Michael Johnston Reviews the DA 35mm Ltd Macro on K20D

[joe_jackson4]

Cheers, R.T... I saw nothing to disagree with there. I guess the K10D used for that test shows up any slight corner

softness more clearly than my K100D.

 

He got the slight-but-noticeable vignetting at f/2.8 bit right, BTW... Unlike Carl Weese ("no noticeable vignetting even

wide-open") I can see it quite easily in some shots, including MJ's wide-open sunset shot in his own review... :) It

doesn't bother me in the slightest, TBH, but it is there and it is visible, as I pointed out here:

 

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

 

I dunno, perhaps these "real photographers" have dodgy eyes... :) Or maybe they don't really know what they're

looking for/at when reviewing lenses... :)

 

Would be fun to get MJ and KS together to argue whether it's an "optical paragon" or if it's "undoubtedly a high

quality lens but it does not excel"...

 

:)

[joe_jackson4]

Hmm, as a Canon DSLR owner too it's interesting (for me...) that the Photozone review mentions a Tokina variant

of the DA 35 for Canon/Nikon folk. Seems to be this one:

 

http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx-m35prodx-b.html

 

Strangely, this Tokina lens weighs 340g, whereas the Pentax version weighs only 215g... It's a little odd to me

that they should

differ quite so much in this respect, if they're really the same lens, optically.

 

Just thought I'd point this lens out for any other Pentax users that also have Canon/Nikon gear... Perhaps the

Tokina is a cheaper option...?

[joe_jackson4]

Ah, just thinking, perhaps the difference in weight is (partly) due to the AF motor being in the lens for Canon/Nikon mounts...?

[rparmar]

Also, I am pretty sure that Tokina does not make this lens in a k-mount.

 

It is Pentax that makes the Tokina in a k-mount. :-)

[joe_jackson4]

I'm really not sure who makes what these days... Seems Tokina and Pentax have some kind of "special relationship" going on, business-wise, so all I know at the end of the day is what name they decide to put on the stuff... :) As long as it fits and works, that'll do me...

 

BTW, I'm not sure which lens trim looks worse... It's a close call between the green Pentax ring and the gold Tokina bling... :)

[young_y]

"undoubtedly a high quality lens but it does not excel"

 

It seems the lens performs above critical performance level at every respect that is objectively measurable. Perhaps, the lens is not sufficiently flat for macro, they thought? Or, some vignetting at wide open is a bit too much for the price?

 

At any rate, although I have a keeper in a comparable focal length, I am being tempted by the DA 35mm after reading this thread. Hopefully, I won't succumb to the temptation before I get something I need.

[rparmar]

I am still unsure as to this lenses suitability for anything except close-ups. Manual focusing is impossible on objects further than 2 metres. I hate relying on AF especially as there are enough situations that throw it off. The rendering of objects at or near infinity seems less impressive than work like the flower I posted above. I need to work with this lens more.

[mike_johnston2]

Robin,

I truly am grateful I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read your line "I am still unsure as to this lenses

suitability for anything except close-ups"--my keyboard might never have been clean again. If you own this lens

and can't get good infinity performance out of it, something's very, very wrong. As I read your comment, which

literally made me laugh out loud in astonishment, I had at my elbow a 13x19-inch print of a lake scene I made

last night. I still have pretty good near-field vision, but I need a magnifying glass to see the fine detail in

this print, which is very crisp and clear. I assure you the 35mm DA Macro is perfectly adequate for things other

than closeups.

 

But to get past that statement and address your concern, I do use the K20D exclusively with the "Pentax

Magnifying Eyepiece" (Pentax part # O-ME53). Carl uses one as well (in fact, the one I'm using is his backup,

which he sent me when Pentax sent me the K20D). Such devices don't always work as

advertised, but in this case it's a good accessory that does work very well and might help you with your focusing

issues. I haven't had mine off the camera since I got it, and I no longer even notice it's there.

 

All best,

 

Mike<div></div>

[mike_johnston2]

"Unlike Carl Weese ("no noticeable vignetting even wide-open") I can see it quite easily in some shots, including

MJ's wide-open sunset shot in his own review... :)"

 

Paul,

As many photo writers point out till they're blue in the face, it's necessary to read reviews with a "believe

what I say not what the illustrations might show" mentality. In this case you're making a very common error. When

you point the camera at a sunset, the sunset is the brightest place in the sky and the sky really does get darker

the farther away from the light source (sunset) it is. If you disbelieve this, simply look at the whole sky in

such a situation, from directly toward the sun to the opposite direction. Contrary to what some "experts" will

tell you, skies are almost never good subjects for vignetting trials, and my sunset shot not only isn't decent

proof for any claim about physical falloff in the lens, it isn't even evidence.

