My recommendations will pretty much echo what Jan and Steve and others have
already said.
I have the 21mm, 35mm macro, 40mm, and 100mm macro lenses you mention.
- The 21mm is always included in my travel kit.
- The 35mm is pretty much always on one of my cameras.
- I haven’t used the 40mm since I got the 35mm.
- I seldom use the 100 macro any more. I carry it (and an A-50mm) when
hunting flowers etc. but will usually use either the 35mm or 200mm macro. If I
didn’t have the 200mm, I would be using the 100mm most of the time, not the
35mm.
I find 35mm to be too wide a FOV for most macro work but it is a great lens for
near-far compositions (e.g., single flower or cluster of flowers in the
foreground, interesting landscape in the background).
So, I wouldn’t buy the 35mm for its macro capability. But it is a wonderful
lens, a joy to shoot with, and the macro aspect is a nice bonus.
Of the lenses you’ve mentioned, if you buy only one, I would go with the 21mm.
Image quality may be slightly under that of the 35mm, but it does have that
wider FOV essential for many streetscapes and landscapes. And you already have
the 100 macro.
If I were assembling a “minimal” prime-lens kit, it would include 15mm, 21mm,
35mm macro, 55mm, and 100mm macro. Plus maybe the 300mm for long range work.
If I were assembling a basic kit built around zooms, it would include 12-24mm,
16-50mm, and 60-250mm. If I didn’t need the reach of the 60-250, I would be
happy instead with the 50-135 + 1.4x telextender.
stan
On May 22, 2014, at 8:38 AM, Jan van Wijk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Wed, 21 May 2014 12:31:18 -0400 Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
>>
>> OK, if I do acquire a "new to me" K-5II or IIs, I should get a good
>> fixed focal length lens to go with it. Currently, I use the 18-135
>> zoom, the 100mm f2.8 macro and the DA 50mm f1.8 with my K-r.
>>
>> I was looking at the 21mm f3.2 DA AL Limited, the 35mm f2.8 macro
>> limited and the 40mm f2.8 DA limited. Which have people here found
>> the most useful and versatile? Which (if any) do you prefer for image
>> quality?
>
> I have the 21mm and the 35mm macro.
>
> Both perform well, but I use the 35mm MUCH more than the 21.
> Somehow it FOV suits me better, and of course it does 1:1 macro
> which is extremely useful for me in the field.
>
>> I am concerned that the 40 might be too close to the 50 I use now. Is
>> it significantly better in image quality?
>>
>> I have the 100 macro; will the 35 macro allow me to do things I can't
>> with the 100? I know the 35 limited is a lot more modern, but I
>> really have no complaints about the 100 macro, aside from the shaky
>> hand behind the lens.
>
> Larger FOV, but that is not always an advantage for macro.
> It IS an advantage when you want you use it as the only lens ...
>
> It is one of my sharpest lenses for sure.
>
> Regards, JvW
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com
> Flickr : jvw_pentax
>
--
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.
