Downgrading from DA 35mm macro ltd?

seventysixersfan · 07-15-2012, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Ferdinand

I am wondering, is the 35 da macro that much better in image quality than the 35/2.4? Or is it just the macro ability and the limited label and metal build that explains the price difference?

I also find the 35/2.4 plenty sharp....

I think the DA 35 macro is not necessarily "much better" optically than the DA 35 f/2.4 but what you're paying for is the 1:1 macro capability, quick shift, and exquisite metal build.

See this comparison of the DA 35 macro, DA 35 f/2.4 and FA 35mm, here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/118765-da-35mm...ny-photos.html

Docrwm · 07-15-2012, 04:21 PM

I agree that if you seriously want a zoom to replace the kit 18-55 then the 35/2.4 is probably not the lens. If you are looking to economize and still want the advantages of a prime at that focal length than its a terrific lens and an excellent value.

SpecialK · 07-15-2012, 05:45 PM

The Tamron 28-75 has excellent IQ, and focuses pretty closely. It also was not really wide enough for me as single-lens walk-around option, so I sold it and got an older Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. Not as good IQ as the Tamron, but better than the kit, and it's convenient.

Ferdinand · 07-15-2012, 06:01 PM

I use the Tamron 17-50 as a walk around lens. I am very very happy with the results. Very sharp and I like the rendering.
The only drawback I see is that it is not as light as a prime of course. But among the primes it could only be the 15mm Ltd. that replaces it and certainly not the 35mm Macro, which is too tight in my view for landscape and architecture.

anselesn · 07-15-2012, 06:36 PM

Again, thanks to all, and in particular to Seventysixersfan for the link to those beautiful portraits of the kids taken with the tamron 28-75 (and of course thanks to the photographer too). Those are very compelling shots.

seventysixersfan · 07-15-2012, 06:54 PM

Happy to help, and good luck! Those pictures taken with the Tamron 28-75 have made me seriously consider getting that lens (especially when it sells used for $300 or so), even though I know a lot of people (like SpecialK) have thought it was not wide enough for a walk-around. You should try limiting yourself to just 28mm on your kit zoom and see if that's wide enough for you when taking indoor pictures; if you don't think so, then get the Tamron 17-50. But if you're going to be shooting mostly portraits and 1-2 people at a time, the 28-75 is an ideal focal length for that purpose. Add a DA 15mm or DA 21 to your kit, or just use your 18-55 kit zoom, for those times when you want to shoot a few wider-angle pictures.

mysticcowboy · 07-15-2012, 08:36 PM

I have the Tamron 17-50 and consider it a very good lens and bargain. I've also used the 28-75 and think it's as good. The choice between them comes to what you shoot. For people, portraits, events, weddings, etc., I'd go longer with the 28-70. For landscapes the 17-50 is more useful.

If you're not using the 35mm macro, then by all means sell it.

TomTextura · 07-15-2012, 08:37 PM

If you don't use the macro ability of the DA35 f/2.8 Ltd but you do like the focal length, why not get the DA 35 f/2.4? That DA 35 f/2.4 has gotten good reviews and looks like a great little budget lens. I personally can't imagine replacing a prime with a zoom. I like using both but if I were to ever be in a position where I had to either have only a prime kit or only a zoom kit, I'd opt for the prime kit for sure. You almost always get better IQ with primes, you definitely can always get faster apertures, and the shooting style with primes is very enjoyable in a certain special way that zooms aren't.

If you want to upgrade to amazing bokeh with about the same focal length, you simply can't go wrong with the FA31 f/1.8 Limited! That's another proposition entirely though due to cost.

EDIT: Oops, should've read more of the other posts. I now see others have already brought up the 35 f/2.4.

calsan · 07-16-2012, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by anselesn

Hi all,
... in truth most of my photography is portraits of kids...

Have another go with this lens on the kids - but get in really close! Having "no minimum focus distance" makes it a great lens for kids and other such "little animals" that aren't afraid of the camera.
Don't worry about whether their whole face is in the shot or that sort of stuff, just get the eyes in focus. The results will blow your mind!!!

ogl · 07-16-2012, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by LeDave

I agree with Fontan, the 35 2.8 ltd is probably the sharpest and most colorful lens I've ever laid my hands on and not just that, I've owned a lot of lens in the past including the 43 1.9 ltd, 77 1.8 ltd, DA* 16-50, Tamron 17-50 2.8, etc. You sure aren't crazy to want to get rid of it, it's just that you need to do what you need to do in order to get the shots you need, and if a zoom lens you listed is better than a prime then I don't argue there. I sold my 35 2.8 macro ltd in the first place to get another zoom lens to take it's place as I am not a prime guy, I hate having to walk back and forth around circles like I'm slicing a pie in order to get the shot I want.

As for me, it's the not sharpest lens among all my lenses...I'd say it's worst.
FA43/DFA100/FA77 simply kill down this strange slow limited lens.

