[turkiye2turkiye]

K5IIs+35mm ltd, Adana/Turkiye

[turkiye2turkiye]

K5IIs+35mm ltd, Kız Kulesi ( Maiden's Tower ) / Istanbul

[wtlwdwgn]

Very nice image!

[jmschrei]

A few from this summer

[sinjin]

Olivia made my job of taking a picture easy; she is adorable. The 35mm Limited shines again.

[Mikesul]

I finally found one of these guys. I clearly needed to have a narrower aperture or a tripod for stacking and stability. Still I like it You have to take them when they show up.

[nj1975]

Olivia made my job of taking a picture easy; she is adorable. The 35mm Limited shines again.

Lovely portrait

---------- Post added 11-10-14 at 09:28 PM ----------

Handheld, available light and cropped to 6MP, but good enough if you don't look too close!

I'm often surprised by what I see when processing images from my 35mm limited, but hadn't seen when actually taking the photo. Notice how this ladybird's front end (head and pronotum) look just like the nearby lichen. I totally missed that in the moment. I suspect this is for camouflage as the beetle stalks its prey while the bright orange warns predators that the beetle is poisonous.

Great photo - very sharp

---------- Post added 11-10-14 at 09:30 PM ----------

I'm so glad to have found this thread because this lens had won me over - especially with its macro capabilities. Here are two examples, both of which recently were approved in the Pentax Photo Gallery.

Super sharp

---------- Post added 11-10-14 at 09:34 PM ----------

Cat pics!

Very sharp!

---------- Post added 11-10-14 at 09:44 PM ----------

I've been browsing through all the photos on this thread and they are super sharp - I had been considering the Pentax 35mm f2.4 SMC DA AL Lens as my first lens after the 18-135 WR lens I bought when I got my K5II. However after seeing all the photos on this thread, the quality just does not compare, so i am thinking on splashing out on my first lens rather than just going for second best and ending up upgrading later...

Please can I just check that the lens being talked about on the thread is this one??:

Pentax 35mm f2.8 Macro DA Limited Lens

Now to all the experts out there the next three questions are probably going to sound super stupid but...

1) a macro lens obviously means close up, but can it also be used as a normal everyday lens too?
2) is the lens auto-focus?
3) is the lens going to be suitable for photographing young children indoors and events such as ballet shows without the use of a flash?

Thank you for any help you can give me!

[rod_grant]

1) A true macro (like this one) gives an image of the same size as the object being photographed (ie 1:1) Many zoom lenses claiming to be macro are not true macros and give a lesser magnification. To answer your question, yes it can be used as a normal everyday lens - that's what I bought mine for as I already had a Tamron 90mm macro. The limitation of this lens is that to get close enough to the subject to focus at 1:1, you are very close and scared little insects might run away.
2) Yes the lens is AF, but most would use manual focus for macro work, because of the very shallow depth of field at that closeness.
3) That question will vary from venue to venue, depending on light, closeness to stage, etc. Try your 18-135 set at 35mm and see how you go. Then recognise that the images from this lens will have better resolution and the advantage of wider aperture. I think most would go for a longer lens.

[nj1975]

Thank you for that - would you suggest a different lens for the type of photos I wish to take then? - I am thinking that the autofocus on this lens may be a little slow for my requirements?? Have you any other lens suggestions please - similar budget (£400 - £500)?

Many thanks again

[rod_grant]

I don't have one (wish I did) and I don't know what the prices are like at your end of the world, but some swear by the Tamron 70-200. It even has the same max aperture as the 35 Ltd.
Other Forum members might have other suggestions.

[sinjin]

I've been browsing through all the photos on this thread and they are super sharp - I had been considering the Pentax 35mm f2.4 SMC DA AL Lens as my first lens after the 18-135 WR lens I bought when I got my K5II. However after seeing all the photos on this thread, the quality just does not compare, so i am thinking on splashing out on my first lens rather than just going for second best and ending up upgrading later...

Please can I just check that the lens being talked about on the thread is this one??:

Pentax 35mm f2.8 Macro DA Limited Lens

Now to all the experts out there the next three questions are probably going to sound super stupid but...

1) a macro lens obviously means close up, but can it also be used as a normal everyday lens too?
2) is the lens auto-focus?
3) is the lens going to be suitable for photographing young children indoors and events such as ballet shows without the use of a flash?

Thank you for any help you can give me!

If I'm reading correctly, you are looking for a great, affordable, indoor, available-light lens for Pentax. I've struggled with this on-and-off for years. For me such a lens would be no longer than 35mm (note that shooting events like ballet shows would likely require a different lens, like a tele-zoom), and no slower than f2.

I've not found that particular lens yet; but I stopped actively looking after purchasing the 35mm 2.8 Macro DA Limited (which this thread is about). It is great, it is relatively affordable (especially used, and in comparison to the 31mm Limited), just barely wide enough that you can work indoors and fast enough if you bump the ISO up to 1600 or 3200.

I've found the autofocus to be quick and reliable indoors (as long as you don't "miss" the target; it hunts through it's entire range, which can be painful, but entirely avoidable with it's ability to quick-shift focus). It does just fine catching kids indoors and out, although I prefer a longer zoom for the latter.

What keeps this lens on my camera is that it renders such great images in so many circumstances. It is highly resistant to flare and aberrations, and has incredible resolution (contrast and sharpness). Great colours as well.

On the aspect of resolution, I have been noticing that I can heavily crop macro shots with the 35mm limited macro and still have better fine detail in my images than with my FA 100mm Macro or my Tamron SP di 90mm Macro (now sold), uncropped.

