[ASpill]

When people say the macro setting on this lens is not a true macro what do they mean? Does the macro setting just enable close focusing without magnification?
Thanks,

[Not a Number]

With zoom lenses that have a "macro" function it usually means that the minimum focus distance is under one meter. Prior to this minimum focus on zooms and telephotos was usually in the range of 2 to 3 meters Magnification is probably around 0.3× at very best This is pretty much a sales gimmick that came about when zooms started to gain popularity in the late 70s and early 80s

A true macro lens is usually a prime lens with a magnification of 0.5 to 2.0×. Minimum focus distances are usually well under 0.5 meters.

[MSL]

True macro is defined by many as 1:1 or maybe 1:2. In other words the object filing the image is the same size as the sensor or twice the size. The A35-105 has a maximum magnification of 0.25 so would not be seen as true macro.

It is, however, a fun lens to take close up images. You can use both the focus and the zoom to fine tune the focusing. And with an extension tube, preferably one with A contacts, you can get closer to 0.5 magnification. It is, however a very heavy lens and so hard to do hand held macro for any length of time.

[DWS1]

When people say the macro setting on this lens is not a true macro what do they mean? Does the macro setting just enable close focusing without magnification?
Thanks,

Correct. Not a true macro.

[ramseybuckeye]

When is says zoom on the lens, it is not a real macro lens, but as you suggested close focusing, Not a Number said it very well. I've never owned one, but that lens has a good reputation, which very few manual focus zooms have. Even if it isn't a real macro, that macro setting on the zoom is a nice feature to have and very useful (I have it on the F35-70)

[ASpill]

Thanks all. It is definitely a heavy one.

[peggers]

Correct. Not a true macro.

I always wondered about that when I first purchased that lens back in 1985 in London. So the next question is, if it isn't a true macro, why are the manufacturers allowed to write macro on the lens? Why are they allowed to put misleading labels on a lens?

[dbs]

I always wondered about that when I first purchased that lens back in 1985 in London. So the next question is, if it isn't a true macro, why are the manufacturers allowed to write macro on the lens? Why are they allowed to put misleading labels on a lens?

Hi Peg

Marketing sells lenses not the truth..



Dave

[lesmore49]

I think some are a bit tough on this excellent lens.



I've got a 35-105 A Macro. Bought it in Dec, '84 or '85, can't remember which. Used it on a K1000 from that date till 2007. Excellent lens, really well built, have got some of my best images using that lens, still use it on my K series digitals. It is heavy. It says Macro and it does take pix closer than most other general purpose zooms I have.

Does it take pictures as close up as say my dedicated Macro lenses , such as my Pentax 50 Macro M series, my Pentax 50 Macro F 2.8 or my Pentax 100mm F2.8 WR Macro....no.

Is it a versatile general purpose lens that can create a wonderful images ? Yes. Can it also produce some great close up images...yes....but not quite as close as dedicated Macro lenses.

But IMO, the design purpose of lens was to provide a top quality zoom lens from moderate wide angle to moderate telephoto, everything in between and a moderate macro. In other words to pack a lot of features and photographer demands in one lens, and remember this was 1980's design and technology. Pentax did an excellent job. A lot of times I did the minimalist thing and just carried one body and one lens and that lens was my most versatile...my A 35-105 Zoom Macro.

I've used this lens for almost 40 years. It is well regarded by many who have owned and used this lens for a considerable amount of time and in fact , some call it the stack of primes, attesting to it's capability.

[Peka]

I had bought that lens in 1988 or 1989, in order equip a Pentax Super A.
Nowadays, I am still using it with a Pentax K110D for 2 main reasons.
- Versatility: a lot of features within one single zoom. From time to time, I look out for an affordable replacer, and so far I have not found it. When I go out for a photo-walk without a specific goal, that lens is often in my bag.
- Good color rendering in my opinion: when I want to emphasize colors, I take that lens that gives good colors straight out of the camera.
And yes, it is rather heavy. Therefore the handheld “macro” mode is not easy.

[35mmfilmfan]

I always wondered about that when I first purchased that lens back in 1985 in London. So the next question is, if it isn't a true macro, why are the manufacturers allowed to write macro on the lens? Why are they allowed to put misleading labels on a lens?

There is probably no legal definition of the description 'Macro', so it may be used with impunity on any lens that has reasonable close-focus capabilities. As has been said, mfrs want to sell lenses, and could in all probability defend their description should anyone feel like disputing it in court.

[kiwi_jono]

I have one also. It does have a pretty close focus distance for a zoom - especially for the time this lens came out. But no, not as close as a dedicated macro lens.

On a side note, maybe its sample variation but I definitely wouldn't call mine a stack of primes as on FF the corners are pretty soft at the wide end of the range and fairly soft wide open too. I remember thinking it was better on APS-C. I have a DFA 28-105, and it eclipses the A 35 - 105 in virtually every way - which really impressed me when I got it.

[ASpill]

I have one also. It does have a pretty close focus distance for a zoom - especially for the time this lens came out. But no, not as close as a dedicated macro lens.

On a side note, maybe its sample variation but I definitely wouldn't call mine a stack of primes as on FF the corners are pretty soft at the wide end of the range and fairly soft wide open too. I remember thinking it was better on APS-C. I have a DFA 28-105, and it eclipses the A 35 - 105 in virtually every way - which really impressed me when I got it.

I also have the DFA 28-105. I will have to do a comparison.

[tibbitts]

True macro is defined by many as 1:1 or maybe 1:2. In other words the object filing the image is the same size as the sensor or twice the size. The A35-105 has a maximum magnification of 0.25 so would not be seen as true macro.

It is, however, a fun lens to take close up images. You can use both the focus and the zoom to fine tune the focusing. And with an extension tube, preferably one with A contacts, you can get closer to 0.5 magnification. It is, however a very heavy lens and so hard to do hand held macro for any length of time.

I thought the weight was similar to most actual macro lenses (Sigma 105mm or 70mm for example.)

[MSL]

From the lens database


A35-105 max mag 0.25, weight 615g
M100/4 macro max mag 0.5, weight 355g
DFA 100 WR max mag 1, weight 340 g

Sigma 70 max mag 1, weight 525g
Sigma 105 max mag 1, weight 457g

So the 70 is close, but the A35-105 is still heavier

And for those even mildly interested, the kit 18-55 has a max mag of 0.34 but isn't labeled a macro

One important thing to note is that a lot of the lenses labeled macro, like the F35-70 and A70-210, which both have macro modes at 70mm that are only 0.25 mag, allow for fine focusing when you go into "macro" mode, which may be why they are labeled as macro despite the lower magnification.