Keep FA 50 1.4 or sell and get DA 35 Lt macro?

Hobo · 03-19-2009, 08:35 AM

Any opinions out there from those of you who have used both of these lenses? Just picked up the K20D and have always wanted a true macro, but wasn't convinced that a 100mm would be the size of choice for me. Seems the 35 is just the size I am looking for and would be a superb, robust walk around lens. Not sure I want to let go of the 50, but wouldn't be able to justify keeping both.

Amazon has the lens listed for 419.00 right now - not sure I want to let that pass.

asdf · 03-19-2009, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Hobo

Any opinions out there from those of you who have used both of these lenses? Just picked up the K20D and have always wanted a true macro, but wasn't convinced that a 100mm would be the size of choice for me. Seems the 35 is just the size I am looking for and would be a superb, robust walk around lens. Not sure I want to let go of the 50, but wouldn't be able to justify keeping both.

Amazon has the lens listed for 419.00 right now - not sure I want to let that pass.

Aden camera sells them for 379.99 CAD. I've been tempted, as well.

philbaum · 03-19-2009, 10:16 AM

Wow, thats a tough question. I have a DA-35 macro thats on a truck and hopefully will be here on Friday, tomorrow. I'll let you know the minute i get it.

The main reason i ordered it was to have that all around flexiblity to it that others have reported. My DA21 was too wide for many walk around applications, the FA 50 was been very useful to me, many fine shots that i got compliments on, but often too tight.

However, there are so many 50's out there, that you should be able to pick one up fairly cheap if you want one again, manual if not AF, which i think you will :-)

Phil

K100Dave · 03-19-2009, 10:24 AM

I would try to find away to keep both. If you sell your 50, there's going come a time that you wish that you had one. I don't carry mine with me a lot of the time, and find myself wanting it in my bag.

Marc Sabatella · 03-19-2009, 10:35 AM

I could see saying that 35mm would be a more useful focal length tjhan 100mm *in general*, but you seem to be saying you think that would be true *specifically* for macro, and that I don't get. You prefer having to be only a couple of inches from your subject to get 1:1, versus around a foot?

cousinsane · 03-19-2009, 10:41 AM

Buy from prodigital2000@ebay. Much cheaper than Amazon

axl · 03-19-2009, 11:19 AM

keep 50 and get 35, you'll be easily able to justify both! 35 will be better walkaround lens, but 50 will let you shoot in environments where 35 won't stand much chance. With whatever camera, 2 stops is 2 stops!!!
If you are worried abot the focal lenghts, don't be... I have 31, 40 and 50 and not planning to sell any. My wife got pretty muche used to my LBA by now

BR

Hobo · 03-19-2009, 11:31 AM

Quote:

I could see saying that 35mm would be a more useful focal length tjhan 100mm *in general*, but you seem to be saying you think that would be true *specifically* for macro, and that I don't get.

No - when I say size, I literally mean the heft and bulk of the lens - not the focal length. If I wanted macro mostly for bugs, the 100 or maybe even 200 it would be, but I am mostly interested in macro for small landscapes and patterns - not so much for the flighty things.

maxwell1295 · 03-19-2009, 12:04 PM

Looking at those prices, I'm starting to think I got a real bargain at $290usd shipped from Prodigital2000. The DA35 is a stellar lens. It's a lens that almost makes no sense for me, yet it's probably my favorite lens. I really didn't want to like it, but it won me over quickly.

As great a lens as it is, there's no way I'd do a straight FA50 for DA35 swap....not unless you never find yourself shooting in really low light. I think the FA43 or FA35 would be better replacements for the FA50, unless the macro capability is something you crave. Since the majority of my close-up work is still life or flowers, I have no real need for a longer macro.

RioRico · 03-19-2009, 12:11 PM

Different folks & strokes. The FA 50 is my night+inside K20D walkaround; a (Kiron?) A28/2.8M walks outside with me. (I never have liked the 'normal' viewpoint.) For serious macro work, you need a tripod and bellows or tubes, IMHO.

hinman · 03-19-2009, 12:43 PM

I would suggest to keep the FA 50 f/1.4 as there is a time that you need the fast speed and with AF. The DA 35mm f/2.8 is a great lens for walk around and macro. I love the DA 35 especially on product shots, walk around, traveling due to reasonable small size.

