Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 24, 2008, 9:50 AM   #1
Senior Member
DigitalAddict's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 373

Just wondering, what are your thoughts on this new lens?

It seems to be the equivalent of the 50mm F2.8 macro on full-frame. This used to be quite popular back in the days as the normal lens with the extra macro capability. Very useful for landscapes etc

I know that there are many macro shooters on this forum: can you comment on the usefulness of this lens for macro/close-up work?

One thing I noticed is that it only goes up to F22. I shoot with D-FA 50mm F2.8 macro and when getting close to 1:1 I often go to F27 or even F32. I loose sharpness but I get what I want in focus. Do you go beyond F22 when shooting?


DigitalAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 24, 2008, 11:06 AM   #2
Senior Member
bper's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 454

I shoot a lot of wildflower pics and use the M50 macro a lot. The one problem I see is that with a 35mm, you will need to be pretty close to your subject. I like to use a tripod or monopod to compose and get sharp pictures. Moving in close on small flowers istricky with a tripod. I seldom shoot at F22, because often I don't want the background in focus. I like f8 and f11, but with a 1:1 macro up close, I can see F22 or beyond. The M50 is only.5:1.

I am leaning toward a DFA100 macro, which would be the same as 150 on film. This would give me more distance to work with my tripod and monopod. The DFA100 is priced quite a bitless than the 35mm macro, but it is not a limited. I have been using my 18-55mm for some flowers and it does well also and gets me to within about 8".

For those upgrading to the K20D, I would think you have a lot you can crop with having 14mp at your disposal. Maybe you wouldn't even need a macro with that camera. I guess it all depends what you shoot. If you shoot ants, you need a macro.

When the 35mm macro was introduced last year, I thought that would be a neat lens, but now that I look at what I do, I'm not so sure. I think you have to ask yourself, what am I going to do and how am I going to do it. Everyone is different. I wonder how the quality compares between the DFA50, DFA100 and the DA35. It would be interesting to see some comparison pictures- Bruce
bper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2008, 6:38 PM   #3
Senior Member
mtngal's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,177

I prefer the 100mm range because I'm another that wants to stand off more. 35mm would be nice for someone who can get close to their subjects, and I would assume as a limited, it would be a really nice lens. I usually don't use much smaller apertures than f16, might go to f20 in some cases. With a 100mm lens I don't worry about getting the background in focus, unless I've had to stand too far away.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2008, 6:47 PM   #4
Senior Member
robar's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590

i've been wondering the exact thing.. why would anyone want a 35mm macro?? i can see absolutely no advantage to this lens.. i use a 105mm and want a 150mm or 180mm.. my thoughts?? why put R&D into a lens that i see as something that's not goint to sell much.. of course with the crop factor this would be fairly close to a 50mm in 35mm terms..

oh, bruce.. that's a1:5 ratio.. 5:1 is 5 times life size kind of like this

robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2008, 11:24 PM   #5
Senior Member
snostorm's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770

robar wrote:
oh, bruce.. that's a 1:5 ratio.. 5:1 is 5 times life size kind of like this
Hi Roy,

He wrote .5:1 or more commonly 1:2 -- I know -- you just wanted to show off your drangonfly again. . . as well you should! :-)

Actually, I've been wondering about the 35 macro since they announced it -- I'd imagine that the best standard use for the lens would be copying documents or prints. It probably has an extremely flat field of focus and an appropriate working distance on a copy stand.

snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2008, 11:56 PM   #6
Senior Member
bper's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 454

Thanks Scott, I guess I wrote it wrong, but my heart was in the right place. Anyway Roy, how's this for a macro. Taken with the lowly DA18-55 at 45mm, F22. It's a partial crop taken with my DL. Don't count the 18-55mm out, it's not a bad lens and focuses fairly close. I can also use my Hoyo close-up lens set on it if I want to get closer.

If you use the DA18-55mm on the new K20D, thinkof the small crops you could dig out of it. I guess that's why they came out with a new lens with more resolution. I wonder if any of the other lenses will not have enough resolution for the new K20D?That may be one reason to stay with the lower mp's - Bruce

bper is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:50 PM.