[CristiC]

Athanassios please help me to understand your intention regarding "ultra wide - close ups" because I'm very confused by the title and by the setup. For me this is not a proper comparison of apples to apples, not even apples to oranges, it's more like having a basket with banana, apple, orange, mango, potato and coconut asking for a very subjective opinion of what flavor you might like more, based on shape. Please forgive my bluntness, I would like to get some positive, useful insight from this.

Allow me to explain: If the question is "what lens shall I use for ultra wide close-ups?" then I would take as reference the focal length (FL) of 24mm based on a full-frame sensor and compare only those lenses that have FL less than 24mm.

• Given the set of lenses that you mentioned and looking at the EXIF that says Pentax KP camera, then ultra-wide means a focal length (FL) of less than 16mm, in case of using an APSC-size sensor. Anything else doesn't qualify as ultra-wide, according to wikipedia: Ultra wide angle lenses.
  
• Now let's forget the ultra word and ask what is meant by wide angle lenses? In case of using the Pentax KP, wide means a FL between [16mm and 24mm]. Not even 35mm.
  Wide on full-frame is the range between 24mm and 36mm FL.
  
• Now let's forget both wide and ultra-wide, let's focus on close-ups. Here it makes sense to consider a feature of lenses that is called minimum focus distance (MFD).
  You can't get sharp images of subjects that are closer to the camera sensor than the MFD.

1. Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 (@16mm) --------> MFD = 30cm, maybe ok for close-ups;
2. Pentax HD DA 15mm f/4 Ltd --------------------> MFD = 18 cm, very good for close-ups, that's the main usage, the reason why I bought it;
3. Pentax HD DA 35mm f/2.8 Ltd Macro---------> MFD = 14 cm, very good for close-ups, it's a MACRO! Still doesn't qualify as wide, it's a normal FL;
4. Pentax HD DA 18-50mm RE (@ 18mm) -----> MFD = 30 cm, somewhat ok;
5. Pentax SMC DA 70mm f/2.4 Ltd ----------------> MFD = 70 cm, definitely not ok for close-ups. Use it with another "diopter +3" close-up lens attached in front of it;
6. Pentax HD DA 50-200mm WR (@ 50mm) ---> MFD = 110 cm, not so good for close-ups, I'm sure;
7. Pentax HD DA 55-300mm red (@ 55mm) ---> MFD = 140 cm, whaaat? 140? But I actually take flower pictures at MFD and f/8 with it.

Side-track: Regarding the focus breathing phenomenon, that is unrelated to the wide vs ultra-wide discussion. It has to do with an apparent FL, a slightly different value than one might expect, when turning the zoom ring and then focusing on the subject, at a very close FD, such as MFD, compared to a more distant FD value, such as infinity. Focus breathing is a term that describes the apparent change in focal length (FL) that occurs as a result of adjusting the focusing distance (FD) of a lens. See this article.

Maybe the approach was: Given these 5 lenses, let's use them all on the same scene, the corner of my desk, by trying to keep the same objects inside the frame, from left to right. Also keep the angle of view as constant as possible by moving the camera closer or moving further away, at a different working distance (that's an FD) for each lens. Definitely not at the MFD for each lens.

Regarding sharpness, there is a zone of acceptable sharpness, defined by the f/4 aperture and the working distance (FD). I am talking about depth of field (DOF). For each lens the DOF zone is different, because it also depends on FL. That is why I mentioned the mango, potato and coconut. See an online DOF simulator here.

Regarding the transition zone between "acceptable sharp" and "blurry" (at the given settings) - each lens is different and I reckon that this aspect possibly is the topic of this thread.

P.S. on a funny note, regarding my choice of lens, I'd choose a different desk in a different room at different light. No ash-tray for sure. Then I'd go for 5 different subjects, playing with DOF not for the sake of sharpness but looking for how pleasing the out-of-focus areas are, trying to get such areas within the frame, not necessarily in the corners.

