[jsherman999]

.


Thought I'd take the DA 35ltd out today to try to 'stress' it, to use Mike J's
word

1) Shoot straight into the (partially cloud covered) sun. Look at the detail and
subtle tones in the clouds, especially down closer to the treeline


2)

3)


4) shot this plant with the Sigma 70 macro earlier in the year. Its more dead now


5) My favorite subject

6)


7) The detail in this tree kinda blew me away. This is the great advantage of
this lens - it's a 35mm macro, so it can take both shots #7 and #8 in this post

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13) cropped

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 08-19-2008 at 10:19 PM.

[1012862463]

How about the performance for indoor low light (no flash) candid shots? I have a 3yr old running around in the house and I am trying to decide between da35 vs. fa43 for that purpose.

any feedbacks will be appreciated!

[melander]

for a 3 year old you need a 10-500/1.0 lens

[jsherman999]

How about the performance for indoor low light (no flash) candid shots? I have a 3yr old running around in the house and I am trying to decide between da35 vs. fa43 for that purpose.

any feedbacks will be appreciated!

Depends on what you're used to, I guess - if you're using the kit lens now, the
DA 35 will seem like a speed demon at f/2.8. If you want a lens dedicated to indoor
tyke shooting, especially low/tungsten light shooting, you may want something
faster like the FA 35 2, DA 43 1.9, or FA 50 1.4.

But as an all-around D-normal, the DA 35ltd is exceptional.

[rover]

for a 3 year old you need a 10-500/1.0 lens

So true. This is exactly how I felt when my son started running around.

[k100d]

great photos as always Jay .. what was the exposure on the last clouds photo?
now that you've tried out the FA31 as well, how do you think they compare
Carl and Mike think the DA35 is better

[1012862463]

If you want a lens dedicated to indoor
tyke shooting, especially low/tungsten light shooting, you may want something
faster like the FA 35 2, DA 43 1.9, or FA 50 1.4.

Used FA 50/1.4 before and felt it's too long for me for indoor shots. So between FA 35/2 vs. FA 43/1.9. Can you comment on

1. AF Speed
2. Which is better suited for low light and general purpose

BTW, I use K200d. Thanks.

[mhertel]

Used FA 50/1.4 before and felt it's too long for me for indoor shots. So between FA 35/2 vs. FA 43/1.9. Can you comment on

1. AF Speed
2. Which is better suited for low light and general purpose

BTW, I use K200d. Thanks.

I would go with the wider one for indoor shots.. btw, you would get more answers if you made a seperate thread for this instead of hijacking this one

[jsherman999]

great photos as always Jay .. what was the exposure on the last clouds photo?
now that you've tried out the FA31 as well, how do you think they compare
Carl and Mike think the DA35 is better

Good question, I feel like I need to take the time to shoot some more to come to
a conclusion on what's the 'better' lens. Really, I'm thinking that despite their
similar FL's, they're different lenses, for different purposes - the 31ltd is wider
and faster - it's truly a low-light lens. The DA 35ltd is a macro, with d-normal
walkabout characteristics as an extra. The DA 35 will never match the 31's DOF
magic or (probably) bokeh, but the 31ltd isn't going to be quite as sharp in close
as the 35ltd. And it's not macro.

I'd say right now that they both are truly great (How's that for waffling....)

Re the last cloud shot - it was at f/8 ISO 100 1/2000 sec. Below is the uncropped
version:

[danielchtong]

Unfortunately NOT. I differ.
DA35 is dark first of all and no good for portrait or landscapes. I understand that fans like to create myths - but, DA35 is just VERY GOOD MACRO lens in metal body and it's ALL.

FA35/2 or FA31 are really walk-around lenses, DA40 or FA43 too, but not DA35.
I will wait DA*30 to use with weather-sealed body as regular lens.

After reading 3 pages of idea/images, I still find this argument more convincing that Mike's.
To me a macros belongs to lens of longer focal length like 100mm-200mm. Ok it does a great job doing 1:1 but at 35mm?
Also as a walk around, it is just not fast enough to blurry up the bg distraction. And something is obviously missing in the last 4 pages of images (for the lens) about its bokeh which is just tough for a relatively not-quite-fast 35mm.


My usual walk around is either Fa28mm or F50mmF1.7 or even my FA135mm (for candids)

I do have Tamron 90mm & Fa100mm to deal with macro when I need to do macro - those are the workable macro FL (sorry IMO)



Daniel

[rparmar]

When I'm out shooting, though, I find that I really enjoy being able to step right into the macro world and back out with the same lens - that's why I also like to use my Viv 105 & Sigma 70's as walkabouts. It makes me feel like I have an elevator down into the 'small' world, and that the whole shooting world is more expansive, because my range of subjects becomes so inclusive. I don't know how to describe it, really, I just feel like the world is bigger and more colorful when I'm stepping out with a close focus lens on.

I know exactly what you mean. Well said.

I too like leaving the house with the Viv 105. Now I have the DA35 that could be the second lens in my bag. Whichever one is on the camera I don't need to switch to go macro. That would save me a lot of time and bother.

Still, it might take me a while to find out, as I can't stop shooting Vivitar 28mm lenses.

[deuces]

After reading 3 pages of idea/images, I still find this argument more convincing that Mike's.
To me a macros belongs to lens of longer focal length like 100mm-200mm. Ok it does a great job doing 1:1 but at 35mm?
Also as a walk around, it is just not fast enough to blurry up the bg distraction. And something is obviously missing in the last 4 pages of images (for the lens) about its bokeh which is just tough for a relatively not-quite-fast 35mm.


My usual walk around is either Fa28mm or F50mmF1.7 or even my FA135mm (for candids)

I do have Tamron 90mm & Fa100mm to deal with macro when I need to do macro - those are the workable macro FL (sorry IMO)



Daniel

Perhaps I'm missing something here, and I'll learn something, but I don't understand this mindset. If the lens is great, why does the fact that it's macro capable bother you? I understand all your other concerns, but I see really only one compromise for the macro ability, and that's one stop. For that one stop, it's crisply sharp wide open, and you can focus as close as you want. I understand if you don't like how the lens renders, but if you do like how it renders, should the fact that it's macro negatively affect your evaluation?

[benjikan]

I find that the close focussing capabilities of the 16-45 to be very close to macro. Even though the 35mm Ltd is better on paper the differences are not flagrant. I may actually buy one, but as I have the 21, 31, 40, 43, 50 etc..I'm not sure if I will use it much. I also have the 100mm Pentax Macro and am impressed with the Tamron 70-300 macro capabilities which I have uploaded a sample for you. None the less the 35 Ltd. is a very fine lens...

Ben

User Photo Gallery - Miscellaneous

[rparmar]

BTW great shots Jay. I too immediately noticed the amazing way this lens renders sky and clouds. In that aspect it is the same as the FA43, which also gets the textures and colours just right. I think the DA35 may be impervious to flaring and CA however, putting it a bit ahead of the FA43 in that respect.

[TKH]

IMHO the best 35mm lens on this planet for a Pentax K20D is the DA35:





Rainer