[monochrome]

Eminently understandable. I'm keeping my K-5iis not just for the DA 35, but for the 21, the 15, the DA 10-17, the DA 12-24, and the DA 16-85. In fact, I'm keeping the K-5iis around for so many lenses that I've decided to forego the K-1 for the time being.

I have all those old FF lenses . . .

I might buy the new lenses over time, but I want to use the l lenses I already have first.

[PALADIN85020]

The 35mm Macro Limited never fails to amaze me. I am a free-lance writer/photographer, writing for firearms publications. A recent challenge was to photograph a classic Model 3913NL Smith & Wesson pistol on a white background (for publication purposes), where the pistol itself was pretty close to white. I used a variety of lenses with my K-3, photographing outside in the shade for soft shadowing. With other lenses, I could not get enough distinction for the subject to give it good discernibility against that background. Until I used this outstanding lens - the sharpness and the color rendition it provides gave me the contrast that I wanted.

John

PENTAX : PENTAX Photo Gallery artist page

[northcoastgreg]

From the entrance to Humboldt Bay on the northcoast of California:

[northcoastgreg]

Panorama of Superstition Mountains in AZ:

[Nicolas06]

The DA35ltd is very nice, extremely sharp, very contrasty, flare resistant, no field curvature lens. It also comes with macro support. Technically maybe it is the best lens ever except I am sure people would want it to be f/1.4 and 800g!

Now if the question is the FA31 would not make better looking photos in many cases, this is different. The DA35 is clinical, precise instrument. FA31 add some artistic view in term of bokeh and FA31 render the skin tones better, to me.

I'd say DA35 better for macro for sure, scene with lot of dynamic range (like some landscapes), that it avoid the purple frigging and most optical aberations you could find on the FA31. So yes the DA35ltd is the greastest lens ever from a "scientific" point of view. From a soul and artistic point of view, FA31 supperior.

[Jonathan Mac]

I haven't tried the FA 31mm (and I'm not likely to, unless someone lends me one) but the idea that the DA 35 limited is clinical, soul-less and lacking in artistic rendering is complete nonsense. Yes, it's very, very sharp, but that doesn't detract from other optical characteristics of the lens.

[PALADIN85020]

I have both the 35 macro and the 100 macro . They are very close in sharpness, but have different applications. The 35 macro is great for staged shots from a tripod, getting up close where there is no subject motion involved, and is more versatile in that it can serve as a "human eye" view the same as a 50mm always has with a full frame camera.

The 100mm has a slight edge in sharpness, and is great for longer macro shots where some motion might be involved using it handheld. The bokeh is also more pleasing. These things are where it shines; but other than these there is little use for a 150mm FF equivalent fixed lens compared to a zoom such as the 18-135.

In sum, the 100mm macro is sharper, has better stand-off ability and has better bokeh, while the 35 is better for static closeup work and as a general walk-around lens. Both have their special uses and attributes, and I use them both frequently.

Johh

[northcoastgreg]

I haven't tried the FA 31mm (and I'm not likely to, unless someone lends me one) but the idea that the DA 35 limited is clinical, soul-less and lacking in artistic rendering is complete nonsense. Yes, it's very, very sharp, but that doesn't detract from other optical characteristics of the lens.

I agree. Everyone knows that the FA Limiteds are "special rendering lenses," but the doesn't mean that the sharper DA Limiteds (DA 35, DA 40, and DA 70) are clinical or don't render nicely. The DA 35 renders it's superb sharpness very well. All the limiteds render well, are sharp, and have excellent contrast and color, but these attributes are not distributed perfectly among them. The FA limiteds render a bit better (they're faster, which helps), while the DA limiteds are primarily color and contrast lenses designed from the ground up to work well with digital cameras.

Another image from the "clinical" HD DA 35 Limited:

[Nicolas06]

That doesn't mean that clinical rendering is not nice. Clinical is more accurate, more neutral, matching what is there and very precise. Macros lenses have this kind of rendering. Try to shoot portraiture with your DA35 ltd or DFA100 macro and try the same with FA31 and FA77, you'll see how the differences and your clients too. The last 2 are designed to not be as corrected for more pleasing bokeh (beyond proxy photo) and focus transition. I don't think that would be acceptable for a macro lens.

[northcoastgreg]

Another tall ships photo from the "clinical" DA 35:

[sinjin]

Another tall ships photo from the "clinical" DA 35:

Thank you for posting your photos in this thread. Your work is wonderful whether landscape, seascape or macro. You should be proud of these images. I hope to see more!

[Trick Fall]

Thank you for posting your photos in this thread. Your work is wonderful whether landscape, seascape or macro. You should be proud of these images. I hope to see more!

What he said.

[northcoastgreg]

Thank you for posting your photos in this thread.

What he said.

Thanks guys. Much appreciated.

From North Jetty, entrance to Humboldt Bay:

[PALADIN85020]

I use the 35mm Macro Ltd a lot for product shots, as I write for firearms publications. Here's a recent shot of two Smith & Wesson .44 Special revolvers, Models 24-3. These were part of a limited run of revolvers in this caliber in 1983 and 1984, and are prized by S&W collectors today. Taken with the K-3.

John

[northcoastgreg]

Here's a recent shot of two Smith & Wesson .44 Special revolvers, Models 24-3

Beautiful work with the revolvers, and good used of the DA 35.

A more conventional image with the DA 35: