Best 'Manual focus'/Autofocus true 35mm lens for a Student

<p>Hi All.</p>

<p>My aunt is taking a photo class and was told by her instructor to use a digital SLR. As I have a K10D gathering dust I figured I'd loan it to her. The instructor has one basic request that the students 'must' use a 35mm focal length lens, that and it should have good manual focus qualities a swell as autofocus capacity. He also said " you do not want a mismatch - which means that the lens which has auto focus does not synchronize with the auto focus." I don't know what that really means, but I assume it isn't a Pentax issue.</p>

<p>Anyway that comes down to three lenses, the 35mm f2.4, 35mm f2, and 25mm f2.8 macro. I discussed with her the benefits of cost (f2,4 is the deal), speed (the f2), and macro capacity (f2.8 macro). She enjoys the thought of photographing mushrooms, so the macro has an obvious appeal, but I don't know about the manual focusing qualities of the lens. I have personally never used any of these lenses, so I figured with these very awkward instructions, what would you recommend? She can afford the different lenses so I would suggest the manual focal qualities are likely paramount.</p>

<p>Thanks y'all!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Does the instructor want a 35mm equivalent? That is something like a 24mm on your camera.</p>

<p>35mm f2.4 is what I'd recommend. K10D viewfinder is quite adequate for manual focus. This should work well enough for a class.</p>

<p>ME</p>

Sanford, the instructor wants a 'normal lens' as a throw back to the standard 50mm ff, the way I read it.

Thanks ME.

<p>I would ask the instructor to clarify why he wants a 35mm (yesterday's wide angle, today's normal, sort of).</p>

<p>+1 for the K10 finder and manual focus. I only have the 35 mm macro of the lenses you mention, but I do regularly use an A series 35 f/2 with K7 and K5 ( and K10, K20 before now) with reasonable focusing accuracy. If I had to choose one of the 3 you have listed for a beginner the 2.4 is probably the most sensible choice, and if super close ups become an overwhelming interest then get a decent set of +1,2,4 diopters for experimenting before springing for the much more expensive macro.</p>

<p>Isn't there a Sigma for real speed?<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898839-REG/Sigma_340109_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html<br>

I do not suggest getting a 35mm macro for any other reason than maybe superior sharpness wide open since anything longer is more convenient to use. - I call the focus throw on my Pentax 50 & 100mm AF macros horrible. Looking at pictures of the 35mm macro I doubt its manual focus to be enjoyable at all.<br>

Does the instructor INSIST on a prime? - otherwise you could loan your aunt a 35-80AF kit lens from film days which isn't too bad on a DSLR.<br>

After checking prices I guess the f2.4 is the best bet for your aunt. - Who knows if she'll end loving primes? And SR should compensate for the missing speed of half an f stop. - Reviews were all rather pleased with the lens <br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=743117&is=USA&si=rev#costumerReview</p>

<p>"you do not want a mismatch - which means that the lens which has auto focus does not synchronize with the auto focus"</p>

<p>I have no idea what that means.</p>

<p>I hope he's not also an English teacher!</p>

<p>I would assume that the 35 Macro is easier to manually focus than the other two... but I haven't personally used it so I can't say for sure. They're all very nice lenses, and the only one I'd rule out is the FA 35/2 simply because the less-expensive 35/2.4 has the same optical formula and will perform just as well at a fraction of the cost.</p>

<p>Hi All.</p>

<p>Again, thanks. My personal choice would be to go for the macro version, but I take Jochen's point. I'll likely advice her to go with the f2.4 version.</p>

<p>21mm limited. With crop factor turns into a 31mm equivalent. Works great on K10D. </p>

<p>I don't have any of them,, but from what I hear:<br>

The 35/2.4 is quite well regarded for the cost.<br>

35/2.8 macro is tempting, but the AF may be slower, being a Macro and all. This one is dangerous, once you have one limited lens, it's hard to say no to another :)<br>

No quick shift focus on the 35/2, makes it more cumbersome for MF. </p>

<p>Believe it or not, she wanted the macro. Go figure.</p>

 

<p>why not just ask the instructor recommend lenses for the K10. You say you have the K10. Which of the lenses are OK? That's part of HIS job.</p>

<p>I own the 35/2.4 and it's a gem. More than sharp enough after f/2.8 and still quite challenging to get f/2.4 in focus at close range. It's not as difficult as the 100/2.8 obviously, but the DoF is still interesting to work with. Also, if anyone is curious: NO, it doesn't have that gross lens flare while using strobes on pure white backgrounds and tasteful flare while shooting into the sun.<br>

The bottom line is that I really enjoy using the lens.<br>

Granted: It doesn't have quick-shift focusing, but the K10's AF/MF switch is easy enough to manipulate. <br>

Granted: It doesn't have a metal mounting ring, but after 2 years of mounting/dismounting I can see no wear on mine. I might dig it out of my bag for closer inspection if anyone asks, but I've never noticed anything.</p>