[rptdc]

HD Pentax-DA 21mm F3.2 Limited ..or..
HD Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro

I currently have 15 mm Prime and Pentax 55 to 300 Zoom. I would like an in-between walk around/hiking lens. I am considering one of the two above. Size matters, and both of these particular lenses are nicely compact.

I know I am going to be lectured about the subjectivity of my question. Well, that is what I am asking for. Opinions, thoughts. There is no right or wrong.

Also, do I need the macro of the 35 mm? Or would close-ups for flowers and some insects be adequate with just a regular lens?

[swanlefitte]

I bet if this was a poll it would be slightly in favor of 35mm.
The 35 with flowers depends on how close focus the design gives. My sigma 18-35 is fine with close focus of about 30cm. So it frames a flower well at .24x magnification.

[Eyewanders]

HD Pentax-DA 21mm F3.2 Limited ..or..
HD Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro

I currently have 15 mm Prime and Pentax 55 to 300 Zoom. I would like an in-between walk around/hiking lens. I am considering one of the two above. Size matters, and both of these particular lenses are nicely compact.

I know I am going to be lectured about the subjectivity of my question. Well, that is what I am asking for. Opinions, thoughts. There is no right or wrong.

Also, do I need the macro of the 35 mm? Or would close-ups for flowers and some insects be adequate with just a regular lens?

No lecture here. They're very different focal lenghts. I might suggest you consider picking up an older manual 28mm like the common M28/2.8 thereby splitting the difference as it were. Walk around with it and get a feeling for whether it feels too cramped or too spacious for your specific wants. Plus, they're very inexpensive and it's possible you might enjoy it enough to keep around. I like 35mm on 35mm as a walk-around, but a 28 on APSC feels about right. YMMV, as is always the case.

[aaacb]

I had one and found the 21 a bit too wide for people pictures, had to get a little too close, but that's my style, I like focal lengths in the range 40-50 for general purpose "street." It's an excellent lens for anytime anywhere photos, if you're to carry just one lens. However, I when I had the 21 I also had a 15 (which I still have), and while different I never wanted to bring both with me. I also sometimes want my current normal-ish lenses to focus closer, so for me those are extra points for the 35. When focusing speed matters, I zone focus whenever possible because af is slower than instant, so any advantage the 21 might have is lost for my use.

So overall, given your current lenses, I'd pick the 35 macro.

---

Last edited by aaacb; 06-13-2018 at 03:41 PM. Reason: rephrased

[Pentax Syntax]

Have both lenses and for hiking general use I would go with the 21. It has decent close focusing capabilities and is a great hiking lens due to small size. Even smaller than the 35 limited. YMMV.

[torashi]

Why not try them both out before buying?

It depends on which focal length you feel more at home. The 21 is more like a 35 on FF, and the 35 is more like a 50.

For street, some would prefer a 35, others a fast 50. The thing is the 35 isn't even an F/2, let alone 1.4 lens. And it's a short focal length for a macro, which can scare subjects or get in the way of the light.

Gesendet von meinem Mi A1 mit Tapatalk

[bertwert]

If I were you it would be the 35. Not only is it macro but sits exactly between your other two lenses (20mm away from wither one).

[Saltwater Images]

It's really about your preferences. For macro I prefer the D FA 100 WR - reach, sharpness, WR and optical perfection; this lens is a Ltd without the labelling in my humble opinion. On film I preferred a 35mm lens as a walk around. The FA 31 is popular for that reason (slightly wider than 35). On a crop sensor the 21 fulfills the roll of the 31 but with a slower aperture. For a long time I didn't bother with the HD DA 15 Ltd as I had the 21 but after purchasing the 15 - I find that they are very different lenses. Today the HD DA 21 is my walk around lens unless in very narrow streets.

[caliscouser]

how about the DA 20-40 Limited? covers the gap nicely, WR, DC AF, compact, handles like a prime with wriggle room. A lot to like.....

[photoptimist]

Personally, I'd gravitate toward the wider-angle lens because you can always crop a shot taken with the 21 to get the same field of view as the 35.

The 35 macro is a bit short for outdoor macro (unless you have a macro flash rig). The close working distance of the lens will tend to scare skittish critters and can have issues with shadows from the lens, camera, and your head in the picture.

The counterargument to the 21 is that the 35 is more at the mid-point between your 15 and the 55.

Finally, you might think a bit longer-term and ask what's the next lens after this one and how migh tthat affect this choice.

[aslyfox]

the 35 is macro true enough

however, with that short of a focal length, to get macro, the lens will be very very close to the target

really difficult to use unless the target stays in place for a long time

" As previously mentioned, the DA 35mm lens includes a reproduction ratio alongside the meter and feet distance scale. According to the manual, you set the reproduction ratio in the manual focus mode and adjust focus by moving the camera closer or further from the subject. The reproduction ratio starts at 1/10 and ends with 1/1. In field tests at 1/1, the lens focuses at about 1 inch from the front element. At times, the focus is a little too close for inanimate objects. "

Read more at: Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Review - Macro Capabilities | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Review - Macro Capabilities | PentaxForums.com Reviews

I am trying to use the D FA 100mm 2.8 Macro as a result

[victormeldrew]

20-40 Ltd would be my choice for walkaround.


If you want to do macro, get a macro lens...you can pick up the old manual Sigma 50mm Macro for pretty cheap and it is excellent...

[Saltwater Images]

how about the DA 20-40 Limited? covers the gap nicely, WR, DC AF, compact, handles like a prime with wriggle room. A lot to like.....

The 20-40 does cover all the bases. Despite having all 5 HD DA Limited primes - I have been considering the 20-40 for WR. The DA* 60-250 has spoiled me

[ChristianRock]

Personally, 35mm for me.
I have done a lot of walking with just the DA 35 2.4, and now with the Sigma 30 1.4 Art.

[BigMackCam]

Oooh... that's a tough one.

The obvious choice is the HD DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited Macro, as the field of view is similar to a 50mm on full-frame. As such, it arguably offers the most versatile field of view for "general photography" (definition intentionally omitted ) on the APS-C sensor format, depending - and here's the kicker - on what you shoot. Short of wildlife and airshows, it's a very useful focal length.

That said, whilst most of my APS-C photography is between 28 and 80mm (I may be a little unusual in not using wider angle lenses), the HD DA 21mm f/3.2 is one of my favourite lenses. I find it quite inspiring, and it renders very nicely indeed. It's great for landscape, street, environmental portraiture, you name it. But - and I'm stating the obvious, here - just be aware that you need to be reasonably close to your subject for adequate magnification.

Incidentally, macro on the HD DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited isn't really all that useful for real macro work, in my view. Rather, it offers very close focusing, which can be extremely useful and offer excellent creative options. But it's not for live bee shots, for instance