**Aristophanes** · 07-17-2012, 05:42 AM

Indoors the 17-50/2.8's are excellent. 28-75's are too long in many cases.

Indoor photos often require a zoom because you simply cannot move your feet. If you're up against a wall you need to widen the FL.

Allison · 07-17-2012, 01:14 PM

I know you have your reasons for wanting a switch, but I would put the 35 on your camera again and use it for a little bit before I made my decision. I have it and the tamron 28-75. I like my 28-75, but I LOVE my 35 as a walk around lens. I can shoot landscape and macro with it and the 35s IQ is far superior to the 28-75.

Don't get me wrong, I love zooms, but you progression to a tamron from the 35 limited feels a little backwards to me.

anselesn · 07-18-2012, 07:19 PM

Allison, you gave me pause. So this evening I put my old A 50 1.7 on the K-x and took some really lovely pictures of the kids. I'm a little slow to focus the old manual lens (I wish the camera had the old split screen viewfinder we used to use as kids), but I really love the colors produced by that lens. In fact, for some reason, the pictures out of that lens feel warmer than those I take with the 35 ltd. macro. Still, this evening's results and your advice are enough to keep me playing with the expensive lens a little longer.

And if anyone has any tips for focusing a manual lens on the K-x a little faster and more precisely (even with my middle aged eyes), I will take them.

Thanks all.

Docrwm · 07-18-2012, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by anselesn

Allison, you gave me pause. So this evening I put my old A 50 1.7 on the K-x and took some really lovely pictures of the kids. I'm a little slow to focus the old manual lens (I wish the camera had the old split screen viewfinder we used to use as kids), but I really love the colors produced by that lens. In fact, for some reason, the pictures out of that lens feel warmer than those I take with the 35 ltd. macro. Still, this evening's results and your advice are enough to keep me playing with the expensive lens a little longer.

And if anyone has any tips for focusing a manual lens on the K-x a little faster and more precisely (even with my middle aged eyes), I will take them.

Thanks all.

The free option is Catch in Focus, which is one that is often recommended. For a cost, there are replacement viewfinder screens that are optimized for MF lenses too.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Lenses: Tamron 18-200 macro / D-FA 100mm macro WR / DA 35mm 2.4 / FA 100 (Worl	InlawBiker	Sold Items	5	06-26-2011 09:19 PM
For Sale - Sold: DA 35mm/2.8 Macro Ltd, FA 50mm, DA L55-300mm, Pentax Macro Bellow Unite I (US)	yurko_yr	Sold Items	10	03-16-2011 07:09 PM
DA 35mm ltd macro vs tamron 28-75mm 2.8 macro	ueda_masaki	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	08-30-2010 06:46 AM
Downgrading Firmware on K20D	morfic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	26	07-01-2008 06:45 PM

07-15-2012, 03:01 PM	#16
seventysixersfan Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by Ferdinand I am wondering, is the 35 da macro that much better in image quality than the 35/2.4? Or is it just the macro ability and the limited label and metal build that explains the price difference? I also find the 35/2.4 plenty sharp.... I think the DA 35 macro is not necessarily "much better" optically than the DA 35 f/2.4 but what you're paying for is the 1:1 macro capability, quick shift, and exquisite metal build. See this comparison of the DA 35 macro, DA 35 f/2.4 and FA 35mm, here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/118765-da-35mm...ny-photos.html

07-15-2012, 04:21 PM	#17
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	I agree that if you seriously want a zoom to replace the kit 18-55 then the 35/2.4 is probably not the lens. If you are looking to economize and still want the advantages of a prime at that focal length than its a terrific lens and an excellent value.

07-15-2012, 05:45 PM	#18
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	The Tamron 28-75 has excellent IQ, and focuses pretty closely. It also was not really wide enough for me as single-lens walk-around option, so I sold it and got an older Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. Not as good IQ as the Tamron, but better than the kit, and it's convenient.

07-15-2012, 06:01 PM	#19
Ferdinand Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Frankfurt Photos: Albums Posts: 89	I use the Tamron 17-50 as a walk around lens. I am very very happy with the results. Very sharp and I like the rendering. The only drawback I see is that it is not as light as a prime of course. But among the primes it could only be the 15mm Ltd. that replaces it and certainly not the 35mm Macro, which is too tight in my view for landscape and architecture.

07-15-2012, 06:36 PM	#20
anselesn Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: new york Posts: 60 Original Poster	Again, thanks to all, and in particular to Seventysixersfan for the link to those beautiful portraits of the kids taken with the tamron 28-75 (and of course thanks to the photographer too). Those are very compelling shots.

07-15-2012, 06:54 PM	#21
seventysixersfan Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	Happy to help, and good luck! Those pictures taken with the Tamron 28-75 have made me seriously consider getting that lens (especially when it sells used for $300 or so), even though I know a lot of people (like SpecialK) have thought it was not wide enough for a walk-around. You should try limiting yourself to just 28mm on your kit zoom and see if that's wide enough for you when taking indoor pictures; if you don't think so, then get the Tamron 17-50. But if you're going to be shooting mostly portraits and 1-2 people at a time, the 28-75 is an ideal focal length for that purpose. Add a DA 15mm or DA 21 to your kit, or just use your 18-55 kit zoom, for those times when you want to shoot a few wider-angle pictures.