I have too many lenses and I painfully ask myself each time which one to take with me outdoors, depending on the subjects I am aiming for. How to choose - that is the question! Maybe Brian Peterson can help, I found his book "Understanding Close-Up Photography", ISBN-10: 0817427198

Anyway, thank you for inspiration, I'm now fetching a wife, a vase, some flowers, two softboxes, Godox AD-200 flashes, a backdrop, some LEGO, the cat, some cat-food, a tripod, a wire trigger, a Godox radio-trigger, a snoot with honeycomb grid for 15 degrees, some colored pencils, the K-1, the KP and a selection of 12 lenses. No, 13, 'cause I got a friend's DA*16-50 too. Definitely a split on macro vs no-macro. Let's see how everything else but the (in-focus) flower looks like.

[CristiC]

Erratum: I learned from Rokinon 8mm vs. 10mm vs. Sigma 8-16mm vs. Pentax 10-17mm Ultra-wide Showdown Review - Close Focus and Bokeh | PentaxForums.com Reviews that

• WD = working distance, the distance between front element and subject;
• FD = focus distance, the distance between sensor and subject;

FD = WD + length of your lens (front element to K-mount flange) + 45.46 mm (that is K-mount flange distance);
WD < FD;

MFD = smallest possible value of a FD, for getting your subject in focus

[Athanassios]

Athanassios please help me to understand your intention regarding "ultra wide - close ups" because I'm very confused by the title and by the setup. For me this is not a proper comparison of apples to apples, not even apples to oranges, it's more like having a basket with banana, apple, orange, mango, potato and coconut asking for a very subjective opinion of what flavor you might like more, based on shape. Please forgive my bluntness, I would like to get some positive, useful insight from this.

Allow me to explain: If the question is "what lens shall I use for ultra wide close-ups?" then I would take as reference the focal length (FL) of 24mm based on a full-frame sensor and compare only those lenses that have FL less than 24mm.

• Given the set of lenses that you mentioned and looking at the EXIF that says Pentax KP camera, then ultra-wide means a focal length (FL) of less than 16mm, in case of using an APSC-size sensor. Anything else doesn't qualify as ultra-wide, according to wikipedia: Ultra wide angle lenses.
  
• Now let's forget the ultra word and ask what is meant by wide angle lenses? In case of using the Pentax KP, wide means a FL between [16mm and 24mm]. Not even 35mm.
  Wide on full-frame is the range between 24mm and 36mm FL.
  
• Now let's forget both wide and ultra-wide, let's focus on close-ups. Here it makes sense to consider a feature of lenses that is called minimum focus distance (MFD).
  You can't get sharp images of subjects that are closer to the camera sensor than the MFD.

1. Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 (@16mm) --------> MFD = 30cm, maybe ok for close-ups;
2. Pentax HD DA 15mm f/4 Ltd --------------------> MFD = 18 cm, very good for close-ups, that's the main usage, the reason why I bought it;
3. Pentax HD DA 35mm f/2.8 Ltd Macro---------> MFD = 14 cm, very good for close-ups, it's a MACRO! Still doesn't qualify as wide, it's a normal FL;
4. Pentax HD DA 18-50mm RE (@ 18mm) -----> MFD = 30 cm, somewhat ok;
5. Pentax SMC DA 70mm f/2.4 Ltd ----------------> MFD = 70 cm, definitely not ok for close-ups. Use it with another "diopter +3" close-up lens attached in front of it;
6. Pentax HD DA 50-200mm WR (@ 50mm) ---> MFD = 110 cm, not so good for close-ups, I'm sure;
7. Pentax HD DA 55-300mm red (@ 55mm) ---> MFD = 140 cm, whaaat? 140? But I actually take flower pictures at MFD and f/8 with it.

Side-track: Regarding the focus breathing phenomenon, that is unrelated to the wide vs ultra-wide discussion. It has to do with an apparent FL, a slightly different value than one might expect, when turning the zoom ring and then focusing on the subject, at a very close FD, such as MFD, compared to a more distant FD value, such as infinity. Focus breathing is a term that describes the apparent change in focal length (FL) that occurs as a result of adjusting the focusing distance (FD) of a lens. See this article.

Maybe the approach was: Given these 5 lenses, let's use them all on the same scene, the corner of my desk, by trying to keep the same objects inside the frame, from left to right. Also keep the angle of view as constant as possible by moving the camera closer or moving further away, at a different working distance (that's an FD) for each lens. Definitely not at the MFD for each lens.

