pentax limited 35mm macro vs 40mm

formula400me · 02-15-2010, 06:25 PM

Howdy,

I read all kinds of posts through out this entire forum but this is the first time for me to personally post. Thanks to all who have put information in thus far. I've found it very helpful.

I have a K10D and have also read the lens reviews to both the SMC Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro and the SMC Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 Limited. I'm having difficulty deciding which one would be a best fit. A macro at 35mm is really simply too close to get a true macro shot off.. and besides, i'm considering another 105mm macro lens specifically. I've seen the 40mm is higher rated with more reviews written for it than the 35mm. The cost difference is significant. Currently, the 40mm pancake is going for $340 where as the 35mm macro is roughly $550 (38% price difference for us math geeks).

Any one have any suggestions?

Last edited by formula400me; 02-15-2010 at 07:41 PM.

**Rondec** · 02-15-2010, 07:12 PM

Sounds like you have made your decision. The 35 macro is a sweet lens, but it doesn't work for everyone. Depends on what you shoot. It had better be pretty still for the 35 to work. The Da 40 combined with a 100-ish macro would certainly be fine, although you won't find many people running down the DA 35 either.

sterretje · 02-15-2010, 08:06 PM

If there are no other lenses in the line up, I would still get the 35, just because it's slightly wider. If you already have something that covers below 40mm, I don't know what I would do.

formula400me · 02-15-2010, 08:11 PM

I also have a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM (AF Lens) and the typical 18-55 kit lens and a Quantaray 70-300mm F4-5.6 LD Macro 1:2 (that i'm considering parting with in the future for something different).

**janosh** · 02-15-2010, 08:31 PM

Don't know the 40 but comparing my treasured 35/2.8 to my other Pentax primes, I'd avoid it unless you can appreciate its macro performance because it often hunts too much in low light. It's perfect length for some kinds of macro work, too short for others, just like 100mm is bad for some situations, perfect for othes. Neither is perfect for everything. That 35 is however my primary lens, followed closely by the 21/3.2...which, with K20D, is plenty fast in low light, focuses instantly.

I've done a lot of macro work with both the Canon FD and Nikon 50/3.5 macros (on film). They both have an important avantage (to me and generally in demanding technical photography) over the Pentax: they're perfectly rectilinear and the Pentax 35/2.8 isn't, though it may be as good optically otherwise. If somebody is happy with zooms he may not prioritize rectilinearity. Different strokes.

If I wanted a fast 35 equivalent I might go with the Sigma 30 which may not be optically as good (Sigma) but would likely focus a lot better in low light.

tokyoso · 02-16-2010, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by formula400me

Howdy,

I read all kinds of posts through out this entire forum but this is the first time for me to personally post. Thanks to all who have put information in thus far. I've found it very helpful.

I have a K10D and have also read the lens reviews to both the SMC Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro and the SMC Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 Limited. I'm having difficulty deciding which one would be a best fit. A macro at 35mm is really simply too close to get a true macro shot off.. and besides, i'm considering another 105mm macro lens specifically. I've seen the 40mm is higher rated with more reviews written for it than the 35mm. The cost difference is significant. Currently, the 40mm pancake is going for $340 where as the 35mm macro is roughly $550 (38% price difference for us math geeks).

Any one have any suggestions?

I'd probably pick the cheaper lens and use the price difference to buy a set of manual lenses. Someone will probably jump in to recommend the FA35/2 any minute now. But I think which ever you pick, you'll be a happy camper.

02-15-2010, 06:25 PM	#1
formula400me New Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 2	pentax limited 35mm macro vs 40mm Howdy, I read all kinds of posts through out this entire forum but this is the first time for me to personally post. Thanks to all who have put information in thus far. I've found it very helpful. I have a K10D and have also read the lens reviews to both the SMC Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro and the SMC Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 Limited. I'm having difficulty deciding which one would be a best fit. A macro at 35mm is really simply too close to get a true macro shot off.. and besides, i'm considering another 105mm macro lens specifically. I've seen the 40mm is higher rated with more reviews written for it than the 35mm. The cost difference is significant. Currently, the 40mm pancake is going for $340 where as the 35mm macro is roughly $550 (38% price difference for us math geeks). Any one have any suggestions? Last edited by formula400me; 02-15-2010 at 07:41 PM.

02-15-2010, 08:06 PM	#3
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	If there are no other lenses in the line up, I would still get the 35, just because it's slightly wider. If you already have something that covers below 40mm, I don't know what I would do. Last edited by sterretje; 02-15-2010 at 09:36 PM. Reason: added missing 'get'

02-15-2010, 08:31 PM	#5
janosh Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 243	Don't know the 40 but comparing my treasured 35/2.8 to my other Pentax primes, I'd avoid it unless you can appreciate its macro performance because it often hunts too much in low light. It's perfect length for some kinds of macro work, too short for others, just like 100mm is bad for some situations, perfect for othes. Neither is perfect for everything. That 35 is however my primary lens, followed closely by the 21/3.2...which, with K20D, is plenty fast in low light, focuses instantly. I've done a lot of macro work with both the Canon FD and Nikon 50/3.5 macros (on film). They both have an important avantage (to me and generally in demanding technical photography) over the Pentax: they're perfectly rectilinear and the Pentax 35/2.8 isn't, though it may be as good optically otherwise. If somebody is happy with zooms he may not prioritize rectilinearity. Different strokes. If I wanted a fast 35 equivalent I might go with the Sigma 30 which may not be optically as good (Sigma) but would likely focus a lot better in low light. Last edited by janosh; 02-15-2010 at 08:40 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA Limited 15mm, 35mm, 40mm, 70mm	Aegon	Sold Items	29	04-23-2010 09:50 AM
35mm Limited or 40mm Limited? I'm very torn	manowar1978	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	04-04-2010 04:06 AM
opinion needed: DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limitedor DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited?	geocoris83	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	02-17-2010 10:54 PM
Any advantage to 40mm limited over 35mm limited?	nixcamic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	10-16-2008 08:36 AM
Input from Owners: 40mm Limited x FA 35mm	BBear	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-18-2008 03:41 AM

02-15-2010, 07:12 PM	#2
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,666	Sounds like you have made your decision. The 35 macro is a sweet lens, but it doesn't work for everyone. Depends on what you shoot. It had better be pretty still for the 35 to work. The Da 40 combined with a 100-ish macro would certainly be fine, although you won't find many people running down the DA 35 either.

02-15-2010, 08:11 PM	#4
formula400me New Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 2 Original Poster	I also have a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM (AF Lens) and the typical 18-55 kit lens and a Quantaray 70-300mm F4-5.6 LD Macro 1:2 (that i'm considering parting with in the future for something different).

02-16-2010, 04:51 AM	#6
tokyoso Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tokyo Photos: Albums Posts: 723	Originally posted by formula400me Howdy, I read all kinds of posts through out this entire forum but this is the first time for me to personally post. Thanks to all who have put information in thus far. I've found it very helpful. I have a K10D and have also read the lens reviews to both the SMC Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro and the SMC Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 Limited. I'm having difficulty deciding which one would be a best fit. A macro at 35mm is really simply too close to get a true macro shot off.. and besides, i'm considering another 105mm macro lens specifically. I've seen the 40mm is higher rated with more reviews written for it than the 35mm. The cost difference is significant. Currently, the 40mm pancake is going for $340 where as the 35mm macro is roughly $550 (38% price difference for us math geeks). Any one have any suggestions? I'd probably pick the cheaper lens and use the price difference to buy a set of manual lenses. Someone will probably jump in to recommend the FA35/2 any minute now. But I think which ever you pick, you'll be a happy camper.