I got my copy from Prodigal2000. They usually have BIN price and I bargain down with "best offer" to much lower price that your stated price. Of course, you have to think about the Canada warranty.

You also need to think of your lineup of limited and primes, I pick

21, 35, 50, 77

and many others also like

21, 43/40, 70/77

as three prime trio in replacing the 50 with a 43 or 40.

I actually thought about selling my FA 50 f/1.4 at one time after I get my DA 35 but I resist as it has an important role in my bag as it is very good prime with fast speed and gem for the price and that my manual focus fast prime as in Cosina 55mm f/1.2 can't do easily. I can't use MF lens on my kids easily but my FA 50 f/1.4 can help me do the job quickly and easily.

Thanks,
Hin

Nesster · 03-19-2009, 12:54 PM

If the 35 macro was available when I got my 43, I'd probably have gone with the 35. I like to walk around and be able to get close, for exactly what you mention. Not necessarily true 1:1 macro, but closer than the 43 lets me get. The 35 macro does sound like just the kind of lens I love for walking around with.

My ideal lens has at least close focus (ie. 1:2.5 at least) and isn't too long focal length wise, and yeah, not physically large. The two lenses I currently have that most resemble this are a Vivitar 28 screw mount, and the 16-45 which isn't exactly small, and neither is the Viv for what it is.

Re. 100mm macro - I'm with you there, I have the adaptall 90/2.5 and while it's great, 90mm just isn't general purpose for my needs.

Re. the 50 - if you really can't justify keeping it, you can always pick up a manual focus fast 50 for relatively little money.

**Sailor** · 03-19-2009, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Hobo

Any opinions out there from those of you who have used both of these lenses? Just picked up the K20D and have always wanted a true macro, but wasn't convinced that a 100mm would be the size of choice for me. Seems the 35 is just the size I am looking for and would be a superb, robust walk around lens. Not sure I want to let go of the 50, but wouldn't be able to justify keeping both.

Amazon has the lens listed for 419.00 right now - not sure I want to let that pass.

I have both lenses; my opinion - which of course may not match your viewpoint at all - is that my DA 35 is infinitely more versatile than the 50 - the "normal" FOV is (for me) less confining and more easily managed, and the DA offers facile close focusing capability along with - again to my eyes - better optical performance.

I don't, however, see the DA 35, with its short FL, as an ideal dedicated macro; one has to be very intimate with the subject - physically awkward when the camera is on a tripod, which is generally necessary for good macro shots with a shaky old geezer like me. For macro, I stick with my DFA 100/2.8.

My dilema (if you can call it that), is when to carry the DA 35 and when to bring my DA 40, which is much smaller, focuses faster under a lot of conditions and - again to my eye - is optically a bit (but only a bit) better.

Jer

Nesster · 03-19-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

My dilema (if you can call it that), is when to carry the DA 35 and when to bring my DA 40, which is much smaller, focuses faster under a lot of conditions and - again to my eye - is optically a bit (but only a bit) better.

That's why God made pockets...

Truth be told, I don't like to carry extra lenses, I'd rather make do with whatever it is I have on.

axl · 03-19-2009, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Nesster

That's why God made pockets...

Truth be told, I don't like to carry extra lenses, I'd rather make do with whatever it is I have on.

you'd go crazy in my shoes then, my middle sector is packed pretty tight:
31, 40, 50
boy is it killing me to choose which one to use...
BR

03-19-2009, 08:35 AM	#1
Hobo Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan Posts: 13	Keep FA 50 1.4 or sell and get DA 35 Lt macro? Any opinions out there from those of you who have used both of these lenses? Just picked up the K20D and have always wanted a true macro, but wasn't convinced that a 100mm would be the size of choice for me. Seems the 35 is just the size I am looking for and would be a superb, robust walk around lens. Not sure I want to let go of the 50, but wouldn't be able to justify keeping both. Amazon has the lens listed for 419.00 right now - not sure I want to let that pass.

