[jsherman999]

I think you'll surprise yourself the most with infinity shots with the 31. Shoot something farther away, like a building and zoom in, nothing near it in focal range can beat it, its pretty much on point by f2.8. Bokeh is good, but perhaps not that dramatic at its minimum focus range and focal length, though that top shots is very well rendered.

Thanks for the tip! I'll do some infinity today.



.

[jsherman999]

.


Here we go ---> The Review.

......(Carl)......
Thus, I expected to see good results from the DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro. Even so, I
did a double-take the first time I keyed-up a 100% view of a capture from this
lens. There was an intensity of detail and a transparency of rendering that I just
hadn’t seen before. I pulled up the original RAW file of a capture that had made
an excellent 15×22 inch print after interpolation. Side by side, my very first “get
acquainted” captures with the new lens were unmistakably crisper.


Mike: I did that too. Right from the first I found myself “pixel peeping,” in Michael
Reichmann’s popular phrase, and I’m not normally much of a pixel peeper. You
have more experience with Pentax digital cameras than I do; I briefly owned a
*ist DL2 that I disliked and de-accessioned promptly, and then I’ve had a loaner
K20D for about three months now. At first it’s difficult to sort out the sensor
from the lens. The K20D has two and a half times the pixels of my own 6-MP
DSLR, so the K20D looks quite a bit better—it takes a lot more enlargement to
get to the pixels, and the detail holds up a lot better. As I began to do my
standard battery of test captures with the DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro, I started
noticing how much the lens was contributing to the image quality.
.....

—the SMC Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited is a paragon. It really is just
beautiful, and will gratify…no, it will spoil anyone who likes the very best optical
quality and appreciates what truly outstanding lenses can do. It ranks right up
there with the best lenses I’ve ever used in any format.

Wowza.



.

[ll_coffee_lP]

Great post Peter.

c[_]

[Michaelina2]

There goes the neighborhood...

[deuces]

And there's more. I think Mikey likes it.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/08/just-published.htm

ADDENDUM: I don't want to be guilty of too much soft-pedaling here. Cross my heart I'm not saying this to try to push lenses. But to be fair and accurate, I should say straight out that if you own a Pentax K10D or K20D and don't buy this lens sooner or later, you're depriving yourself. No one who shoots Pentax digital in any serious way would ever regret buying this lens. It really is a treat. I'd recommend it even if you don't normally care for primes, even if you seldom shoot macro, and even if the focal length and speed aren't quite an exact fit. Its virtues go way beyond extreme sharpness. It will be the best lens you own, the best match for your very best technique, and, soon enough, your best results with it will make you forget what it once cost. If you're in the system, you need it. Even if you don't need it you need it. Very highly recommended. —MJ

(emphasis is mine)

Carl likes it too, vs 31ltd:

Overall performance of the 31mm is excellent, while overall performance of the 35mm Macro on a K20D is literally in a league of its own.

[Marc Sabatella]

Unfortunately NOT. I differ.
DA35 is dark first of all and no good for portrait or landscapes.

If by "dark" you mean the maximum f/2.8, I'd certainly agree that isn't enough for *some* types of portraits, but I'd bet more portraits are shot at apertures f/2.8 and smaller than at larger apertures. Really, it's the focal length that makes this lens seem inappropriate for most portrait uses.

But how does the maximum aperture make it unsuitable for landscape? Surely the vast majority of landscapes are shot at *much* smaller apertures than f/2.8 - that shouldn't be an issue *at all*. The focal length might be. For me, it might actually be a bit on the wide side most of the time, as I tend to prefer more intimate landscapes in the 35-45 range. But I also shoot a lot in the 24-31 range. So while for me a 28 and 40 make a great combo, if I were looking for a single focal length to use for landscape, 35mm would probably be it.

FA35/2 or FA31 are really walk-around lenses, DA40 or FA43 too, but not DA35.

Now, unless you walk around in the dark and therefore need f/2, what makes the FA35 a good walk-around lens, but not the DA35? And if f/2.8 is too dark, how does the DA40 qualify as a walk-around lens? Really, what you're saying makes very little sense to me. I mean, everyone has their own particular expectations about what makes a lens suitable for a given purpose, and it's normal for one person's expectations to differ from another persons, but your expectations don't seem to be consistent within themselves.