07-15-2012, 08:36 PM	#22
mysticcowboy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: port townsend, wa Photos: Albums Posts: 968	I have the Tamron 17-50 and consider it a very good lens and bargain. I've also used the 28-75 and think it's as good. The choice between them comes to what you shoot. For people, portraits, events, weddings, etc., I'd go longer with the 28-70. For landscapes the 17-50 is more useful. If you're not using the 35mm macro, then by all means sell it.

07-15-2012, 08:37 PM	#23
TomTextura Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Denver Photos: Albums Posts: 570	If you don't use the macro ability of the DA35 f/2.8 Ltd but you do like the focal length, why not get the DA 35 f/2.4? That DA 35 f/2.4 has gotten good reviews and looks like a great little budget lens. I personally can't imagine replacing a prime with a zoom. I like using both but if I were to ever be in a position where I had to either have only a prime kit or only a zoom kit, I'd opt for the prime kit for sure. You almost always get better IQ with primes, you definitely can always get faster apertures, and the shooting style with primes is very enjoyable in a certain special way that zooms aren't. If you want to upgrade to amazing bokeh with about the same focal length, you simply can't go wrong with the FA31 f/1.8 Limited! That's another proposition entirely though due to cost. EDIT: Oops, should've read more of the other posts. I now see others have already brought up the 35 f/2.4.

07-16-2012, 01:58 AM	#24
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,549	Originally posted by anselesn Hi all, ... in truth most of my photography is portraits of kids... Have another go with this lens on the kids - but get in really close! Having "no minimum focus distance" makes it a great lens for kids and other such "little animals" that aren't afraid of the camera. Don't worry about whether their whole face is in the shot or that sort of stuff, just get the eyes in focus. The results will blow your mind!!!

07-16-2012, 06:27 AM	#25
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by LeDave I agree with Fontan, the 35 2.8 ltd is probably the sharpest and most colorful lens I've ever laid my hands on and not just that, I've owned a lot of lens in the past including the 43 1.9 ltd, 77 1.8 ltd, DA* 16-50, Tamron 17-50 2.8, etc. You sure aren't crazy to want to get rid of it, it's just that you need to do what you need to do in order to get the shots you need, and if a zoom lens you listed is better than a prime then I don't argue there. I sold my 35 2.8 macro ltd in the first place to get another zoom lens to take it's place as I am not a prime guy, I hate having to walk back and forth around circles like I'm slicing a pie in order to get the shot I want. As for me, it's the not sharpest lens among all my lenses...I'd say it's worst. FA43/DFA100/FA77 simply kill down this strange slow limited lens.

07-17-2012, 05:42 AM	#26
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Indoors the 17-50/2.8's are excellent. 28-75's are too long in many cases. Indoor photos often require a zoom because you simply cannot move your feet. If you're up against a wall you need to widen the FL.

07-17-2012, 01:14 PM	#27
Allison Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 667	I know you have your reasons for wanting a switch, but I would put the 35 on your camera again and use it for a little bit before I made my decision. I have it and the tamron 28-75. I like my 28-75, but I LOVE my 35 as a walk around lens. I can shoot landscape and macro with it and the 35s IQ is far superior to the 28-75. Don't get me wrong, I love zooms, but you progression to a tamron from the 35 limited feels a little backwards to me.

07-18-2012, 07:19 PM	#28
anselesn Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: new york Posts: 60 Original Poster	Allison, you gave me pause. So this evening I put my old A 50 1.7 on the K-x and took some really lovely pictures of the kids. I'm a little slow to focus the old manual lens (I wish the camera had the old split screen viewfinder we used to use as kids), but I really love the colors produced by that lens. In fact, for some reason, the pictures out of that lens feel warmer than those I take with the 35 ltd. macro. Still, this evening's results and your advice are enough to keep me playing with the expensive lens a little longer. And if anyone has any tips for focusing a manual lens on the K-x a little faster and more precisely (even with my middle aged eyes), I will take them. Thanks all.

07-18-2012, 07:22 PM	#29
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by anselesn Allison, you gave me pause. So this evening I put my old A 50 1.7 on the K-x and took some really lovely pictures of the kids. I'm a little slow to focus the old manual lens (I wish the camera had the old split screen viewfinder we used to use as kids), but I really love the colors produced by that lens. In fact, for some reason, the pictures out of that lens feel warmer than those I take with the 35 ltd. macro. Still, this evening's results and your advice are enough to keep me playing with the expensive lens a little longer. And if anyone has any tips for focusing a manual lens on the K-x a little faster and more precisely (even with my middle aged eyes), I will take them. Thanks all. The free option is Catch in Focus, which is one that is often recommended. For a cost, there are replacement viewfinder screens that are optimized for MF lenses too.