Macros: Can some one compare DFA100 and DA35?

[waynes]

I have a DFA 100. Very sharp. But I do not do macro much. Now if I get a portrait lens like DA70, I might use DFA 100 even less.

But I do not want totally give up the macro. In the spring I can shoot flowers occasionally.

I'd like to hear from you, esp those who have both.

Thanks.

 

[Irek J]

Search online for photozone and you will see a review for each. Both lenses are excellent optics.

 

[Stephenhampshire]

The 100mm macro is fine for flowers! Both 35mm and 100mm are great lenses. However the 35mm is probably a more flexible option, especially if you are not looking to do a lot of 1:1 macro, flower shots are often between 1:2 and 1:4 in my experience. The 70mm is a lovely lens,( on my hit list for next year)In 35mm days 90-105mm was my preferred portrait range, so this is the APS-C equivalent
--
Everything changes

 

[waynes]

I know that. But 35 macro can give wider background, right?

 

[Stephenhampshire]

Nice shot! I find the 100mm good for some of my train shots too, for a general standard lens I have the 35mm F2.4 DAL- but not used it for any flower shots yet.

Pity the Tamrom 60mm macro is not available in Pentax, that might be an alternative to the 70mm for you!
--
Everything changes

 

[waynes]

Thank. Just did that.

I still want to hear about the focus speed, feels, etc etc....

Also would like to know if Tamron 17-50 and DA35macro are an overkill for that range.

Search online for photozone and you will see a review for each. Both lenses are excellent optics.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

I don't have the DFA100/2.8 but the Sigma 105/2.8 macro, which is near enough. I also have both the DA35/2.8 ltd and the DA70/2.4 ltd. They are all pretty different: in particular, the difference between 35 and 100-ish is huge.

FOV first - the linear ratio is almost 3 so the area covered differs by a factor of about 8. This is a shot with the DA35 (the only lens I had with me)



and this is a crop more or less equivalent of 100mm



Handling as macro - for true 1:1 macro the 35 takes you so close the subject is inside the hood unless you retract it. 100mm gives you a lot more working distance for really close work. Pull back a bit and the difference is in the background: 35mm can show context while 100 concentrates on the subject; which is preferable varies from shot to shot.

DOF - for a given subject from a given distance DOF is the same for any lens, of course. But go closer with a 35mm to get the subject the same size and you get deeper DOF. This applies to both general shooting and macro.
Even if I'd had the FOV at 100mm this shot would have been cramped for DOF.



Portraits - all three lenses are good for portraits: it just depends how close or far back you want to, or can, work.
DA35/2.8



DA70/2.4



Sigma 105/2.8



--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

 

[waynes]

Thanks, Gerry.

That crop is very impressive. So detailed and sharp.

At least the 35 should focus a lot faster than 100, right?

Can some one show some 35 macro flowers?

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Thanks, Gerry.

You're welcome.> That crop is very impressive. So detailed and sharp.
Thanks.

At least the 35 should focus a lot faster than 100, right?

My experience is that 9 times out of 10 it's instantaneous. If you change subject distance a lot between shots it can take a short but noticable time to adjust. Occasionally it goes haywire and hunts, but you can grab the QS ring to get it close in that case. My Sigma 105 fits much the same description, although perhaps a just a bit slower. I can't answer for the DFA100 but I'd be surprised if the diference is huge.

Can some one show some 35 macro flowers?

Real macro or close-ups? These are somewhere between.









This link is to the PBase lens samples system page for the DA35/2.8. Keep clicking on "more" in the band above the images, and click a thumbnail if you want a bigger view.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/pentax/smc_da_35_28_macro_limited

--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

 

[Irek J]

I don't own the DA 35 but used it a few times. The DA 35 is a bit faster focusing and that's subjective as I find my DFA 100 to be quite good as well and never failed me, I use the quick shift all the time to pre-focus and I don't use a macro for fast tracking subjects.

Remember that 35mm and 100mm macro lenses are miles apart. The perspective will change a lot. I find the DA 35 MACRO a specialty lens, I guess so is the DFA 100 but no other modern 100mm Pentax prime exists. If you don't plan to shoot macro at the 35mm region then consider the DA L 35/2,4 which is excellent and focus speed is lightning fast.