For example, below is a handheld shot of a velvet mite, less than 2mm in length, taken with the 35mm limited on my K-5 cropped down to less than 9 MP. With a tripod and better technique I could have gotten this sharper; yet you can still clearly make out (at least from the 16X20 inch print of this image on my wall) that it is covered in fine plumose velvety "hairs", the details of dimples all over its body (these are muscle attachment points inside its body) and its leg joints. I've tried to photograph these mites with my FA 100 and Tamron 90 (very well respected macro lenses) and get no such details, the mites come out as featureless red blobs with legs. I'm sure with more effort I could do better with these longer lenses; but to me it seems the 35mm limited oozes micro contrast which makes it easier to get images with fine detail and 'pop'.

This may require more investigation (ha!), but if nothing else it is high praise that the 35mm Limited can run with, if not outrun, those 2 lenses!

Finally, I've had the DA 35 f2.4; it is a great lens as well and worth twice the price. It just isn't as great as the 35mm limited. But if you don't care about macro, you can get a bit more light indoors as save a few hundred $'s and still produce shots that will impress.



---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 11:11 AM ----------

A few kid-shot examples











---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 11:11 AM ----------

Indoor, Available light (been mostly using flash with people indoors, so these are atypical shots for me)

[nj1975]

If I'm reading correctly, you are looking for a great, affordable, indoor, available-light lens for Pentax. I've struggled with this on-and-off for years. For me such a lens would be no longer than 35mm (note that shooting events like ballet shows would likely require a different lens, like a tele-zoom), and no slower than f2.

I've not found that particular lens yet; but I stopped actively looking after purchasing the 35mm 2.8 Macro DA Limited (which this thread is about). It is great, it is relatively affordable (especially used, and in comparison to the 31mm Limited), just barely wide enough that you can work indoors and fast enough if you bump the ISO up to 1600 or 3200.

I've found the autofocus to be quick and reliable indoors (as long as you don't "miss" the target; it hunts through it's entire range, which can be painful, but entirely avoidable with it's ability to quick-shift focus). It does just fine catching kids indoors and out, although I prefer a longer zoom for the latter.

What keeps this lens on my camera is that it renders such great images in so many circumstances. It is highly resistant to flare and aberrations, and has incredible resolution (contrast and sharpness). Great colours as well.

On the aspect of resolution, I have been noticing that I can heavily crop macro shots with the 35mm limited macro and still have better fine detail in my images than with my FA 100mm Macro or my Tamron SP di 90mm Macro (now sold), uncropped.

For example, below is a handheld shot of a velvet mite, less than 2mm in length, taken with the 35mm limited on my K-5 cropped down to less than 9 MP. With a tripod and better technique I could have gotten this sharper; yet you can still clearly make out (at least from the 16X20 inch print of this image on my wall) that it is covered in fine plumose velvety "hairs", the details of dimples all over its body (these are muscle attachment points inside its body) and its leg joints. I've tried to photograph these mites with my FA 100 and Tamron 90 (very well respected macro lenses) and get no such details, the mites come out as featureless red blobs with legs. I'm sure with more effort I could do better with these longer lenses; but to me it seems the 35mm limited oozes micro contrast which makes it easier to get images with fine detail and 'pop'.

This may require more investigation (ha!), but if nothing else it is high praise that the 35mm Limited can run with, if not outrun, those 2 lenses!

Finally, I've had the DA 35 f2.4; it is a great lens as well and worth twice the price. It just isn't as great as the 35mm limited. But if you don't care about macro, you can get a bit more light indoors as save a few hundred $'s and still produce shots that will impress.



---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 11:11 AM ----------

A few kid-shot examples











---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 11:11 AM ----------

Indoor, Available light (been mostly using flash with people indoors, so these are atypical shots for me)

Sinjin - thank you for taking the time to write such an informative reply to my question and for including examples of some photos - I am impressed by their sharpness and the lens is again back on my list!! Thanks again

[sinjin]

Sinjin - thank you for taking the time to write such an informative reply to my question and for including examples of some photos - I am impressed by their sharpness and the lens is again back on my list!! Thanks again

You are welcome; but ya, that was a bit too long! I guess I've had some thoughts about this lens that have been gestating in the back of my mind for a while and your questions provided the catalyst to get them out.

In case you need more affirmation about the 35mm Limited, here is the link to Mike Johnson's chat with Carl Weese which kinda got this thread started. His closing remark:

"It ranks right up there with the best lenses I’ve ever used in any format"

Coming from Mike Johnson, that is huge.

[schnitzer79]

great shots sinjin.really like the kid shots

[cmmurray]

I'm not sure if the DA 35 is the best lens I've ever used, but it is very, very good. Every day I use it I like it better and learn more about it's character, maybe someday it will become my favorite.

My best lens ever: - the Zeiss ZK 35/2. I sold my copy a couple years ago and I still regret that decision, - sandbags full of pixie dust at f/2.

I once sold all my Pentax gear because I "upgraded" to a Nikon D3x, (big mistake). I've been back in the fold for about 3 months and I haven't taken the DA HD 35mm Limited Macro off my K5iis yet.

HD DA 35mm macro limited - K5iis - ISO 80 - 1.6 seconds - f/8.0 - tripod

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cm_murray/15766106568/

HD DA 35mm macro limited - K5iis - ISO 80 - 0.5 seconds - f/11.0 - tripod

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cm_murray/15974689468/

HD DA 35mm macro limited - K5iis - ISO 80 - 1/40th second - f/4.0 - handheld

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cm_murray/16374326965/