Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-05-2009, 03:58 PM   #1
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
for Macro shooting: 35mm 2.8 or 50mm 2.8

QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
Pentaxor, this is kinda a seperate conversation from the main theme of the thread and you might want to post a question for general thoughts on the 50mm macro but IMO you're looking at 2 lenses that are very close to each other. I have the 50 and not the 35mm macro. My version is the FA50mm f2.8 and the DFA version is newer but from what I can tell the same lens optically. Sharp as a tack and great overall IQ. It's a favourite lens to use. But if you get the 35mm, I don't know that there'd be much benifit other than a little more shooting distance in the macro mode.

If you want a 50mm, then give the FA50mm f1.4 some serious consideration. Probably the best value for $$$ lens in the line. Fast for the low light situations you may encounter.

I've shopped mostly in the USA and have no regrets. Saved some money and got very good service.
hello Peter and felllow Pentaxians,

sorry for the misconception regarding my decision or question on which lens would I get. I would also welcome any insights coming from fellow forum members regarding the 35 macro and 50 macro. of which is their preference.

Peter, I did consider the FA 50mm 1.4. actually it was my first choice of lens since it is really highly regarded as a great lens and I do admit that it is great just by looking at the photo samples. however, this doesn't fit the intended purpose or the application that I am looking for, as I have now the A 1.2 and FA 1.7 for normal photography. what I'm interested is the macro use of the 35 and 50. the 50 macro came into play since it is a great lens and I had given it a thought. so I'm trying to weigh both lenses as to application, IQ, flexibility or use. a 35 would give me a bit of wide angle perspective while the 50 would give a more centered perspective. as to IQ, I had seen both samples coming from both lenses which are great but I would like to know what owners of both lenses have to say with regards to their personal preferences.

it's just too bad that you dont have the benefit of testing out the 35 yet Peter. however, your thoughts on this one would still be appreciated.

06-05-2009, 04:04 PM   #2
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
I didn't remember the thread the above came from, so apologies if this is ground already covered, but:

I wouldn't be considering *either* of these if the primary purpose was macro photography. The workign distance required to get 1:1 at 35mm or 50mm is very short. I'd much rather have 1:1 at 100mm or even longer. The would be especially true if I didn't already have a fast/sharp 100mm lens for other purposes (eg, tight portraits, performances, etc).

However, if you've already ascertained that you'd be OK with shooting from a fraction of an inch or so away, then I'd get the 35mm if I already have a 50 and the 50 if I already had a 35, and if I already had both, I'd proabbly sell the 35 I already had and get the 35 macro.
06-05-2009, 10:21 PM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Alameda, CA
Posts: 3,198
Yup. Marc is correct. I have a 55mm macro lens. To get to 1:1, I have to remove the lens hood so that it does not touch the object.

With my 90mm macro lens, I have about 7" from the front of the lens to the object.
06-06-2009, 03:29 AM   #4
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
Just to update everyone, here's where the question came from:
QuoteQuote:
hi Peter,

I took some time looking at some of the limiteds photo results. and I must say that the 35mm f2.8 macro has caught my attention. definitely this one would be on my next must-buy lens after I had bought the K-7, probably a few months after that.

my list are the ff:

1. DA* 35mm f2.8 macro (decided)
2. DA* 50-135mm f2.8 (decided)
3. FA 50mm f2.8 macro (unsure, I need your opinion on this one)


thanks in advance, Peter.
In this thread

As Marc mentioned, shooting macros with either a 50 or 35mm is going to be very close to the subject a few inches at most. So if the primary consideration is macro shooting. A longer lens is probably a better choice. I also have the Sigma 105mm macro. It's a great lens but for pure IQ when shooting macros other than fast moving subjects or bugs, the 50mm is the better lens.

06-06-2009, 03:58 AM   #5
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,255
I have the DA 35 and it is a great lens. The issue as mentioned above is that you have to get pretty close to get a true macro shot with it. That being said, I don't think the 50 macro is that much better -- you'd probably have to get pretty close with it too.

I guess it really depends on what kind of macro shots you take. If it is of non moving things, the DA 35 will work great. In fact, you will be less likely to need a tripod with it than a longer lens. On the other hand, if you want macro photos of anything fairly fast moving, you'll never get close enough to get a photo with the DA 35.
06-07-2009, 02:40 AM   #6
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
Sometimes the macro isn't that great on the 35 when you're taking photos of bugs since they tend to not like lenses getting inches away from them.
06-07-2009, 07:01 PM   #7
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
Just to update everyone, here's where the question came from:
In this thread

As Marc mentioned, shooting macros with either a 50 or 35mm is going to be very close to the subject a few inches at most. So if the primary consideration is macro shooting. A longer lens is probably a better choice. I also have the Sigma 105mm macro. It's a great lens but for pure IQ when shooting macros other than fast moving subjects or bugs, the 50mm is the better lens.
again, thank you for your input guys. the 100mm macro does have the flexibility and does have a very good IQ. though I agree that the 35 and 50 have the best IQ for macro. that's the downside of the 100 macro. if only it could produce the same IQ as those two shorter lenses have, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. I know that there are other macros above the 100mm range, but those are way beyond my wallet can reach right now. I would probably choose the DA* 50-135 over the 100 macro for non-macro use.

I would consider the FA 50 2.8 and see how much it costs compared to the DA* 35.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, 50mm, application, camera, fa50mm, iq, lens, lenses, macro, pentax help, perspective, photography, samples
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA 50mm F1.4, DA 35mm F2.8 Macro joeyc Sold Items 8 03-12-2010 11:51 AM
Trying to decide between 50mm Macro vs 35mm Macro Lens stl09 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 07-24-2009 07:56 AM
Shooting macro with a Minolta 50mm xs400 Post Your Photos! 3 07-20-2009 02:27 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax A 50mm f/2.8 1:2 Macro, Tokina AF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 hinman Sold Items 6 10-13-2008 07:22 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:24 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top