[augustmoon]

If by "dark" you mean the maximum f/2.8, I'd certainly agree that isn't enough for *some* types of portraits, but I'd bet more portraits are shot at apertures f/2.8 and smaller than at larger apertures. Really, it's the focal length that makes this lens seem inappropriate for most portrait uses..

This is a much darker lens at each f-stop than other lenses. I think by "dark" he wasn't referring to the f/2.8. But how the lens renders the image and its saturation. It yields a very dark and saturated image, and it suits some of my needs real well. (Even though the focal length isn't suited for portraits, per se, this darkness and saturation doesn't suit shots with people in them, unless you like that kind of look, but it isn't natural or flattering for people in general)

Shoot the DA35 right next to a FA31 or FA35 or DA40 or FA50 at 2.8 or even f/4 and you'll see that quality of darkness and saturation. It's subjective, of course, and some may like that look. I do, but not for people, and distant objects. The infinity capabilities are of debate with this lens, and I think it's darkness contributes a bit to the perceived lack of detail at infinity. I'm on my third copy of this lens now, and while all 3 focused very, very well close up, it's only this 3rd copy that is giving me decent results at farther distances.

This is a great handheld macro lens and a great close-up flower lens, and I do use it for some product photography. For product photography, I do have to give back some brightness and de-saturate in post a bit to get a more natural and neutral look, as well as having to have any output match-up to anything I've shot with any other lens. But a lot of what I use it for goes real well with the darker more saturated colors.

[gnaztee]

but it isn't natural or flattering for people in general

Umm, beg to differ on this point. This was taken under high overcast sky, converted to JPEG with no other processing:



Yep, that looks just like my dad in real life.

Todd

[jsherman999]

.

These shots might show the 'darkness' Ogl's talking about:











But... I don't know, to me the tone/contrast are just beautiful in those shots.

Regardless, it's a one-click or one curve-drag fix in PP to 'lighten' them if
they're not to your taste. They are tasty to me just like that, though.


.

[Blue]

My 18-55II only get used because of the 18mm end since I have the DA 35 and FA 50.

[Blue]

.

These shots might show the 'darkness' Ogl's talking about:





But... I don't know, to me the tone/contrast are just beautiful in those shots.

Regardless, it's a one-click or one curve-drag fix in PP to 'lighten' them if
they're not to your taste. They are tasty to me just like that, though.


.

Maybe it depicts the lighting when the photo was taken.

[augustmoon]

Umm, beg to differ on this point. This was taken under high overcast sky, converted to JPEG with no other processing:



Yep, that looks just like my dad in real life.

Todd

If you want to differ, that's fine with me, you don't need to beg. I was very subjective in my post and I made that very clear and that this is my opinion and my preference.

That's exactly what I meant when I said "unless you like that look", obviously you do, that's fine for you. I don't, that's why I shoot people with the FA ltds and the DA*50-135. For my preference (and a lot of people whom I know) that's a very saturated shot, and even if someone looked similar to that in real life, I'd be better off having a more neutral shot to begin with, one that has some room in the shadows left, and one that lends itself to post, as without post, its only going to get darker and more saturated by print time.

[jsherman999]

Maybe it depicts the lighting when the photo was taken.

Except that particular shot was taken at a pretty bright time in the afternoon.

[Blue]

Except that particular shot was taken at a pretty bright time in the afternoon.

What about the cloud cover and angle of the sun? I'm basing the lighting and shadows on the people sitting on the bench.

[gnaztee]

If you want to differ, that's fine with me, you don't need to beg. I was very subjective in my post and I made that very clear and that this is my opinion and my preference.

That's exactly what I meant when I said "unless you like that look", obviously you do, that's fine for you. I don't, that's why I shoot people with the FA ltds and the DA*50-135. For my preference (and a lot of people whom I know) that's a very saturated shot, and even if someone looked similar to that in real life, I'd be better off having a more neutral shot to begin with, one that has some room in the shadows left, and one that lends itself to post, as without post, its only going to get darker and more saturated by print time.

No worries, I wasn't trying to start an argument. I just feel that the lens gives a very natural look to people. Of course, people don't always want photos of themselves that look "natural" or "real," they want photos in which they look "good." This is one of the reasons portraits need to be processed. But this particular shot of my father is not OVER saturated, it's absolutely spot on with the colors, right down to my dad's sunburn. Lucky for me (or unlucky, I guess) I'm not shooting portraits for money, so I can keep pictures like this "real."

todd