35mm f2.8 Macro Limited?

I seem to be taking more and more still life stuff up fairly close and often choose a Tamron 90mm Macro but sometimes the field of view is too narrow so I end up further from the subject than I'd like. I have a kit lens and also a 16-45 but I'm thinking a 35mm Macro may be worth buying. Anyone else use a 35 macro for still life? Any other advice about the lens also welcome.

When I first bought this lens I was impressed with the quality both as a macro lens and as a general walkaround lens, and if I could only have 1 prime lens then this would probably be it! But (there's always a "but") in practice this lens hardly ever gets used now. If I am out walking (camera only and no additional kit) I take the 16-50. Most of the Macro photos I have taken over the last couple of years have been with a 100, or more recently a 50, macro - the 35 just never seems to get a look in.

The only negative point I have found about this lens is that sometime you have to get really quite close to the subject to get the framing you want (the opposite of what you mentioned in your post) - which is fine if your young, nimble and have a back that doesn't need straightening out after crouching for a bee on a flower shot.

My advice would be that if your are also considering a "normal view" prime lens in the near future (i.e. the cheap 35 f2.4 or a 40 f2.8 ) then the DA 35mm f2.8 Ltd is the best all-round answer, and as they can be had for £250 or less second hand, or around £300 new, I believe it is superb value for money.

Sorry for rambling on, but sometimes it helps

I've spent a lot of time with an SLR fitted mainly with a 50mm prime. Initially it was through lack of funds that I went without extra lenses but I found out over time that it suited my style of photography. Having recently bought my first DSLR (a K-r) I researched my options for a digital equivalent. Like you I enjoy close-up photography, so when I saw the positive reviews and comments about the quality of the 35 macro limited I decided it perfectly fit my own particular requirements - a high quality walk around prime in the focal length I prefer with the added bonus of true macro if I wanted it.

The metal bodied lens is beautifully engineered, and a joy to use and handle. Optically it's superb, and the built in lens hood and quick shift focus are both a real boon.

Yes, at true macro you'll be very close to the subject. But my own experience is that most close up's I take are just that - so working distance is actually comfortably manageable. F2.8 is slower than you'll find elsewhere but fine for me outdoors, and okay indoors too with a higher ISO.

I bought mine new from Amazon at £299 and returned the first one for exchange because I wasn't happy about the symmetry of the diaphragm. The replacement is totally fine though and I do tend to be ultra critical. For this reason I'd recommend a new one, or seeing before you buy.

Long story short, it's a fantastic lens built to last and attractively priced for the sheer quality. The construction and feel remind me of the glory days of 35mm and I'm pleased I purchased. You buy I lens to suit your own style, and I know many prefer a longer macro, but for me it works well.

Thanks for your thoughts guys. Can you explain a bit more about the diaphragm symmetry Spaceman as it's not something I think I would have noticed! Was it really that apparent? Thanks again.

I held the loose lens up to a light coloured surface xbow, and manually activated the diaphragm with the lever on the lens mount. I always do this to check the snappiness of the action and the shape of the aperture as it goes through the full range of stops. What I found on the first lens was that the blades closed down to a slightly lop-sided shape occasionally, around the smaller f-stops. It was fine stopping up but down was an issue about 25% of the time. This suggested some play in one of the blades, hence the return. As I said, the new one is perfect and Amazon are always very good about returns so I'm pleased.

At the end of the day the first lens would probably have given results what were fine, but I just didn't want any chance of inconsistency of exposure creeping in!

Does that help?

Very helpful, many thanks!

+1

I have one and am very pleased with it - small, light, sharp, beautiful colours and excellent build.

I use it mainly as a walkaround and when I'm travelling light as a means of shooting landscapes and also having a macro capability without having to lug a 100mm lens around.

In an ideal world, it would be a bit faster and have nicer bokeh (both of which would, I'm sure, lead to compromises in other areas), but for what it is, it is an excellent lens.