Michael Johnston Reviews the DA 35mm Ltd Macro on K20D

I already raved about how happy I was that MJ would be writing a monthly column here on p-net:

 

http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00QDb7

 

I was so pleased I even thought it would be weekly :-) but we'll have to make do with monthly.

 

So here is this month's column, which I thought I would bring to your attention as it deals with the 35mm Ltd:

 

http://www.photo.net/columns/mjohnston/pentax-35mm-lens/optical-discussion/

 

It seems everyone that has this lens is extremely happy with it, and MJ and fellow co-reviewer Carl Weese are no

exception.

 

 

PS: I just locked my credit card in my office drawer and swallowed the key. You might want to do something similar.

He's KILLING me! How much do I want this lens now??? It sounds SO GREAT. Ah - (plunges head in ice bath). No, still want it. (Repeat, again and again).

I just watched my credit card spontaneously explode Saturday after ordering the Sigma 10-20mm. It didn't have a chance. My wife ran the rest through the blender and changed the password on my Paypal account.

 

Good looking lens. I don't need it! Repeat three times whenever LBA strikes.

The question in my mind, is how does the 35macro compare to the 50macro. I've been kicking around the idea of getting the 50mm - but if the 35mm is on par, It may be another option...

 

too many lenses, and not enough money (or time)...

It's likely that 50 macro and 35 macro perform identically except for focal length. I doubt anything could beat the 35's performance.

 

I'm used to the 35's near-50 equivalent because I used 50 heavily with manual Nikon and Canon SLRs...but I never bothered to photograph bugs, rarely flowers.

 

If I was a bug/flower guy I'd go for the 100/2.8 rather than the 50, simply for the convenience of working from a greater distance.

 

The 35/2.8 hunts a lot more than 21 and 70 DA in low light...that's its one shortcoming IMO...probably has to do with the long helical.

I wouldn't want to 35mm for macro either, but would appreciate the close-focusing capabilities. The standard 45cm

minimum focusing distance on the average 50mm lens just isn't good enough for me (on film). 1:2 or 1:3 macro

would be enough for me on a 35mm for digital. But hey, it's not like I can afford any of this anyway! :-)

 

As a side note, I wonder if Hin has read this article. This could make his LBA gland explode. Poor guy...

Hin's on vacation, and let's hope he doesn't read it. He's got enough LBA issues - I worry that he'll spend his 401k, his kid's college savings, and sell his house and car (maybe on ebay) all because of the lens shopping frenzy.

 

I thought the 3 month Hiatus would have helped him - but he's even worse than before... I wonder if he'll come back with a new camera and lenses from hongkong.

 

:)

Mis, I am with you. If the DA 40mm could just get to 1:4 macro, it would never come off my camera. Instead it's at 1:9 or so, and I am still searching for the perfect (for me) walk-around lens.

 

I read some of the postings on Pentax Forums, and the don't sound quite as thrilled about this lens as Mr. Johnston. I'll hold off for a little longer. And keep selling extra gear, although it won't add up to limited money any time soon.

The DA35 Ltd is likely to trounce the D-FA 50 in build quality and possibly AF speed as well if the D-FA 100 (which I assume has similar build) is any indication. I don't find the build of the D-FA 100 completely convincing considering the cost of the lens.

 

More than once I have I ended up switching to a close-focusing zoom like DA 16-45 when the FA43 or FA28 couldn't focus close enough.

Any idea on Price? Sounds awesome...

$389 or less from prodigital2000 in Canada on eekbay, where I got mine. Came with a bonus Cokin MC UV filter. I love it but agree that it hunts a bit much in low light compared to others. the focal length for me is great- I also liked 50s on 35mm. I also agree that the 100mm is preferable for flower/bug macro but I really like the close-focusing ability of this lens for other things. In my Aug issues of photography magazines, it's advertised for around US$649 at a few retailers but I suspect that is coming down rapidly with competition etc.

It's a nice little macro lens. Currently my default daylight lugaround lens of choice. One thing I like about it

is that I don't really have to care about it... No need for any of that "best to stop it down a bit because it's

a bit crap wide open" stuff.

 

My only real criticism of it (so far...) is that it's so sharp from edge to edge that it can make some photos

look a little too dry and technical. In some ways, I prefer the subtle "yep, this was taken with a lens..." look

of the

Sigma 30/1.4... Depends on the scene/pic.

 

Didn't think much of that particular review, TBH... It reminded me a little too much of those wordy, overstated

reviews that are characteristic of high-end hi-fi magazines... A nice enough read, but I find it very difficult

to have much faith in equipment reviews of that nature. Put it this way, if I didn't actually own this lens

myself, I'd have been reading those words with my BS detector flashing merrily away there...

 

Still, at least Mr Johnston was honest enough to admit that he's basically a lens-licking nutter... :)

Oh, and I found Carl Weese's comments on manual focusing with this lens a bit odd... He criticises other lenses in that piece, but fails to mention that manual focusing with the DA 35 is a hyper-sensitive affair at anything other than very close distances.

 

One look at the pic of the lens at the bottom of the review will tell you why... :)

I'll make a little note.

 

While I have enjoyed using the 35mm DA Macro, it will soon be on it's way back home.

 

My conclusion, using it with the K20D (or K10D or ist D), is that it's a good macro lens, and a good general

lens, however, since it's designed for macro, the focusing scales are useless for general shooting. This means

it's AF or ground glass focusing only. No range finder cheating for any of you old school focusers.

 

However, in no way am I giving this lens negative remarks/reviews. It's quite a good lens, and the macros I took

even at f/22 were strikingly sharp.

 

The next biggest issue I found was that I don't find a ton of use for a 35mm Macro. It's simply a bit too short.

My working distance for that frog shot I posted a few weeks ago was just a few inches, and I was lucky the frog

thought I was one of his siblings who was kissed by a princess and turned into a prince. Otherwise, I'd have

prefered a 90+mm macro (or even a 50mm macro).

 

So when it goes to it's home, i will be gladly using 3 lenses in it's replacement.

 

1) 35mm T&S (actually amazingly sharp, I'm still blown away that a $300 Russian castoff can be perhaps my

sharpest, least distortion filled lens)...which can be used with a TC, and using the tilt to give both extreme

macro and extreme DOF. I don't know if my 35mm T&S is quite as flat of a field as the 35mm DA but for half the

price and 2x the utility, I'd have to say I probably won't miss much.

 

2) 28mm KA/K I have two of these one is a K and one a KA. Both are manual focus, and handle prefocusing quite

well with the well marked, and well damped focus rings and DOF scales. I've shot thousands of images on film with

my trusty 28mm KA and I believe the 42mm normal FOV will suit it nicely as a digital prime.

 

3) (last but certainly not least) 43mm FA...I think when I don't take the 35mm T&S, I will most likely take both

a 28mm and the 43mm. See other peoples comments on the 43mm for more info, I'm sure they've all used it more than

me!!

<p><i>Paul Wilkins: "A nice enough read, but I find it very difficult to have much faith in equipment reviews of

that nature."</i></p>

 

<p>Whereas I am just the opposite. Two real photographers talking in detail about real photography and showing

real photographs is what I want out of an article. MTF tests etc. can be left to the machines. This article was

extremely well written and enjoyable. More please!</p>

 

<p><i>Justin Serpico: "The next biggest issue I found was that I don't find a ton of use for a 35mm Macro. It's

simply a bit too short."</i></p>

 

<p>For me it is too long. I would prefer it at the perfect normal length of 28mm for digital. I am not hung up on

it being a 1:1 macro...I well realise I will rarely use it like that. But being able to focus arbitrarily close

is a show-stoppingly useful feature. For bug macros there's always the Vivi Series 1 105mm.</p>

 

<p>I wonder how much I will even bother with the FA43 now? It's both uncomfortably long and puts me at too much

of a distance to my subjects. I prefer the FA77 for that. Suppose I'll keep it for a future full-frame camera.

:-)</p>

 

<p><a href=" title="The Pink Dominion by robin746, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2132/2764415433_d7c29f3aba_o.jpg" width="600" height="401"

alt="The Pink Dominion" /></a></p>

 

<p>This is a great lens!</p>

Well, it's just a 35mm macro lens... Sure, it's well-made and has decent optics, but I think it's very easy to get

carried away with our nice new toys sometimes... Seems to me that MJ has done that here. That's fine, but at

the end of the day a lens - even a nice one - is just a lens...