03-19-2009, 12:43 PM	#11
hinman Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fremont, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,473	I would suggest to keep the FA 50 f/1.4 as there is a time that you need the fast speed and with AF. The DA 35mm f/2.8 is a great lens for walk around and macro. I love the DA 35 especially on product shots, walk around, traveling due to reasonable small size. I got my copy from Prodigal2000. They usually have BIN price and I bargain down with "best offer" to much lower price that your stated price. Of course, you have to think about the Canada warranty. You also need to think of your lineup of limited and primes, I pick 21, 35, 50, 77 and many others also like 21, 43/40, 70/77 as three prime trio in replacing the 50 with a 43 or 40. I actually thought about selling my FA 50 f/1.4 at one time after I get my DA 35 but I resist as it has an important role in my bag as it is very good prime with fast speed and gem for the price and that my manual focus fast prime as in Cosina 55mm f/1.2 can't do easily. I can't use MF lens on my kids easily but my FA 50 f/1.4 can help me do the job quickly and easily. Thanks, Hin Last edited by hinman; 03-19-2009 at 01:01 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
50mm 1.2...to sell or not to sell? That is the question.	RT1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	06-03-2013 04:13 PM
Should I sell the DA 70mm Ltd to get the DFA 100mm Macro WR	aaronius	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	04-29-2010 06:32 PM
Film camera bodies - CLA then sell, or sell as is?	SOldBear	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	15	10-27-2009 04:18 PM
Sell or not sell, that is the question	Taff	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	10-06-2009 06:19 AM
To sell, or not to sell... that is the question.	rpriedhorsky	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	06-02-2009 10:23 PM

03-19-2009, 08:41 AM	#2
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Hobo Any opinions out there from those of you who have used both of these lenses? Just picked up the K20D and have always wanted a true macro, but wasn't convinced that a 100mm would be the size of choice for me. Seems the 35 is just the size I am looking for and would be a superb, robust walk around lens. Not sure I want to let go of the 50, but wouldn't be able to justify keeping both. Amazon has the lens listed for 419.00 right now - not sure I want to let that pass. Aden camera sells them for 379.99 CAD. I've been tempted, as well.

03-19-2009, 10:16 AM	#3
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Wow, thats a tough question. I have a DA-35 macro thats on a truck and hopefully will be here on Friday, tomorrow. I'll let you know the minute i get it. The main reason i ordered it was to have that all around flexiblity to it that others have reported. My DA21 was too wide for many walk around applications, the FA 50 was been very useful to me, many fine shots that i got compliments on, but often too tight. However, there are so many 50's out there, that you should be able to pick one up fairly cheap if you want one again, manual if not AF, which i think you will :-) Phil

03-19-2009, 10:24 AM	#4
K100Dave Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 111	I would try to find away to keep both. If you sell your 50, there's going come a time that you wish that you had one. I don't carry mine with me a lot of the time, and find myself wanting it in my bag.

03-19-2009, 10:35 AM	#5
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	I could see saying that 35mm would be a more useful focal length tjhan 100mm in general, but you seem to be saying you think that would be true specifically for macro, and that I don't get. You prefer having to be only a couple of inches from your subject to get 1:1, versus around a foot?

03-19-2009, 10:41 AM	#6
cousinsane Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: madison Posts: 239	Buy from prodigital2000@ebay. Much cheaper than Amazon

03-19-2009, 11:19 AM	#7
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	keep 50 and get 35, you'll be easily able to justify both! 35 will be better walkaround lens, but 50 will let you shoot in environments where 35 won't stand much chance. With whatever camera, 2 stops is 2 stops!!! If you are worried abot the focal lenghts, don't be... I have 31, 40 and 50 and not planning to sell any. My wife got pretty muche used to my LBA by now BR

03-19-2009, 11:31 AM	#8
Hobo Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan Posts: 13 Original Poster	Quote: I could see saying that 35mm would be a more useful focal length tjhan 100mm in general, but you seem to be saying you think that would be true specifically for macro, and that I don't get. No - when I say size, I literally mean the heft and bulk of the lens - not the focal length. If I wanted macro mostly for bugs, the 100 or maybe even 200 it would be, but I am mostly interested in macro for small landscapes and patterns - not so much for the flighty things.

