The figures are generally better across the board compared to the other focal lengths you've posted - this is obviously one of the easier lengths to design for.

I've got the Pentax version, a friend has the Samsung version, in addition I picked up a cheap Samsung version which I subsequently sold on eBay.

Other than the badging, the colour of the trim ring and the profile of the rubber grip I could find absolutely no difference betwen the Pentax and Samsung branded versions - they are very much the same lens in every other way including performance.

Woo-Hoo! In the top ten! Don't I get points for that?

I've never actually used a mirror lens to be honest, although I've seen some half-decent shots from them. Not a big fan of the doughnuts though.

It does actually

I'd always said the Pentacon 50 was very similar to the Pentax M50/1.7 and now I have objective evidence to back that up.

I'd say the the Pancolar was the best of the bunch I mentioned, although the Cassar is the King of the various Tessar designs (which are generally better at tubes/macro work).

Eastern European designs tended to be excellent (Meyer Domiplan / Isco Iscotar excepted), it's just the build quality that can be a little hit-and-miss. Get a good one though...

No Eastern Bloc lenses tested then John?

I'd be interested to see how contemporary Helios-44, CZJ Tessar, CZJ Pancolar and Steinheil Cassars all stacked up in a lab test.

Although there's more to any lens than figures can show of course...

Time for a little demonstration!

I just popped out to my garden to take these, they're not great photos but I hope they illustrate the point I was trying to make. All were taken at ISO200, daylight WB and f/5.6 - all are uncropped (just re-sized for web use).

The first shows a fairly typical scene that could be taken with pretty much any lens with a 35mm focal length:

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/35dist.jpg[/IMG]

The second was taken at a distance of 30cm - this is typically the closest distance a "normal" 35mm lens will allow you to focus to:

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/35norm.jpg[/IMG]

The DA35 Macro lets you get a lot closer though. This was taken at the minimum distance of 13.9cm:

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/35macr.jpg[/IMG]

As you can see, the macro facility allows you to get very close to your subject so that you can shoot pictures that you simply can't with a traditional lens of 35mm length. This is what I meant when I was talking about getting interesting perspectives on your everyday photography - small details can become wonderful photos in their own right.

Here's another quick comparison, again at ISO200-Sunny-f/5.6 but with the 35 and 100 macro lenses compared. There has been no cropping to these either, just re-sizing for the web.

First here's two shots that show a scene as you could capture it on a traditional (non-macro) lens. The first is from the DA35 at around 30cm (typical closest focussing distance for a normal 35mm lens), the second is from the D-FA100 at around 100cm (typical closest focussing distance for a normal 100mm lens):

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/norm35.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/norm100.jpg[/IMG]

Although the dimensions of the main subject (the pink cyclamens) are roughly similar, the 35mm lens reveals more of the background and has a greater depth-of-field despite both lenses being set to the same f/5.6. Of course the 100mm lens allowed me to stand further away from the subject to get the picture.

The following two shots were both taken at the minimum focus distance for each lens (DA35 first, D-FA100 second):

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/macr35.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/macro%20comparisons/macr100.jpg[/IMG]

Once again the subject is approximately the same size on the final image (as it should be as both lenses are rated at having a reproduction ratio of 1:1), the difference is that with the DA35 the distance from the sensor to the subject is 13.9cm (front lens element almost touching the flower!) whereas with the D-FA100 the distance from sensor to subject is 30.3cm (giving a healthy gap between the front of the lens and the flower).

As a superb quality, general purpose, walk around lens (that also happens to take macro picures) then the DA35 is perfect.

As an insect-chasing lens that also happens to double-up as a useful portrait lens then the D-FA100 is a better choice.

I'm sure you'd be very pleased with either of these lenses (hence there being "no right or wrong" answer) but if I could choose just one of them then I think the DA35 would win simply because of its versatility and stunning image / build qualities.

I concur and I'd also like to add that certain K-mount lenses (like the FA77 for example) require a permanent modification to work on FF Canons in order to avoid fouling the mirror (APS-C Canons don't have that problem so it's just an adapter required).

You'd still have the Pentax glass but you'd lose too much functionality to make it worth doing unless you *have* to have a FF DSLR and happen to have a lot of FA (and prior) glass going spare.

I paid £280 for mine too but comparing it to other current lens prices I reckon it is still good value at £475.

I did exactly the same thinking, ended up with the 35 and don't really want the 31 any more. Which has saved me a few bob.

My reaction to the photos I took on my first outing with it made my jaw drop, and I hadn't actually used its macro capabilities once! Now I'm happy to travel with it as my only lens and love the fact that I'm not limited to how close I can go into my subjects. I would have liked it to be an f/2 lens rather than f/2.8 but then it would have been as big and heavy as the 31 so I guess I can live with that compromise.

Thirded as a cracker!