35mm limited for K5?

Hi guys,
Long story short: I'm returning my K-5 + kit lens due to sensor stain and decide to buy a K-5 body only + 1 separate lens instead.

Right now I'm very inclined toward the DA limited 35mm f2.8 macro.
The following pro/con comes from what I have researched.

Price: £375 (SRS)
Pro: go from 1:1 to infinity = very versatile, light, good built, decent price, very sharp at macro range
Cons: slow focus due to long focus range, busy/halo bokeh beyond macro range, normal focal length (not wide enough in some situations)
Questions: What is the lens IQ in non-macro range? How slow is the focus speed? Does the K-5 improved AF system help?

Some alternatives I have considered:
Sigma 24mm f1.8 "macro" - £404.99: 36mm equivalent so may be wide enough but designed for FF so big and heavy.
Sigma 85mm f1.4 - £673: great portrait lens but lack versatility and high price (plus I'm definitely getting the DA* 55mm f1.4 in the future)
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.0 - £275: cheapee! but I prefer the 18-135 (which I am also definitely getting to be my travel lens - the tropic needs WR AND range!)
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 - £299: same as above.

So is the 35mm limited a right choice?
Thanks a lot.

Have you not considered the Sigma 28 f/1.8? It would basically be equivalent to a 43 f/2.4 on 135, perfect standard lens and fairly fast.

Was quite slow to focus on my K10D, must admit I haven't got round to mounting it on the K-5 yet

IQ in non macro range ... rather good imo



Home from the Pub by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

Clicky Link

I agree with pretty much everything written in that link. It is truly a Goldilocks lens for me.

Your lens choices are all over the map! None of them are actual "alternatives" to either a 35mm prime or a macro. And if, as you say, you are getting the 18-135 anyway, put all thoughts of other zooms out of your mind (for now).

As for the DA35/2.8 Limited macro, be assured that it is a most excellent lens, essentially a replacement for the old 50mm macro on APS-C. It works as a crystal-clear landscape lens, a good street shooter, a general-purpose snapshot grabber and is the best flower lens I have used. It is almost impossible to take a shot in close-up that doesn't look fantastic.

A few provisos. The focal length does not provide enough clearance for insects, nor the same magnification power as a macro in the 100mm range. It is impossible to manual focus once out of the macro range, since the helicoid is maybe 90% devoted to close focusing. It is for that reason -- and the fact that I simply don't much like 35mm -- that I traded it away. But I would have kept it if I hadn't needed the money.

If you want a single do-everything prime, this is the lens to get. If you don't care so much for macro, save money and get the DA35/2.4 which I have not used but which looks very nice indeed.

35mm macro limited. Well from my experience, the IQ of the lens is very, very good, AF speed on K5, a slight improvement, but macro lenses are not renowned for AF speed anyway. So what makes this lens so good? First of all the colour rendition is stella, the size of it enables you to carry it in any bag, so you can have it to hand and not have to worry about space and weight. It really is a versatile lens that produces great images. If you think hard about what you will use it for you wont have any regrets.

To echo others comments, I have the 35mm macro and love it. Thinking of getting the K5 body also.
Have you seen this review of the 35mm, says it all really -
http://photo.net/columns/mjohnston/pentax-35mm-lens/optical-discussion/

Cheers

Paul

The whole point of a macro lens is that the maximum magnification is always the same 1:1 reproduction regardless of focal length. Technically this means the lens has no magnification as the subject is projected actual size. Focal length of macro lenses only has a bearing on working distance and distant object magnification (and therefore perspective).

There are some magnifying macro lenses such as the Canon 60mm 1:2 lens but they are the exception.

Yes, I was meaning magnification power outside the macro range. My sentence caused confusion by through concise. Sorry about that. Reworded:

As a macro lens, the focal length does not provide enough clearance for insects. Outside the macro range, it does not provide the same magnification power as lens in the 100mm range.

To go further, I'd note that the lens does not provide 1:1 magnification for many subjects since you'd have to get them inside the lens hood!

You haven't looked in the pentax photo gallery then i think
100mm is better for insects but 35mm is not imposable.

he has some nice ones.
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=3947129&subSubSection=0&language=EN

Cheers, guys.
It seems like this lens a very good choice. Thanks a lot.

Not imposable nor even impossible! Merely the wrong tool for the job.

I'm sure 'wrong tool for the job' is a bit strong. Have seen excellent insect macros which are much more interesting than the usual c.100mm shots - 35mm seems to give more of a bug's eye view and immerses you in the macro world. Admit you'd need the patience of a saint shooting butterflies etc, although it has been done. So perhaps not the wrong tool, but one which requires more patience and practise?

I suppose it is the right lens for nits however, since there seems to be a good amount of nit-picking going around.

As a proud owner of the 35 Limited, I can vouch for its image quality in non-macro situations. It's great wide open (I actually like it for small-group portraits), and stopped down to f5.6 or more the sharpness is just silly. Of course like all macro lenses the long focusing range can make it ponderous if the AF misses focus at the first attempt, but it is the least prone to this of the three macro primes I own.