Da 35mm vs DA 40mm

I wonder if anyone has been able to make a hands-on comparison of the DA 35mm f2.8 and the DA 40mm f2.8? I have a copy of the DA 35mm and while it's a super lens in many respects I'm not sure it's quite right for me. Being a macro, it is quite hefty and I have found that it can be a little slow to focus and hunts around a bit when used for general walk-about stuff. I'm wondering whether the 40mm might be better for that. In which case I could put the DA 35mm up for sale as a grub stake for a new lens. As for macro, I'd like to use a 100mm lens for flowers, critters and other close-up stuff as the working distance is greater, so I don't mind losing this at 35mm. Getting a couple of inches away from a bumblebee when using the 35mm is fine, but I'm not so keen on the idea with wasps and spiders. On the other hand, if experienced folk think there's not really much difference, changing isn't likely to be worth it.

Well I do have the 40mm and it locks on very fast. Excellent lens. Unfortunately I can't compare it with the 35mm macro. Except to say that 35mm is not a focal length I would choose as a macro lens.

The 100mm Macro is perfect for small insects, much better to have the greater working distance.

Despite the close focal lengths this is a bit like trying to compare Tuesday to a ball of string. I have the 40mm and it is without doubt my favourite lens. It suits my 'eye' very well and, as you know, its tiny. For me it is perfect as a walk-about lens and it is very crisp. It also focuses very quickly indeed because there is hardly any travel.

Ken

Like John I got the 40mm when Amazon offered it at a very reasonable £216 (maybe still do?), without being too sure it was right. Since then I have grown to love it for several reasons. First, the fov is very close to what you see, so you can frame shots in your mind very easily before bringing up the camera. Second, the quality even at 2.8 is superb and a lot of my pictures can cope with a 2x "zoom" in pp no problem. Lastly, the size means that I can take the camera to places I would not normally (like in my pc backpack for work.) And lastly lastly, you can't help but love the tiny yet perfectly formed thing, with it's unique lenscap!! No-brainer

Tony

PS I also have the Sigma 105mm for macro, and I find this also works well as a "normal" lens

That is the strangest lens hood/lens cap arrangement I have ever seen. Does the trick though!

The daftest thing is the Pentax logo on the back of the lens cap. It has a 30.5mm thread so I can use all the filters I have for my 500mm mirror Tamron.

Truth is I've never used them ever, apart from the UV which is permanently on the Tamron, on either lens.

Ken

Still there, through a Market Place seller, at £216

The same seller has: DA 14 f2.8 at £435; DA* 16-50 at £600; DA* 50-135 at £627; DFA 100 macro at £410; DFA 50 macro at £319; DA 12-24 at £533 ...

All of which are low prices - and they do seem to be in the UK and include VAT. How can they keep the prices so low?

I can vouch for them as well - excellent service and well packaged, pristine product.

Tony

They probably had/have a lot of stock bought in under the old pricing structure.

Seriously, just practise manual focussing. It's faster - only you know the precise point you want to focus on - and it's more accurate.

The raison d'etre of the 35mm macro is that it is a capable general purpose lens with a true macro capability.

But it is a compromise. It's too short focus to be perfect for macro. It's too slow to be an ideal standard lens.

Massive? Hardly. To replace it, you need the 100mm macro and maybe the 40mm as well, though that is also too slow to be ideal. The two together are somewhat more massive.

...and I remember when auto-focus first came out - we were all very sceptical; surely these cameras couldn't do a better job Trouble is, we've lost the split prism and without that I'm afraid the AF tends to win it for me!

Tony

[quote:3496ace15f="TonyM"]Luckily for me the plain gound glass suits my eyes best, so I'm well served by the standard item. Better and free, that is unusual.

Thanks for the replies, folks. Yes, it was those deals on Amazon that first caught my interest. I will probably press the button over the next few days, and if so I'll report back. My guess is that if one can acquire a 40mm f2.8 for just over 200 squids it is pretty hard to resist because even if it turned out to be a complete mistake, one could instantly pass it on for almost the same amount.

Yes, I am increasingly using manual focus especially for creating a special effect. But tbh I don't find the clear glass screen of the k-m all that easy to focus with and so autofocus remains very useful.

Is this still the view of the peps that have both that the 40 is the better general purpose lens.

Jim

I went for the DA40 over the DA35 and haven't regret it.
If you don't need the macro or the extra 5mm the DA40 is cheaper, lighter and has faster AF.