Re: DA 35/2.8 macro vs. FA 35/2 or DA/2.4
Hello Igor, On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:52:50 -0500 (EST) Igor Roshchin wrote: About 2 months ago, there was a thread about FA35/2. Interestingly, that while people have mentioned DA35/2.4, and a few other 35s, nobody mentioned DA 35/2.8 macro. I am not sure how spread it is amongs the PDML crowd :-) I did not have an AF 35 mm (but do have the limited 31mm), and since I like to do a lot of macro work, I did get one right after it came out. Like all Pentax macro's it is quite sharp. It also has a good bokeh, important for macro backgrounds. For an example seen my PUG submission for november: http://pug.komkon.org/12nov/slides/JVW-K5_20923.jpg How is DA 35/2.8 macro in comparison to either FA35/2 or DA35/2.4 (or even 16-50/2.8)? Never did a pixel-peep compare on that, but in use it is quite nice, not too big, and really versatile due to its (handheld) macro capability, and relatively fast with f/2.8. The AF is not that fast, and it can hunt a bit due to the long range it can handle. Together with the 18-135 WA zoom, this is probably the most used lens on my K5. It is also a good one to use on the Q, with a K-to-Q converter, equivalent to a 180mm or so, and going all the way to 1:1 (which is something like 4x6 mm on the Q) Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- 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.
Re: DA 35/2.8 macro vs. FA 35/2 or DA/2.4
I'd love to try the macro. Right now I'm looking for the DA35 as I've heard nothing bad about it, though the FA would be preferable once FF come out (and with due honor shown to Jerry Pournelle) Real Soon Now. -- 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.
Re: DA 35/2.8 macro vs. FA 35/2 or DA/2.4
On 19/11/2012 11:52 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote: Hi All: About 2 months ago, there was a thread about FA35/2. Interestingly, that while people have mentioned DA35/2.4, and a few other 35s, nobody mentioned DA 35/2.8 macro. How is DA 35/2.8 macro in comparison to either FA35/2 or DA35/2.4 (or even 16-50/2.8)? My completely non scientific thoughts. I can't say anything bad about the FA35/2. It's a competent lens hidden behind an el cheapo, plastic fantastic facade. The 35/2.8LTD is a glorious little lens. It may well be the best all round lens ever made. It isn't the fastest thing around, but it is a really, really nice little lens. As far as standard lenses go, for me it is a too up between the 31 and the 35/2.8. I like the speed of the 31, and anyone who talks about it's legendary imaging qualities is most certainly downplaying it's qualities, but anyone talking about the 35LTD is doing the same thing. It really is a wonderful little lens, and well worth the price. Thank you in advance, yer welcome -- William Robb -- 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.
Re: DA 35/2.8 macro vs. FA 35/2 or DA/2.4
El 20/11/2012 6:52, Igor Roshchin escribió: Hi All: About 2 months ago, there was a thread about FA35/2. Interestingly, that while people have mentioned DA35/2.4, and a few other 35s, nobody mentioned DA 35/2.8 macro. How is DA 35/2.8 macro in comparison to either FA35/2 or DA35/2.4 (or even 16-50/2.8)? I had both the FA 35mm 2.0 and the Limited macro. To summarize my experience with those lenses, I'd say that they are both excellent, but if I had to choose one of them, I'd stay with the FA35/2 because I found it better suited for general photography and also because I prefer its rendering capabilities. It also focuses faster and being faster it is a better lens in low light environments. The Lim. is better built and has quick shift, but I think the FA35 is better for non-macro photographers. The DA35 is said to be a kind of low cost FA35 with no QS and plastic bayonet, having the same optical design of the FA but half a stop slower. Carlos -- 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.
Re: DA 35/2.8 macro vs. FA 35/2 or DA/2.4
Thanks to everyone who posts on this thread. The 35 macro is high on my wishlist as it seems like nearly a perfect prime for photowalks in the woods, as a lot of what looks interesting to shoot are things like flowers, ferns, and small invertebrates. On Nov 21, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Carlos R. wrote: El 20/11/2012 6:52, Igor Roshchin escribió: Hi All: About 2 months ago, there was a thread about FA35/2. Interestingly, that while people have mentioned DA35/2.4, and a few other 35s, nobody mentioned DA 35/2.8 macro. How is DA 35/2.8 macro in comparison to either FA35/2 or DA35/2.4 (or even 16-50/2.8)? I had both the FA 35mm 2.0 and the Limited macro. To summarize my experience with those lenses, I'd say that they are both excellent, but if I had to choose one of them, I'd stay with the FA35/2 because I found it better suited for general photography and also because I prefer its rendering capabilities. It also focuses faster and being faster it is a better lens in low light environments. The Lim. is better built and has quick shift, but I think the FA35 is better for non-macro photographers. The DA35 is said to be a kind of low cost FA35 with no QS and plastic bayonet, having the same optical design of the FA but half a stop slower. Carlos -- 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. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: DA 35/2.8 macro vs. FA 35/2 or DA/2.4
I cannot compare DA35/2,8 macro to either DA35/2,4 or FA35/2. But I know DA35/2,8 is a very good lens. You will find technical details on photozone, but I could mention that this lens has a suprisingly fast autofocus. It is perfectly usable as a universal lens used for almost everything. Stig Vidar Hovland Fra: PDML [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] p#229; vegne av Igor Roshchin [s...@komkon.org] Sendt: 20. november 2012 06:52 To: PDML@pdml.net Emne: DA 35/2.8 macro vs. FA 35/2 or DA/2.4 Hi All: About 2 months ago, there was a thread about FA35/2. Interestingly, that while people have mentioned DA35/2.4, and a few other 35s, nobody mentioned DA 35/2.8 macro. How is DA 35/2.8 macro in comparison to either FA35/2 or DA35/2.4 (or even 16-50/2.8)? Thank you in advance, Igor -- 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. -- 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.
DA 35/2.8 macro vs. FA 35/2 or DA/2.4
Hi All: About 2 months ago, there was a thread about FA35/2. Interestingly, that while people have mentioned DA35/2.4, and a few other 35s, nobody mentioned DA 35/2.8 macro. How is DA 35/2.8 macro in comparison to either FA35/2 or DA35/2.4 (or even 16-50/2.8)? Thank you in advance, Igor -- 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.