Regarding sharpness, there is a zone of acceptable sharpness, defined by the f/4 aperture and the working distance (FD). I am talking about depth of field (DOF). For each lens the DOF zone is different, because it also depends on FL. That is why I mentioned the mango, potato and coconut. See an online DOF simulator here.

Regarding the transition zone between "acceptable sharp" and "blurry" (at the given settings) - each lens is different and I reckon that this aspect possibly is the topic of this thread.

P.S. on a funny note, regarding my choice of lens, I'd choose a different desk in a different room at different light. No ash-tray for sure. Then I'd go for 5 different subjects, playing with DOF not for the sake of sharpness but looking for how pleasing the out-of-focus areas are, trying to get such areas within the frame, not necessarily in the corners.

I have too many lenses and I painfully ask myself each time which one to take with me outdoors, depending on the subjects I am aiming for. How to choose - that is the question! Maybe Brian Peterson can help, I found his book "Understanding Close-Up Photography", ISBN-10: 0817427198

Anyway, thank you for inspiration, I'm now fetching a wife, a vase, some flowers, two softboxes, Godox AD-200 flashes, a backdrop, some LEGO, the cat, some cat-food, a tripod, a wire trigger, a Godox radio-trigger, a snoot with honeycomb grid for 15 degrees, some colored pencils, the K-1, the KP and a selection of 12 lenses. No, 13, 'cause I got a friend's DA*16-50 too. Definitely a split on macro vs no-macro. Let's see how everything else but the (in-focus) flower looks like.

I am honoured by your great comment. I happily felt stupid enough to accept lessons from a better “handler” of photography. No joke. Thank you. And yes, the weird bottom line was the realisation that you can “frame” the same scene with an Apple and a Vase lens.

Thanks for the lessons.

And my next silly test, promise, will be wiser.

---------- Post added 11-29-22 at 01:44 PM ----------

Athanassios please help me to understand your intention regarding "ultra wide - close ups" because I'm very confused by the title and by the setup. For me this is not a proper comparison of apples to apples, not even apples to oranges, it's more like having a basket with banana, apple, orange, mango, potato and coconut asking for a very subjective opinion of what flavor you might like more, based on shape. Please forgive my bluntness, I would like to get some positive, useful insight from this.

Allow me to explain: If the question is "what lens shall I use for ultra wide close-ups?" then I would take as reference the focal length (FL) of 24mm based on a full-frame sensor and compare only those lenses that have FL less than 24mm.

• Given the set of lenses that you mentioned and looking at the EXIF that says Pentax KP camera, then ultra-wide means a focal length (FL) of less than 16mm, in case of using an APSC-size sensor. Anything else doesn't qualify as ultra-wide, according to wikipedia: Ultra wide angle lenses.
  
• Now let's forget the ultra word and ask what is meant by wide angle lenses? In case of using the Pentax KP, wide means a FL between [16mm and 24mm]. Not even 35mm.
  Wide on full-frame is the range between 24mm and 36mm FL.
  
• Now let's forget both wide and ultra-wide, let's focus on close-ups. Here it makes sense to consider a feature of lenses that is called minimum focus distance (MFD).
  You can't get sharp images of subjects that are closer to the camera sensor than the MFD.

1. Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 (@16mm) --------> MFD = 30cm, maybe ok for close-ups;
2. Pentax HD DA 15mm f/4 Ltd --------------------> MFD = 18 cm, very good for close-ups, that's the main usage, the reason why I bought it;
3. Pentax HD DA 35mm f/2.8 Ltd Macro---------> MFD = 14 cm, very good for close-ups, it's a MACRO! Still doesn't qualify as wide, it's a normal FL;
4. Pentax HD DA 18-50mm RE (@ 18mm) -----> MFD = 30 cm, somewhat ok;
5. Pentax SMC DA 70mm f/2.4 Ltd ----------------> MFD = 70 cm, definitely not ok for close-ups. Use it with another "diopter +3" close-up lens attached in front of it;
6. Pentax HD DA 50-200mm WR (@ 50mm) ---> MFD = 110 cm, not so good for close-ups, I'm sure;
7. Pentax HD DA 55-300mm red (@ 55mm) ---> MFD = 140 cm, whaaat? 140? But I actually take flower pictures at MFD and f/8 with it.

