[architorture]

Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited macro - Review / Test Report

not as positive as mike/carl's photo.net review

and "Like many other recent Pentax lenses it is also available as a Tokina variant for Nikon and Canon DSLRs." is true how could pentax allow that? the tokina is much bigger, but its existence totally kills any incentive this lens might have sparked for people to look at the pentax system. d'oh!

[architorture]

i wonder if the discrepancy could be accounted for by the camera used? Klaus uses a K10d (like me), but i think carl and mike both use a k20d. would that make such a big difference?

[Michaelina2]

I'm wondering the same thing... the lens seems optimized for the K20D and it's state-of-the-art+ sensor.

Kinda like testing the latest whiz-bang multi-channel audio receiver when it's hooked up to your parent's 1960's Hi-Fi speakers.

GIGO ...eh??

[jsherman999]

i wonder if the discrepancy could be accounted for by the camera used? Klaus uses a K10d (like me), but i think carl and mike both use a k20d. would that make such a big difference?

This was my point exactly in this thread.

I'm pretty convinced it's the K20D/DA35 combo that floored Mike & Carl, although
they haven't come to that conclusion themselves (yet.)

Regardless, going forward (K20D, K30D, ...) the DA 35ltd is going to be considered
a Pentax classic.


.

[k100d]

from the review, the big downers for me are
-busy bokeh, this was noticed by some testers when the lens came out
-CA, what's w/ Pentax and CA and PF, it's like they can't find a way to get rid of it

can a sensor really make that big of a difference in terms of rendering qualities tho?

from the review, the big downers for me are
-busy bokeh, this was noticed by some testers when the lens came out
-CA, what's w/ Pentax and CA and PF, it's like they can't find a way to get rid of it

can a sensor really make that big of a difference in terms of rendering qualities tho?

I am sure that DA 35 Macro shines on a K20D much more than on K10D and we have countless members with this combo here.

And for example DA* 16-50 has noticable less CA on a K20D than on a K10D.

Radu

[falconeye]

I am sure that DA 35 Macro shines on a K20D much more than on K10D and we have countless members with this combo here.

I have the K20D+DA35 and I think photozone.de got it correct.

I LOVE the DA35 on my K20D, the resolution and detail is just stunning for images taken over a short distance. Crop into at 1:1 and you got a 50x microscope!

Nevertheless, in standard situations, I find that it is slightly outperformed by a DA40 and significantly outperformed by a FA31 or Zeiss. The photozone.de ratings (3.5, 4.0 and 4.5) are all very good but rank them into the same order.

As photozone.de doesn't have a Macro rating, their verdict is correct but misses the point that the DA35 may be the greatest Macro lens money can buy.

[falconeye]

And for example DA* 16-50 has noticable less CA on a K20D than on a K10D.

As long as nobody provides evidence for such a claim, I refuse to believe

CA is a lens, not a sensor artifact.

[stevebrot]

Yikes! I was really surprised to see the MTF numbers. Based on user comments here and elsewhere, I expected to see the graphs pegged at just below 2350 LW/PH for most apertures at center with the edge sharpness trailing by just a tad. I also expected to see little dwarf bars on the CA graph.

The real shock comes when you compare the graphs against those for the FA 35/2. I know there has been a lot of discussion on this forum regarding these two lenses and even a few comparison photos, but I was totally unprepared to see the DA 35/2.8 beat down so badly by its older brother in the performance numbers game.

Still, there is more to performance than bar graphs. The excellent images posted here are ample testimony to what the DA 35 is capable of.

Steve

(...feeling OK again about buying the FA 35/2...)

[k100d]

(...feeling OK again about buying the FA 35/2...)

b/n the DA35, FA35 and FA31, no one will criticize you if you choose between the three

[lbam]

I think the wording of the review is a little disappointing, but as to whether this lens is better or worse than the FA35mm and the 31mm limited, when you take into account all factors, there really is no answer. Each has it's own advantages, be price, macro flexibility, or resolution (to just name a few attributes). It would be nice to have lens that combined the abilities of all three, but it's also nice to have the choice of three great lenses

I still love mine, and want the others! lol

[stevebrot]

As long as nobody provides evidence for such a claim, I refuse to believe

CA is a lens, not a sensor artifact.

I agree, but would like to add the cautionary statement that Purple Fringing (a form of CA) is influenced by both lens and sensor design.

[Pål Jensen]

from the review, the big downers for me are
-busy bokeh, this was noticed by some testers when the lens came out
-CA, what's w/ Pentax and CA and PF, it's like they can't find a way to get rid of it

can a sensor really make that big of a difference in terms of rendering qualities tho?

Well corrected optics, like almost all macro lenses, show "busy" bokeh.
Ca: I think it is due to design philosophies among lens designers. Pentax aparently don't think CA is that important and make other priorities. I think they are correct...

[k100d]

good bokeh and strong macro performance aren't mutually exclusive ...
re: the Voigt 125, Viv 105, Zeiss and even the Sigma Macro primes don't seem to have this problem ... however, those lenses might have an advantage due to the longer focal length

[lbam]

I wonder if he'll review the Tokina version...