DA40

Another vote for the 40 here, Its rapidly become my most used lense since getting one 2nd hand in the spring. Though I seem to have developed the habit of fitting the grip to my '20 every time the DA40 is fitted, its either me subconsiously trying to compensate for the lack of weight (the body feels as though it has no lense fitted) or the fact that the whole ensemble looks so damn cool with the grip and 40 on together!

Rather uselessly, I've come to the conclusion that I will at some point need both: the DA40 as an auxiliary portrait lens, the DA35 for indoor closeish (the DFA50 has had me in contortions trying to fit stuff in the frame at times ) and landscape. The question is which I go with now, since the chances of me ever getting the other one will be greatly diminished - first because of money, and second because my next purchase after this one (likely to be next year) would be a DA70.

I have both and use the 35mm more. I mainly take just one lens on the camera when out with the dog and as I mostly visit the forest the macro capability is handy (if a bit short) and its slightly wider than the 40mm for (not so wide) landscapes.


The DA 70mm is lovely ...

Go with the DA35 then, like Mike I doubt you will actually use both equally and you've the need for the macro feature.

You could buy my M 40mm and have loads of dosh left over for the 35.

Isn't it supposed to be dreadful? Also, since one of the main attractions of the DA40 (for me) is fast AF...

The previous 40 is very good, it just has fewer iris blades and the focussing is lightning fast and scarily accurate

I used to have DA40. Great lens, as sharp from f2.8 as photozone suggests and as evenly spread sharpness across the frame as they suggest too!
At the end I swapped it for FA43 because of the stop difference and easier MF, even if AF is bit slower.
But if you are short of cash for 43 go with 40. You won't regret!

I too believed the reviews of the old M 40mm, then I bought one. It's now my favoured lens when I need the smallest possible camera. Currently it's attached to my Super A with a fresh roll of HP5 installed, awaiting the next urge I have to go and shoot some film.

Don't get drawn into paying over £100 for them, as they're not especially rare and the cheaper 50mm f1.7 leaves it standing in image quality. But if you want a very small but decent lens it's worth hunting for a good one.

I'm pretty sure thats not one of the reasons I chose the 40 over the 43

you can have whatever reasons you want, I just expressed my opinion...

I have started using the 35mm along with the 1.7x pentax teleconverter,
It's that good I am thinking of selling my Sigma 70mm macro.

I wonder what the magnification is .. seems a fair bit more than 1:1

That's quite easy, it would be 1,7/1
The focus distance stays the same but you multiply the focal length with that number so the magnification increase like wise.

How close does the front element gets to the subject, it must be very close I think.

If I remember correctly you bought a Sigma 180 a few months ago, how does that one work with the 1.7 TC?

The front element is VERY close to the subject

Not had a reason to try the 1.7x with the Sigma 180mm, I have the Sigma DG EX 2x teleconverter for that anyway so it should give me 2:1.

Hmmm, now wondering about putting the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters on the Sigma 70mm macro .. but going rather off thread now so a topic for another (sunny) day.

The DA35, as far as I can tell from review, essentially has no minimum focus distance worthy of the name

I wish Sigma hadn't stopped making that 180 in Pentax mount