another macro question

[bob-c]

While looking online for a macro lens, I noticed that the Pentax DA 35mm f2.8 macro limited sells for only a few dollars more than the

Tamron 90mm. From what I've read, the limited series seems to be quite respected. Would you say it is worth the extra few dollars? The

difference is around $60. BTW, I don't know what all the fuss is about film canisters, I had dozens back in the sixties.

[ronald_moravec1]

A 35 and a 90 are far different lenses. The distance from subject to lens is greater with the 90 given the same size subject. The smaller angle of view will show less expansive background than the 35, thus it is more simplified and less distracting.

 

Older Pentax macros were all great lenses. I had a 50 preset, 50 automatic, 100 bellows only, and a 100 mm for film Pentaxes. These were among the best lenses in my collection. They will work on a digi Pentax with proper adaption and people use older Pentax glass on digi all the time.

[shots worth sharing]

35mm is pretty short for macro. I'd think it would be interesting for flowers and inanimate objects but shooting bugs and other skittish critters would be a real challenge.

 

The film cannister thing has to do with the pnet symbol which designates frequent posters (three cannisters ranslates to "irrepressible blow-hard" ;~).

[bob-c]

Dave, Thanks for the info, it sounds like the 90mm might be more in line with what I do. As for the canister thing, I do

understand its meaning, it was my attempt at humor. Anyone who doesn't get it wasn't around in the sixties. But I must

add, what might be an IBH to you is a valuable source of experience for me. So thanks to you and all the other IBH's on

this forum.

[andrewg_ny]

There have been a few times that I have resorted to using close-focusing zooms at shorter focal lengths because most primes are not very close-focusing. And the limited lenses are generally very nice and I've only heard good things about the DA35 you mention. But for a lot of macro work the extra working distance is valued for skittish creatures and lighting. So worth the $, probably--but perhaps not over the longer macro lens for your purposes.

[shots worth sharing]

I wasn't into photography in the '60s but did encounter quite a few cannisters.

[rose_duclos]

andrew - regarding close focusing ... how close do you want to be? ... the 21mm is very good at being close _ and it's not a macro. Another reason why I LOVE that lens - it allows you to get up close and personal to your subject. :) I know - I've not read any reviews of it as a portrait lens - but, it works on my cats. :)

[rose_duclos]

And still I'm striving to that ever elusive 2nd canister...

[miserere_mei]

IBH = Irritable Bowel Humour?

 

I was not around in the 60s, but I still got your joke, Robert. I think Dave is simply suffering from "being over 40", as Rose puts it.

[godfrey]

As someone else stated, a 35mm Macro lens is quite different in use from a 90mm Macro.

 

35mm is the 'normal' focal length for Pentax DSLRs, providing the classic normal field of view. So even if it weren't a

Macro, the 35mm lens would be a good thing to have your kit: it works as a very good "all around" lens.

 

Normal focal length macro lenses are particularly useful for flat object copywork (papers, coins, etc) ... anything where

having adequate depth of field is not an issue and where edge to edge sharpness, flatness of field, and top notch

rectiliinear correction are important. They're not as useful for photographing 3D subject matter, where the short distances

at high magnification impact working room for lighting, foreshortening of the perspective distorts the subject, and DoF is

limited. For those kinds of subjects, a longer focal length is much more useful.

 

I haven't worked with the 35mm Macro Limited yet. A friend stopped by with one so I had a few moments to try it out,

however: it seems a beautifully made lens with very nice imaging characteristics (sharpness, resolution, bokeh).

However, if its macro capabilities are not appropriate to the kind of macro work you want to do AND you don't feel you

want an excellent prime normal lens to add to your kit, I see little point to buying one and would go for a longer focal

length macro lens.

 

As always, I recommend a good read of John Shaw's "Closeups In Nature" ... an excellent primer on macro photography.

 

Godfrey

[michael_kuhne]

From what Roger says, the Pentax D-FA 50mm f/28 macro is no slouch either. Not as short as 35mm nor as long as 90mm, and extremely sharp. As Godfrey says, FL advantage depends on the type of application, as it does in non macro concerns. So far, I have liked a longer FL for the reasons Dave gives, for having a little more subject distance. For the best in build quality, the Sigma 105mm is very impressive.

[rose_duclos]

All those great macros in the lower mm - and I can't see myself getting any because I already have non- macro versions. *sigh*

 

:)