Side-track: Regarding the focus breathing phenomenon, that is unrelated to the wide vs ultra-wide discussion. It has to do with an apparent FL, a slightly different value than one might expect, when turning the zoom ring and then focusing on the subject, at a very close FD, such as MFD, compared to a more distant FD value, such as infinity. Focus breathing is a term that describes the apparent change in focal length (FL) that occurs as a result of adjusting the focusing distance (FD) of a lens. See this article.

Maybe the approach was: Given these 5 lenses, let's use them all on the same scene, the corner of my desk, by trying to keep the same objects inside the frame, from left to right. Also keep the angle of view as constant as possible by moving the camera closer or moving further away, at a different working distance (that's an FD) for each lens. Definitely not at the MFD for each lens.

Regarding sharpness, there is a zone of acceptable sharpness, defined by the f/4 aperture and the working distance (FD). I am talking about depth of field (DOF). For each lens the DOF zone is different, because it also depends on FL. That is why I mentioned the mango, potato and coconut. See an online DOF simulator here.

Regarding the transition zone between "acceptable sharp" and "blurry" (at the given settings) - each lens is different and I reckon that this aspect possibly is the topic of this thread.

P.S. on a funny note, regarding my choice of lens, I'd choose a different desk in a different room at different light. No ash-tray for sure. Then I'd go for 5 different subjects, playing with DOF not for the sake of sharpness but looking for how pleasing the out-of-focus areas are, trying to get such areas within the frame, not necessarily in the corners.

I have too many lenses and I painfully ask myself each time which one to take with me outdoors, depending on the subjects I am aiming for. How to choose - that is the question! Maybe Brian Peterson can help, I found his book "Understanding Close-Up Photography", ISBN-10: 0817427198

Anyway, thank you for inspiration, I'm now fetching a wife, a vase, some flowers, two softboxes, Godox AD-200 flashes, a backdrop, some LEGO, the cat, some cat-food, a tripod, a wire trigger, a Godox radio-trigger, a snoot with honeycomb grid for 15 degrees, some colored pencils, the K-1, the KP and a selection of 12 lenses. No, 13, 'cause I got a friend's DA*16-50 too. Definitely a split on macro vs no-macro. Let's see how everything else but the (in-focus) flower looks like.

PS the working distance of the Macro is not 14cm. Many times I almost touch the subject with the hood so it’s closer to 4 cm. Never dared without the hood for the shake of keeping my lens safe (even if I do have a Hoya UV filter on)

[pschlute]

PS the working distance of the Macro is not 14cm. Many times I almost touch the subject with the hood so it’s closer to 4 cm.

He did not mention Working Distance. He was talking about Closest Focus Distance. This is listed in the specification provided by Pentax themselves as 14 cm.

Closest focus distance is defined as the distance between the subject and the focal plane of the camera.

[MossyRocks]

and the DA 35mm f2.4 (plastic fantastic)

And this gets to the subjectivity of lenses. I had that lens and hated it. I would try and use it but it just never clicked and I never cared for the rendering. Instead I saw that my local camera shop had the K 35/2 so I sold the DA 35/2.4 to them and got the K 35/2 as it wasn't terribly expensive. Turns out I actually really like the K 35/2 and frequently use it. Then last weekend I needed a new to me 50/1.4 (kids likely knocked one of mine off the shelf and stepped on it is my guess for the damage) and happened to see that they had the DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited and figured why not get that also. it is weird for me to be using a wider lens not at infinity but so far I like it enough to still want to play with it more. I figure if I don't like it I can always sell it and not be out much if anything and then get something different to play with.

[clackers]

the working distance of the Macro is not 14cm. Many times I almost touch the subject with the hood so it’s closer to 4 cm. Never dared without the hood for the shake of keeping my lens safe (even if I do have a Hoya UV filter on)

Nuh, it's the distance between subject and *sensor*, Athanassios!

