good source? I've already tried Photozone.de, but the MTF data and reviews are ancient.

To be more specific: I'm trying to decide if I should sell of my Pentax SMC DA 35mm macro ltd limited to replace it with the Pentax SMC D-FA 100 macro. Sharpness is the most important factor here. But if I read the MTF charts on photozone correctly, this move would actually be a resolution-downgrade. Dang! This doesn't comply withe more subjective reviews of both lenses here on PF, which seem to favor the 100mm.

Pentax SMC DFA 100 macro: Pentax SMC-D FA 100mm f/2.8 macro - Review / Test Report - Analysis

is this the same lens? eric tested it on his a7r: SMC Pentax DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR on Sony A7R : ERPhotoReview

just keep in mind that imatest numbers are not going to be comparable between different testers, because of the differences between test setups... i've seen this with my own imatesting, it's very difficult to even get accurate repeatability, never mind comparing the numbers with what someone else is doing.

[UncleVanya]

My comment about sharpness is in the context of a working lens not one with your problem. The delta from the 35 to the 100 in absolute sharpness isn't likely to be a limiting factor. The DFA 50 I mentioned is between the two in sharpness and field of view.

[robjmitchell]

Not sharp enough is not a term associated with the 100wr!

[BigMackCam]

I, too, would like to know if haze had indeed something to do with such lack of contrast. The 18-135mm sure looks impressive from the dual above!

Well, I can definitely say that this isn't typically how the DA35 f/2.8 performs - quite the contrary, it has superb contrast (normally) and is very flare resistant... I think this is a haze issue, and haze *will* reduce contrast... but it will be interesting to know any progress on the issue

[Clavius]

Ah yes, sorry for the lack of updates. The repair center here gave me a ridiculous quote for cleaning the lens. And I'm not brave enough to do it myself. So therefore I've sold it, openly and honestly, to somebody who's a lot braver then me. He said he would try to remove the haze.

...Now I still don't know what to replace the 35mm with. I loved its versatility. Right now I'm leaning towards that Sigma 30mm 1.4 art. (Like I said, macro was just a nice-to-have, that added to its versatility.)

Or I might replace it with the HD version of the 35mm macro ltd. But that won't work on te K-1 when I upgrade.

The DFA 100mm is off the list. I realized last week dat I already feel cornered very quickly with a 50. So this lens would probably only be used for macros in my hands. Which I find a waste.

[UncleVanya]

Fa 35 f2 is a nice lens. I have it. I also have the FA 31 and DA 40. I like all of them. The 31 is bulkier, faster, wider, and larger, the 40 is smaller, lighter, narrower, and slower.

---------- Post added 06-23-16 at 08:21 PM ----------

Ah yes, sorry for the lack of updates. The repair center here gave me a ridiculous quote for cleaning the lens. And I'm not brave enough to do it myself. So therefore I've sold it, openly and honestly, to somebody who's a lot braver then me. He said he would try to remove the haze.

...Now I still don't know what to replace the 35mm with. I loved its versatility. Right now I'm leaning towards that Sigma 30mm 1.4 art. (Like I said, macro was just a nice-to-have, that added to its versatility.)

Or I might replace it with the HD version of the 35mm macro ltd. But that won't work on te K-1 when I upgrade.

The DFA 100mm is off the list. I realized last week dat I already feel cornered very quickly with a 50. So this lens would probably only be used for macros in my hands. Which I find a waste.

Depending on where you are you might reach out to Dcshooter for an estimate.

[lithedreamer]

The DFA 100mm is off the list. I realized last week dat I already feel cornered very quickly with a 50. So this lens would probably only be used for macros in my hands. Which I find a waste.

Yeah, I really like the 35mm Limited Macro, and I've found it usable on FF film. Here's a link to the K-1 labs page for the lens, which shows vignetting, but at a level I would tolerate. You may also want to look into macro alternatives, like a lens reversal ring (+ a shiny FA 31?) or magnifying filter (I hear Canon makes good quality ones).

[Clavius]

Yeah, I really like the 35mm Limited Macro, and I've found it usable on FF film. Here's a link to the K-1 labs page for the lens, which shows vignetting, but at a level I would tolerate.

Wait wait... My Japanese is non existent, but those are K-1 shots with the 35mm macro ltd in crop mode right? Otherwise my dilemma would be instantly solved.