Another thing to consider when selecting a lens for close-ups of flowers, butterflies, etc. is being able to control the background. To me, this is one of the strengths of a longer focal length. The narrower field of view makes it possible to exclude distracting objects which might be in the field of view of a 35mm, but would not be included with a 100mm. It is also possible to blur background objects to a greater degree with a longer lens. Close-ups with bright distracting objects and busy backgrounds are easier to deal with with a longer lens.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Macros: Can some one compare DFA100 and DA35?
- Thread starter waynes
- Start date
Ron Kruger
Senior Member
I've used both extensively for normal and macro. The Tiny Wildflower Macros gallery in my website link below will give you many examples.
I use the 35mm much more for full macro, partly because I fill with flash in AV mode and use f-22 to maximize DOF. The 35mm is possibly the most versatle prime lens on the market, with a detail that is hard to beat. You can shoot almost anything with it. However, it doesn't do infinity well, and the sweet spot (for normal shooting) is f-7.1. The stunning detail also works against you for portraits, unless your subject wants tiny wrinkles and bumps to show more clearly than with the naked eye.
I find myself using the 100mm macro at 100mm more and more, simply because of the way it renders: shoots as if it had a polorizer built in. It is so good, in fact, I often try to find ways to make it work when a different focal length makes more sense.
The last thing in my mind when I bought the 100mm was protraits, but I have discovered that the smooth and rich rendering of this lens and bokeh at f2.8 has made it my favorite portrait lens. Nice creamy skin tones makes even my wife look good.
However, since you seem also set on the 70mm (great lens as well), I would suggest you get the 35mm.
--
In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger
I use the 35mm much more for full macro, partly because I fill with flash in AV mode and use f-22 to maximize DOF. The 35mm is possibly the most versatle prime lens on the market, with a detail that is hard to beat. You can shoot almost anything with it. However, it doesn't do infinity well, and the sweet spot (for normal shooting) is f-7.1. The stunning detail also works against you for portraits, unless your subject wants tiny wrinkles and bumps to show more clearly than with the naked eye.
I find myself using the 100mm macro at 100mm more and more, simply because of the way it renders: shoots as if it had a polorizer built in. It is so good, in fact, I often try to find ways to make it work when a different focal length makes more sense.
The last thing in my mind when I bought the 100mm was protraits, but I have discovered that the smooth and rich rendering of this lens and bokeh at f2.8 has made it my favorite portrait lens. Nice creamy skin tones makes even my wife look good.
However, since you seem also set on the 70mm (great lens as well), I would suggest you get the 35mm.
--
In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger
Thanks.
DFA 100 is great for outdoor portraits. The color is just better than Sigma indoor and outdoor (my feeling). I often found it too long for indoor. I use DA 55-300 for indoor portraits too, and found that 70ish is the most used (outdoor too actually).
I also found 50/1.4 is wonderful for 2 person pics. Good for one person too, but 70is just feels more natural to me.
For group indoors, 50 is often too tight.
DFA 100 is great for outdoor portraits. The color is just better than Sigma indoor and outdoor (my feeling). I often found it too long for indoor. I use DA 55-300 for indoor portraits too, and found that 70ish is the most used (outdoor too actually).
I also found 50/1.4 is wonderful for 2 person pics. Good for one person too, but 70is just feels more natural to me.
For group indoors, 50 is often too tight.
Agree. But for macro, I found f8 is the smallest aperture you can use--my hand hold aperture. Already extremely shallow.
With 35, can we use 4 or even 2.8 sometimes? Also, the wider background is sometimes desirable, right? Even for portraits, some are crazy about Nikon's 24/1.4, just for that wider but fuzzy look..
With 35, can we use 4 or even 2.8 sometimes? Also, the wider background is sometimes desirable, right? Even for portraits, some are crazy about Nikon's 24/1.4, just for that wider but fuzzy look..
Thanks again Gerry. And wonderful (big) family picture.
50mm, 100mm, plus 17-50 are plenty fine for my purpose. They are all very good lenses too. Just think that 70 and 35 are better for single person and multiple persons. Maybe it's just the bad desire for the limited..... It's even better to keep 50 and 100 add 35 and 70, but I would feel a little guilty to tell my wife...heihei.
50mm, 100mm, plus 17-50 are plenty fine for my purpose. They are all very good lenses too. Just think that 70 and 35 are better for single person and multiple persons. Maybe it's just the bad desire for the limited..... It's even better to keep 50 and 100 add 35 and 70, but I would feel a little guilty to tell my wife...heihei.
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
I've begun using my wife's FA77 reversed for macro photography - wow!
There are no K Mount to 49mm filter thread reversal rings available anywhere, but I got hold of a K to 52, and the used a 52 to 49 step ring. Worked like a charm
!
I have the Tamron 90 macro as well, but the 77 is such a nice lens!
--
tord (at) mindless (dot) com
There are no K Mount to 49mm filter thread reversal rings available anywhere, but I got hold of a K to 52, and the used a 52 to 49 step ring. Worked like a charm
!I have the Tamron 90 macro as well, but the 77 is such a nice lens
!--
tord (at) mindless (dot) com
bienenbernd
Senior Member
I find myself more often using a 50mm macro than the DFA100.
I have the 77, too, and in this way the DFA100 isn't used much.
Bernd
--
I have the 77, too, and in this way the DFA100 isn't used much.
Bernd
--
bienenbernd
Senior Member
I can quote that. I have an old achromatic macro lens with 49mm thread, that is fine on the 77.I've begun using my wife's FA77 reversed for macro photography - wow!
There are no K Mount to 49mm filter thread reversal rings available anywhere, but I got hold of a K to 52, and the used a 52 to 49 step ring. Worked like a charm
I have the Tamron 90 macro as well, but the 77 is such a nice lens
--
tord (at) mindless (dot) com
Bernd
--
Hand-holding isn't a problem for me because I shoot almost all close-ups with a tripod. The exception would be moving subjects such as butterflies for which I use a 70-200 F2.8 Tamron which focuses close enough for all but small butterflies and gives a working distance which doesn't scare the subjects as much. Since you seem to prefer working hand-held, the 35 might be a better choice.
ozdean
Forum Pro
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
Thanks a lot.
Both are very sharp.
A little unfair for the background. For 35mm, one can use f4 or even f2.8.
Both are very sharp.
A little unfair for the background. For 35mm, one can use f4 or even f2.8.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum