Thanks to everyone who posts on this thread. The 35 macro is high on my wishlist as it seems like nearly a perfect prime for photowalks in the woods, as a lot of what looks interesting to shoot are things like flowers, ferns, and small invertebrates.
On Nov 21, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Carlos R. wrote: > El 20/11/2012 6:52, Igor Roshchin escribió: >> >> >> Hi All: >> >> About 2 months ago, there was a thread about FA35/2. >> Interestingly, that while people have mentioned DA35/2.4, and a few >> other 35s, nobody mentioned DA 35/2.8 macro. >> >> How is DA 35/2.8 macro in comparison to either FA35/2 or DA35/2.4 >> (or even 16-50/2.8)? >> > > I had both the FA 35mm 2.0 and the Limited macro. To summarize my experience > with those lenses, I'd say that they are both excellent, but if I had to > choose one of them, I'd stay with the FA35/2 because I found it better suited > for general photography and also because I prefer its rendering capabilities. > It also focuses faster and being faster it is a better lens in low light > environments. The Lim. is better built and has quick shift, but I think the > FA35 is better for non-macro photographers. > > The DA35 is said to be a kind of low cost FA35 with no QS and plastic > bayonet, having the same optical design of the FA but half a stop slower. > > Carlos > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