That's well inside the camera.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

And this gets to the subjectivity of lenses. I had that lens and hated it. I would try and use it but it just never clicked and I never cared for the rendering. Instead I saw that my local camera shop had the K 35/2 so I sold the DA 35/2.4 to them and got the K 35/2 as it wasn't terribly expensive. Turns out I actually really like the K 35/2 and frequently use it. Then last weekend I needed a new to me 50/1.4 (kids likely knocked one of mine off the shelf and stepped on it is my guess for the damage) and happened to see that they had the DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited and figured why not get that also. it is weird for me to be using a wider lens not at infinity but so far I like it enough to still want to play with it more. I figure if I don't like it I can always sell it and not be out much if anything and then get something different to play with.

In my experience not every lens I own does perform to its best ability on all my camera's. So the DA 35 f2.4 is best coupled with the K-01 or the KP, but not with the K-3 II. I think the couple does not give an outstanding performance. I had the 35mm for a while as well, but in the end the 35mm f2.4 won, simply for the fact that I like the colours much more from that one.

[CristiC]

Purpose: close-ups. Question: Why use this lens? Here is my visual guide #1, for the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Ltd.

Each lens has its strengths, its weaknesses, it may be better suited for a job than some other lens. A macro lens exhibits high magnification, it can provide 1x at MFD. It can also be used for close-ups, at near MFD. I chose the 35mm FL on a Pentax KP to give me a "normal" angle of view. On a K-1 I would need a 50mm FL macro lens for the same "normal" angle of view.

Later posts will cover UWA lenses such as the Pentax DA 15mm f/4 Ltd and the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6, both of them with FL < 16mm, thus qualified as ultra wide angle (UWA) on a crop sensor camera.

I uploaded a set of 12 pictures to smugmug.com in order to avoid the default resizing on PentaxForums.com - a feature that annoys me a lot because of lost detail and sharpness. Smugmug allows for device-independent resizing, you can view the images at a proper size, no matter if you use a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop, a PC screen, or view it on a huge 4K monitor, as I do. The gallery is here: Photo Sharing Site. Your Photos Look Better Here. I recommend to browse the gallery on smugmug, to see proper detail and blur. Click on the image, then click on the round ( i ) button to the left side, to see EXIF data and description for each picture. Enjoy!

My intention was to use that lens near the minimum focus distance (MFD), but not necessarily at 1:1 macro magnification. I wanted some areas of the image to be out of focus in order to see the background blur at different apertures.

The setup included two radio-controlled flashes, I wanted an easy way to dial power levels up and down, in conjunction with different apertures. Ambient lighting is absent. All images taken handheld. The first image in that gallery is an example of how NOT to do it, it´s just an inventory of items, viewed from an arm's length distance. Macro lenses are meant to be used closer, much closer and at weird angles.

Embedding the second image here too. For close-ups I usually select a small aperture, f/16 or smaller. Not sure about the diffraction effect, but f/22 is definitely usable.


Background blur at f/8:



Background blur at f/4:



Background blur at f/2.8:



Now this is macro:

[CristiC]

Purpose: close-ups. Question: Why use this lens? Here is my visual guide #2, for the Pentax FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited, the SMC version

While the 35mm macro is definitely usable for close-ups, the legendary FA 31mm Ltd is well suited for subjects at minimum focus distance (MFD). It's not a wide angle of view, not UWA, but this lens has a reputation for nice bokeh, that is what I'm after. You can get that by narrowing the DOF zone through large apertures, f/2 up to f/4 and placing the subject at MFD. Compare f/11 and f/2 on the gallery hosted by smugmug here. ( i ) button shows descriptions.

Preview:
everything sharp and in-focus at f/16



not much blur at f/11


but a different story at f/4


even better at f/2


---------- Post added 11-30-22 at 11:04 PM ----------

Purpose: close-ups. Question: Why use this lens? Here is my visual guide #3, for the Pentax DA 15mm f4 Limited, the SMC version. Max. Magnification 0.15x at 18cm.

This is a ultra-wide-angle (UWA) lens on the Pentax KP. I am using it when I want creative effects of distorted perspective, placing a subject in the foreground and have its size appear very big relative to background objects that appear very small.