03-19-2009, 12:04 PM	#9
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	Looking at those prices, I'm starting to think I got a real bargain at $290usd shipped from Prodigital2000. The DA35 is a stellar lens. It's a lens that almost makes no sense for me, yet it's probably my favorite lens. I really didn't want to like it, but it won me over quickly. As great a lens as it is, there's no way I'd do a straight FA50 for DA35 swap....not unless you never find yourself shooting in really low light. I think the FA43 or FA35 would be better replacements for the FA50, unless the macro capability is something you crave. Since the majority of my close-up work is still life or flowers, I have no real need for a longer macro.

03-19-2009, 12:11 PM	#10
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Different folks & strokes. The FA 50 is my night+inside K20D walkaround; a (Kiron?) A28/2.8M walks outside with me. (I never have liked the 'normal' viewpoint.) For serious macro work, you need a tripod and bellows or tubes, IMHO.

03-19-2009, 12:54 PM	#12
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	If the 35 macro was available when I got my 43, I'd probably have gone with the 35. I like to walk around and be able to get close, for exactly what you mention. Not necessarily true 1:1 macro, but closer than the 43 lets me get. The 35 macro does sound like just the kind of lens I love for walking around with. My ideal lens has at least close focus (ie. 1:2.5 at least) and isn't too long focal length wise, and yeah, not physically large. The two lenses I currently have that most resemble this are a Vivitar 28 screw mount, and the 16-45 which isn't exactly small, and neither is the Viv for what it is. Re. 100mm macro - I'm with you there, I have the adaptall 90/2.5 and while it's great, 90mm just isn't general purpose for my needs. Re. the 50 - if you really can't justify keeping it, you can always pick up a manual focus fast 50 for relatively little money.

03-19-2009, 01:02 PM	#13
Sailor Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Coastal Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,203	Originally posted by Hobo Any opinions out there from those of you who have used both of these lenses? Just picked up the K20D and have always wanted a true macro, but wasn't convinced that a 100mm would be the size of choice for me. Seems the 35 is just the size I am looking for and would be a superb, robust walk around lens. Not sure I want to let go of the 50, but wouldn't be able to justify keeping both. Amazon has the lens listed for 419.00 right now - not sure I want to let that pass. I have both lenses; my opinion - which of course may not match your viewpoint at all - is that my DA 35 is infinitely more versatile than the 50 - the "normal" FOV is (for me) less confining and more easily managed, and the DA offers facile close focusing capability along with - again to my eyes - better optical performance. I don't, however, see the DA 35, with its short FL, as an ideal dedicated macro; one has to be very intimate with the subject - physically awkward when the camera is on a tripod, which is generally necessary for good macro shots with a shaky old geezer like me. For macro, I stick with my DFA 100/2.8. My dilema (if you can call it that), is when to carry the DA 35 and when to bring my DA 40, which is much smaller, focuses faster under a lot of conditions and - again to my eye - is optically a bit (but only a bit) better. Jer

03-19-2009, 01:14 PM	#14
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Quote: My dilema (if you can call it that), is when to carry the DA 35 and when to bring my DA 40, which is much smaller, focuses faster under a lot of conditions and - again to my eye - is optically a bit (but only a bit) better. That's why God made pockets... Truth be told, I don't like to carry extra lenses, I'd rather make do with whatever it is I have on.

03-19-2009, 02:41 PM	#15
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by Nesster That's why God made pockets... Truth be told, I don't like to carry extra lenses, I'd rather make do with whatever it is I have on. you'd go crazy in my shoes then, my middle sector is packed pretty tight: 31, 40, 50 boy is it killing me to choose which one to use... BR