 

I like vignetting. I used to introduce it in darkroom prints by edge-burning, and I often add it to digital

pictures on purpose in post-processing. In the picture below, for instance, the falloff on the right is natural,

and I added some on the left for balance. (Others might not like it, but it's not their picture.) So I can

certainly see how different people might have different standards for falloff. All lenses have some falloff,

however slight. Given the controls we have for ameliorating it in digital, the falloff of the 35 DA Macro wide

open is minimal for its angle of view and trivial from a practical standpoint.

 

But whether you're fond of it or allergic to it, don't judge it from sunset shots.

 

All best,

 

Mike<div></div>

[rparmar]

Hey Mike:

 

Glad I could at least provide a moment of amusement. :) As I said i will be working with this lens more, and of

course I would love it to be an amazing performer. I mean, I bought it and all, so I have an obvious investment

in it being wonderful. But it has to earn its keep against the DA16-45, which I have done some very good

landscapes with -- a lens I think punches way above its weight.

 

I tried a magnifying eyepiece, one from Nikon. Didn't like it as it got in the way of me seeing the full frame

(or at least as much as the viewfinder allows). Oh yes, I wear glasses. Also tried a fresnel screen but that was

annoying too. Instead I have become rather good at focusing with the K100D as it comes off the assembly line. I

do use a good number of manual lenses, the Vivi Series 1 105mm foremost amongst them.

 

Please note I am not (yet) using the K20D. Perhaps the DA35 works better with that camera. Perhaps there is

indeed something wrong with my lens. You never know. I hope to find out through further real-world shooting.

[joe_jackson4]

Well, or the benefit of this forum - and for a laugh, obviously :) - I just took some (more...) quick'n'dirty

test shots with the DA 35 Ltd at F/2.8 and f/5.6... Somehow I don't think you'll need me to tell you which is which:

 

http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/da35vignette.jpg

 

Hmm, what a spooky coincidence it is that I can see such a similar degree of vignetting in your sunshot shot,

Mike... :)

 

Do you like my fridge magnet, BTW...? :)

[joe_jackson4]

Oops, a "for" somehow became an "or" there... :) Thank #%&! I'm not a writer, eh...? :)

[mike_johnston2]

Paul,

So your theory is what, that because you can detect it, it's a problem? The falloff with this lens is about half a stop in the extreme corners wide open. That's well controlled for a lens with this angle of view, easy to correct in processing, not objectionable (do I need to think of more ways to say this?)--and won't be noticeable to most viewers with pictorial subjects. That's my opinion. If you need less falloff for some reason, I would suggest a longer lens, or stopping down.

 

Mike

[joe_jackson4]

"Paul, So your theory is what, that because you can detect it, it's a problem?"

 

No, my own views on whether it's a "problem" or "objectionable" or not are very clearly stated earlier in this

thread, and in an earlier thread of mine that I've provided a link to above. Read them.

 

My point is that the following text is clearly a considerably more fair and accurate description of the

characteristics

of this lens than "no noticeable vignetting even wide-open":

 

"Typical for many dedicated APS-C lens the vignetting is somewhat more pronounced. At f/2.8 you can expect a

decrease in corner brightness of ~0.8EV which can be visible in critical scenes. The problem is very reduced at

f/4 and pretty much negligible from f/5.6 onwards."

 

Your original review is clearly misleading with respect to certain aspects of this lens, and I feel that it's

only fair

to the readers of this forum to point that

out. It would be most unfortunate if someone were to part with their hard-earned cash for this lens on the basis of

either (a) any over-enthusiastic oversight on your part, or (b) the waffling words of an incompetent BS merchant.

[michaelina2]

Paul W: "It would be most unfortunate if someone were to part with their hard-earned cash for this lens on the basis of either (a) any over-enthusiastic oversight..., or (b) the waffling words of an incompetent BS merchant."

 

I could not agree more!

 

So Paul... given that you are a Canon user (too) and your observations and opinions are the result of pairing the lens to an obsolete K100D, NOT a K20D as desired by OP in the title of this post, may I ask which are you on your scale? a, b, both (or more...)

[joe_jackson4]

Michael, I very much doubt that the choice of a K100D or K20D (or K10D, in the Photozone case...) has a significant impact on the vignetting or manual focusing characteristics of this lens... :)

 

Of course, if you can provide reasonably convincing evidence to the contrary, I'm sure we'll all be glad to see it... :)

[personalphotos]

The beginning of this thread was interesting and a good discussion of a great lens by those that joined in. The

end of the thread has become downright boorish. If I were Mike J. I wouldn't bother to respond (you can't satisfy

everyone and there never has been a perfect lens from any supplier). There have been numerous positive threads

regarding the fine qualities of this lens on this forum and even more so on PF as evidenced by this thread:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/32664-theory-da-35ltd-greatest-lens-ever-tag.html

 

There will always be a stick in the mud who grasps at some small so-called 'flaw' and sticks to that 'issue' like

glue to defend a firm position. I mean really how often do any of us regularly shoot wide open and particularly

with a designated macro lens. For most of us it's a special effect use or that dark scene backup position we only

use when absolutely necessary

 

The thing that seems to be now lost is this is a Macro lens that doubles as a great multi-purpose lens. Macro

lenses are shot in macro mode at small apertures 97% of the time and at middle apertures for almost every other

situation. If the shooter has such a specialized wide open need, there are other much faster lenses designed

specifically for that use. A carpenter doesn't use a saw when a hammer is needed.

 

Give it a rest Paul.

[mike_johnston2]

Paul,

On further reflection, I've decided that you're absolutely right. With considerable urgency, therefore, I advise you to sell your 35mm DA Macro immediately. It is an inferior lens with insurmountable flaws, and it is painfully obvious to me and everyone else that you will never be able to take a good picture with it. I suggest you de-accession it while all the false, perfidious, lying, error-ridden positive reviews of it are still swirling around the internet, because if you act quickly some deluded fool will probably pay you good money for it, and you'll emerge from your harrowing experience relatively unscathed financially. Then, you can put the money toward the purchase of a lens that actually works. At which point you will be able to take pictures of your fridge magnets again at any aperture, as God intended, and all will once more be right with your world.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike J.

[michaelina2]

Mike J...

 

Your "Catherine 1" image looks like a 3-D hologram on my monitor. I'd ask you how you did it, but I’m afraid I might scare myself to death, if I learned how.

 

Too spooky...

[mike_johnston2]

Michael,

Right, I had to barter a non-corporeal aspect of my being to a fellow in red tights with weensy little red horns on. You wouldn't want to know.

 

Seriously, you're talking about the JPEG on TOP? I had a hard time getting the color close in the little JPEG. You should see the pigment print on Photo Rag. Gorgeous. But it's just lighting, I'm afraid. No tricks, thus no tips.

 

Mike J.

[michaelina2]

Mike J: "I had to barter a non-corporeal aspect of my being to a fellow in red tights with weensy little red horns on. "

 

Hmmm... I might be a country boy and you can kid around with me, but I know better. Only someone really special to the subject could care enough to pull off that pic....

 

She is a perfect angel!

 

M

 

BTW: I like the smaller version (above) much better than the larger one on TOP. The compactness and broader tonal range in the smaller version gives the image a magical presence… a special glow…

[joe_jackson4]

Mike, it was brought to my attention that you've (rather predictably, it has to be said) given your opinions on

some of the issues I've raised in this thread on your little blog...

 

Apologies for any offence taken on your part, but I can assure you (and other members of this forum...) that I

very rarely say anything derogatory about anyone unless I genuinely believe it to be true, given the evidence

presented to me.

 

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter. I'm happy to leave it at that.

[salviano]

<p>Hello everyone, <br>

<br>First of all, I need to say that I appreciate very much the Mike Johnston/Carl Wieese article.

<br>

Following the hot discussions about the reviews of the DA 35 mm Macro, I did a

small website with a user test - as a poll - to investigate what is the meaning

of the MTF numbers out of the test charts. <br>

<br>

It's six shots of the same scene with six different apertures. The goal is to

discover wich photo is equivalent to which aperture.<br>

<br>

Below, one example: <br>

<br>

<img border="0" src="http://www.salviano.info/temp/reslut/cor_bd.jpg" width="926" height="648"><br>

<br>

There are five more comparisons like this; <br>

<br>

To do the full test follow this <b>

<a href="http://www.salviano.info/temp/reslut/index.htm">link.</a></b> <br>

<br>

Possibly, you will be surprised as I am. <br>

<br>

Enjoy !!! <br>

<br>

Salviano Jr <br>

Rio de Janeiro <br>

 </p>

[joshroot]

An admin note to the folks that are disagreeing with Mike and his article.

 

If you want to disagree with an editorial article on photo.net, we're happy to have you do so, even strongly. But keep your commentary to the article itself and facts within and not direct it at the person writing the article.

 

If you genuinely have an issue with a writer, moderator, admin staff member, or other user on photo.net, our forums are not the place to air that laundry. While spirited debate is interesting and educational, namecalling is not. Please do not engage in it in the future.

[personalphotos]

Pint understood and taken Josh. My apologies to Paul for some unwarranted choice of words. We do all, after all have a right to our opinions.