Here I wanted flowers placed at MFD, at 18cm. This UWA lens has a huge DOF potential, it's not easy to get blurry backgrounds. Even then, I don't like them. This is a lens for keeping everything in focus, bokeh is not a strength of this one. Here is a gallery with many pictures at different apertures. Browse it on smugmug.

This sample is at f/5.6

[CristiC]

Purpose: close-ups. Question: Why use this lens? Here is my visual guide #4, for the UWA Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6

This UWA lens is not made for blurry backgrounds. With UWA you want huge DOF, everything sharp. A lot of flowers can fit inside the frame, a tough problem is to carefully exclude what you don't want to be in the picture. There is perspective distorsion, big foreground vs small background objects. Any small tilt from the horizontal gets noticed. 16mm is closer to our perceived normal than 8mm - which is extreme and not easy to use. Flowers don't look natural. Any strong source of light inside the frame gives nasty aberrations. The Pentax 15mm is much much better. Browse the Sigma 8-16mm gallery here.

[Athanassios]

Purpose: close-ups. Question: Why use this lens? Here is my visual guide #2, for the Pentax FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited, the SMC version

While the 35mm macro is definitely usable for close-ups, the legendary FA 31mm Ltd is well suited for subjects at minimum focus distance (MFD). It's not a wide angle of view, not UWA, but this lens has a reputation for nice bokeh, that is what I'm after. You can get that by narrowing the DOF zone through large apertures, f/2 up to f/4 and placing the subject at MFD. Compare f/11 and f/2 on the gallery hosted by smugmug here. ( i ) button shows descriptions.

Preview:
everything sharp and in-focus at f/16



not much blur at f/11


but a different story at f/4


even better at f/2


---------- Post added 11-30-22 at 11:04 PM ----------

Purpose: close-ups. Question: Why use this lens? Here is my visual guide #3, for the Pentax DA 15mm f4 Limited, the SMC version. Max. Magnification 0.15x at 18cm.

This is a ultra-wide-angle (UWA) lens on the Pentax KP. I am using it when I want creative effects of distorted perspective, placing a subject in the foreground and have its size appear very big relative to background objects that appear very small.

Here I wanted flowers placed at MFD, at 18cm. This UWA lens has a huge DOF potential, it's not easy to get blurry backgrounds. Even then, I don't like them. This is a lens for keeping everything in focus, bokeh is not a strength of this one. Here is a gallery with many pictures at different apertures. Browse it on smugmug.

This sample is at f/5.6

Wow! Interesting tests for which I thank you. My post was lousy but inspiring after all. And; between and ashtray and an toy owl I love the second.

[K(s)evin]

"I am totally confused."

You are not alone. A referral to "Measure-bators Anonymous" is in order.

[UncleVanya]

Try DXO photolab as your raw processor.

Sadly for some reason I can’t see any of the original images. But I can comment on why images are similar focal lengths may look the same size/angle of view: focus breathing. As you change the focus distance your apparent focal length can change also. Focal lengths are based on image coverage at infinity not at closer distances.

---------- Post added 12-27-22 at 09:05 AM ----------

Other observations:

I own the HD DA 70 and SMC FA 77 and while the 77 has a faster aperture and since other benefits, both are sharp and excellent lenses. Like another poster I do use an apochromatic close up lens on mine (Raynox) to get shorter mfd when needed.

I also own both the SMC DA 35/2.4 and SMC DA 35/2.8 macro. I purchased and disliked the plastic 35/2.4, bought the FA 35/2 and loved it, broke the FA lens by accident, and later acquired the 35/2.8 and 2.4. This time around I like my 2.4 lens. It’s light and sharp. The 35/2.8 is more flexible but being a macro the focusing speed can be challenging if focus is missed and it racks the whole range.

I own the DA* 55 - lens is Excellent, but wide open results can be less stellar away from the center particularly. If you want sharp enough to cut wide open - get the DFA 50/1.4. The 55 is however very compact, weather resistant, and offers good sharpness and subject Isolation when used correctly.

I previously owned the 50-200. The size was amazing. The image quality was up to my 6mp sensor, but when I jumped to 16mp it just wasn’t up to it compared to some other telephoto zooms I had.