The Tamron is good especially in the 35mm region, but not as good in the contrast and colour department compared to the DA 35. If you plan to shoot some close range subject matter than the DA 35 is top class, otherwise the Tamron should do you a lot of good. Test the Tamron first because I personally don't like how that lens renders the scene, optical distortions which are not pleasing to my eyes...personal matter I guess

 

[leopold]

Hi,

i have both the DFA 100mm WR and the DA35 Ltd, as for focus speed i'm not the best one since i nearly never use AF when taking photos. Both are very sharp, it's more a matter of what you need, FOV is very different. I habitually prefer longer Macro lens for close-up but sometimes what you need is the DA 35 Ltd, for normal distance shooting they both do very well.
--
Leopold
Pentax forever
http://smarcoux.zenfolio.com/

 

[Roentarre30]

2 very different focal lengths to actually compare.

--
Roentarre, Melbourne, Australia
http://www.mydailysomething.com

 

[waynes]

Thanks everyone for the help.

I asked because I don't do macro often, and never do bug eyes. And I am buying a DA70, thus will use 100mm even less.

Maybe a 35 macro is better for me. I can do a single flower now then a flower field the next second.

 

[waynes]

Nice flowers Gerry!

 

[martweb]

I have both lenses. DA 35 is perfect for shooting flowers, but for shooting bugs and bees DFA 100 is more suiting because of the longer distance.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

I asked because I don't do macro often, and never do bug eyes. And I am buying a DA70, thus will use 100mm even less.

You can use the DA70 for flowers too:



And if you can find a set of auto extension tubes you can get in very close with it too. This peppercorn has 65mm of extension tube and a 2X TC on (and is cropped a bit too).

Maybe a 35 macro is better for me. I can do a single flower now then a flower field the next second.

This is the devil of LBA. Just keep saving ...

--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

 

[Stephenhampshire]

Ooooo nice, definitely need a 70mm ltd!
--
Everything changes

 

[waynes]

"The devil of LBA"? Haha.

There is no limit to want those limited.....

 

[waynes]

Tamron 17-50 is a wonderful lens and very sharp. It is wider than DA17-70 (I returned). It can shoot flowers and leaves very well too. The distortion can easily be corrected with Element 8.

The distortion correction of the landscape or flowers can satisfy our eyes. But for group pics of people, the distortion correction (to those who on the sides of the pictures) never seem to be perfect. Can DA35macro do better for group pictures? And shoot food dishes better?

The Tamron is good especially in the 35mm region, but not as good in the contrast and colour department compared to the DA 35. If you plan to shoot some close range subject matter than the DA 35 is top class, otherwise the Tamron should do you a lot of good. Test the Tamron first because I personally don't like how that lens renders the scene, optical distortions which are not pleasing to my eyes...personal matter I guess

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Tamron 17-50 is a wonderful lens and very sharp. It is wider than DA17-70 (I returned). It can shoot flowers and leaves very well too. The distortion can easily be corrected with Element 8.

The distortion correction of the landscape or flowers can satisfy our eyes. But for group pics of people, the distortion correction (to those who on the sides of the pictures) never seem to be perfect. Can DA35macro do better for group pictures? And shoot food dishes better?

Our eyes are roughly spherical so the lens-retina distance stays roughly constant no matter how wide the view we look at. Camera sensors are flat, though, so the lens-sensor distance increases towards the edges of images. This means that if the image is made truly rectangular - in other words, its distortions are "corrected" - the corners look stretched.

For focal lengths of about 30mm APS-C (45mm FF equivalent) or more this stretching is so small that we don't usually notice it. This is one reason why people say that "normal" lenses have natural-looking perspective.

At 35mm it doesn't matter what lens you use - the stretching simply doesn't show. This is true of the DA35 but it's also true of your DA17-70, Tamron 17-50 or any other lens set to 35mm.

So for groups, food or anything else you must make a choice - shoot from further back and avoid severe distortions or go closer with wider angle and accept the distortions you get. This shot with the DA35/2.8 looks natural enough although if you know the people you can see that the ones at the sides are slightly stretched: but good enough for the purpose (I'm the one holding the remote trigger).



--
Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne