on 2014-05-21 10:31 Daniel J. Matyola wrote
I was looking at the 21mm f3.2 DA AL Limited, the 35mm f2.8 macro limited and the 40mm f2.8 DA limited. Which have people here found the most useful and versatile? Which (if any) do you prefer for image quality?
i have not used the 21 or the 40; my sequence of ownership of primes i've really liked (all Pentax with one exception): A 50/1.7, Sigma EX 105/2.8 macro, FA 28/2.8, DA 15/4, DA 35/2.8 macro …
i got the 35 only a couple of months ago, and it has so far completely displaced the 28, largely displaced the 50, and it is edging in on the 105 macro's duties; when i traveled to Copenhagen recently, i took only the 35 and the 15 and used the 35 80% of the time; my typical kit now is just the 35 with the 15 optional
I am concerned that the 40 might be too close to the 50 I use now. Is it significantly better in image quality? I have the 100 macro; will the 35 macro allow me to do things I can't with the 100?
i find the 35 to be more versatile, both in field of view and in convenience (small size, built-in hood), than my Sigma 105; for true macro, the downside is that you have to get quite close to things, but for not-quite-macro i often prefer its field of view, especially for plants; my garden is my muse so by end of summer i will have a more seasoned verdict on the 35; i suspect a 24-28mm macro with other qualities similar to the 35 might appeal to me even more
i still use the 105 macro (and plan to eventually trade it for a Pentax WR 100mm) for serious macro work, but i don't carry it around nearly as much as the 35
after exhausting other used sources i bought the 35 macro from KEH in "EX" condition, which wound up meaning there was the slightest amount of wear on the lens cap
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
