[Elfy S.]

Hello, I want to get a lens that works for food photography when I go out and I found these :
Pentax 21987 DA 35mm f/2.4 AL
Pentax DA 35mm f2.8 Macro Lens for Pentax K Mount Camera

I have a K-30, so I want to be sure that the first one fits, and I am not sure if it actually is a macro. Also are both weather resistent like the camera? The price difference is huge (150$ vs 600$), so I also want to understand why.

and how do they compare to Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 Macro Lens for Pentax Digital SLR Cameras (Model 272EP) ($500)

Thank you!

[Adam]

The 35mm F2.4 is an entry-level, non-macro lens with a plastic build. The 35mm Limited is a premium lens with macro capabilities, hence the difference in price.

Any macro lens will deliver sharp images, so I guess what you should get really depends on what you plan to shoot. The 35mm would double as a normal lens and it requires a short working distance, whereas a 50mm or 100mm would be better if you plan to/want to be farther away from your subject.

The only WR macro lens for Pentax is this one:
SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[jatrax]

My wife does a lot of food photography for her blog and uses the DA 35mm f/2.8 macro for many though not all of her shots. It was really my lens but she borrowed it and it never came back It works quite well for food shots if you like getting right into the subject. For longer shots something closer to 100mm works better. It depends on what view you like and how much background you like to include.

[MikeD]

I have a 90mm Tamron it is all around a fantastic lens IQ right up there with anyone else. Cost is much less than Pentax or Sigma and I don't think Sigma has a Pentax mount in the longer length. the 90 . Tamron and 100 Pentax make great portrait lenses also. If price is not a concern the best is the Pentax due to the WR that Adam mentions and the slightly longer length also if you pixel peep to about 200% the Pentax is probably better on the edges. I have found very few situations where I needed to be closer but many where I needed to be farther away.

[sfkazimierczak]

My friend makes a lot of food fotos for a blog and he uses 50mm lens. I believe you should take one of 35s. You don't take pictures of food from a distance, that's why shorter lens gives you more options in terms of perspective. It's my humble opinion.

[stevilcornevil]

I've seen the 35mm/f2.8 Macro online with two different markings. One that has the PENTAX 35 spelled out on it on the barrel near where it mounts to the camera. The other has 2.8/35 written near where it mounts to the camera. Is there a difference between these lenses. As best i can tell there isn't. But would like to confirm is one is superior over the other. And before I drop my money on one.

[robthebloke]

The HD version (with red ring) has newer coatings that may be slightly better than the older SMC (green ring) version. I can't speak for the HD version, but the 35mm SMC f2.8 macro is a fantastic lens (and the HD version should be a marginal improvement)