 

For me, whether it's "too long" or "too" short depends entirely on what I'm taking a picture of... It could be 15mm or

50mm for all I care, TBH. I'd just use it accordingly. The main thing for me is that it's reasonably light, reasonably

fast, and focuses a lot closer than any other lens I have. It's other optical/mechanical qualities are somewhat

secondary to these issues as far as I'm concerned.

 

Anyway, there are plenty of people on here who consistently take very nice pictures without this particular lens, so I

really don't think they're missing out too much by not owning it... But if it suits someone's needs, sure, it's certainly

a good quality lens. No need to make a meal out of saying that though, surely...?

On K20D the distinction between 35/2.8 (and 21 and 70) vs any zoom is like 35mm vs MF, at the very least.

 

35/2.8 is fabulously high resolution, corner-to corner....maybe more relevant to K20D than K10D because the newer camera actually can record a LOT more detail.

 

It's bizarre to think a lens is "too sharp," as someone above suggested. But if that's your taste, use a Holga or a zoom.

 

35/2.8 focuses very nicely manually with prism finder, maybe less so with the lesser finders due to their lower light transmission..

 

AND, it DOES grab-focus/prefocus by feeling (no peeking at lens barrel) quite well if you take a moment to get familiar with it. It actually does approximate an un-tabbed 50mm Summicron on an M in that respect.

 

The only way it absolutely doesn't rival (or beat) a 50/2 Summicron is "bokeh," which is more amusing with longer lenses, and more amusing when they have Leica's haze issues. I'm going to add an adhesive focus grabbing "tab" to mine to make it more like a tabbed Leica lens...a bit of industrial stick-on velcro tape.

Actually, making a meal out of writing like he does is clearly precisely what MJ's trying to do... ;)

 

Hope it works out for him - I quite enjoy reading his thoughts on this and that - but when it comes to equipment reviews it's always worth hearing a wider selection of opinions... Especially if you're the too-quick-with-the-credit-card type, don't you think...? :)

John, compared to the other lenses I own, manual focusing with the 35 Ltd on subjects a couple of meters or so

away is far more fiddly, simply because it has a very small angle of rotation between 1m and infinity.

 

This isn't a big issue, TBH, because it seems that autofocus works pretty well (usually...) with this lens, but it's

certainly worth bearing in mind if manual focusing is of interest and the close-focus capability isn't the main priority.

I don't really have a problem with exhuberant writing on equipment reviews.

 

Actually I find it refreshing to see enthusiast reviews more so than technical data reviews from a bench.

 

Lets face it, really world and lab bench shooting are a bit different.

 

That said, the 35mm is a nice lens, it's well built, low distortion, sharp, fairly fast, and 1:1 macro.

 

It's not super compact, but it's not too big.

 

If your using it simply for "close focusing" and not macro then I'm sure it's fine. But then the 21mm focuses to 6in, the 10-20mm focuses to 9in, and if I remember correctly my old 35mm FA focused to about 9 inches. So you could save the cost of a 1:1 macro and go with any of the above, as well as quite a few other primes for general close focusing.

 

Not having great vision, I don't snap focus well. So without long throw, and solid DOF markings I'm not going to be doing a whole lot of manual focus these days.

And no, it's not "bizarre" at all to think that a lens can be too sharp... Depends entirely on the pic, but for me this one certainly has been at times. I've deliberately softened several pics taken with this lens (in PP), because the sharpness has detracted from the photo, at least for my personal tastes. Which may or may not be different to other people's, but OK, that's not my problem... :)

I think one issue is that it seems to outresolve my K100D's 6MP sensor, which leads to pixel-sharp pics... And for me, that's sometimes a bit too sharp, especially for portraits and other scenes where I want a softer look.

 

It's certainly an appreciated characteristic in scenic shots, though, such as the first and last shots in this set that I posted a link to recently:

 

http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/augustpart2/

 

It did a pretty nice job capturing the details of those bank note eyes too.

Paul, I'd looked at these pics before, by I only just noticed the naked dude in the first and last one... Is the 35 Ltd so sharp it can cut through clothing??? :-D

Never tried, but I guess certain edges on the lens mount could possibly work with a light summer dress...

 

Probably easier just to wait for people to get undressed though, TBH.

For those of you seeking a more scientific review of this lens, try this:

 

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/393-pentax_35_28