Is this lens a poor choice for non-macro purposes, such as landscape? I have read many unfavourable reviews elsewhere regarding its non-macro output.
583898
This is an excellent all-around lens. As a matter of fact, I prefer using it for just about everything except macro. It does very well for close focusing, but to get true 1:1 macro, you need to be very very close to your subject. I don't know where you've read those unfavorable reviews, but this one is the most versatile Pentax Limited quality lens.
583899
I love this lens, the quality is tremendous and it is very versatile. Excellent lens for just walking around. Color rendition and sharpness make if fine for landscape if the focal length is what you want for your shot. For macro, it is pretty specialized, not so good for tiny subjects since at 35 mm you have to get very close to be 1:1. One of the all time best lenses ever made for flower photography.
583900
This lens functions well whether used in macro mode or as a standard 35 mm lens. The image quality is excellent.
583901
Long autofocus speed is an issue for landscape shots, but besides macros, it excels at portraits and close up shots. Furthermore I don't see anything either bad or good about landscape and general photos taken with this lens. I would definitely not recommend it for a general purpose lens, but as a fantastic portrait lens.
1999605
I would choose something wider for landscaping, but for details and wildlife, this lens is great! As long as you have a lot of light, at least. Its real potencial shows when you use it at f/6.3 or smaller apertures. Hope this helps you.
1101066
do you mean non-AF ? just fine as long as you can focus :). any 1.4 or 2x converter will let you know if the lens you have is good or not since its enlarging the image. the 1.4x is pretty gentile and any decent lens should be ok if stopped down 2-3 stops from wide open.
1474695
Not that this will be of much help, but I'm with you. Ordered a 24mm 1.4 (later returned) expecting the same jaw-dropping results I get from the 85mm 1.4 and it's just not there that I can see. As far as your suggestion of getting closer to your subject for pop - sure, a wide angle lens will really exaggerate the perceived depth of a shot. That's how I'd roll with it for the most part; 2' from the subject (more for DX frame), avoiding top and bottom when shooting vertical (unless you want that edge distortion; maybe not so bad on DX). The sharpness you're looking for also won't exist until you get close enough to your subject to give eyelashes and things of that nature some pixels to work with. At 85mm, it pulls these details in and paints them across, say, 5% of the frame or more. With the 24mm you may be talking about less than 1% of the pixels dedicated to what you're looking for details in. I've seen some REALLY spectacular night landscape images that were made with this lens. Also, the bokeh that lens produces is right on par with the 85mm. The issues I had with the 24mm (and the reasons I returned it) were failure to find focus at 1.4 no matter how much I helped it along and a general lack of spectacular sharpness at 1.4. At this end of the price spectrum, this has to be gold. It's real close, and quite nice at 2.8, but so are lots of lenses at 2.8. That said, I've still got this lens on my mind. If it were a 20mm 1.4 I'd just suck it up and do it. At 24 there are some other close options out there.
1139202
It is very sharp, but the antithesis of a portrait lens. Your best portrait lenses are detailed in a blog on my photo website, and you can read about the uses of this lens on that site as well. www.alantowerphoto.com For portraits I use my 85 mm f/1.2 or my 70 - 200 mm f/2.8. This is a superb landscape lens.
1549361
I use this lens mainly for taking macro pictures of flowers etc with both my Nikon D90 and D7000. I have taken pictures in low light situations and have had noproblem. If I were to take pictures in dance performances though I probably would choose say the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 lens where macro would not necessarily be the issue.Hope this is some help to you.
1241574
I do not if this will help you. I use it for portraits, sports and landscapes. I did not have any problems with it. I use it sometimes with my outside toddler portraits. It is not my main lens for portraits. I usually use my 50mm or 28-135mm.
138091
It is not designated as a macro lens, though I have taken some fairly close-ups which turned out out pretty good. I have not yet taken the lens to its closest focus limit since I do not do many really close-up photos.
1610125
No- the focusing distance is much too far. Great lens- but not for macro work.
933398
This lens does not have macro, or what Nikon labels "micro" focusing capability. I will say, though, that the 24-70/2.8 takes such beautiful images that it stays on my camera about 80-90% of the time. Check out the 105/2.8 "micro-Nikkor" lens for macro as well as good portrait alternative.
1114828
Yes - I believe so, though I've never used it. Mainly macro lenses are more expensive to produce to allow them to focus so close to the subject. This 35mm f/2.4 has become one of my favorite lenses for its sharpness - I often use it to shoot panoramas, although I have an old A-series 50mm f/1.7 and an ancient Takumar 135mm f/2.5 I also use for that. But for the price this 35mm has outstanding image quality.
676894
Hi I like mine a lot. Just be sure you not getting the most powerful one as its too much magnification( the 250) . It's no macro lens but I think it's worth the money
2058093
I am using this lens primarily for sports - synchronized swimming. So far only outdoors (wish you would ask it a few months out -the indoor meet is coming up then). It is a beautiful lens for landscaping or nature shots, but so far i cannot say i am 100% satisfied with it for sports. Based on what i see, i can imagine it might be problematic with low-light conditions and sports as even outdoors it still hunts that focus point. But off course reflections can be the cause, at least for me. It probably as good as we can go at this price point, but definitely do not expect flawless photos. As to comparing it against Tamron - sorry, no experience there.
878261
Yes, this is such a neat compact lens. I particularly like the macro setting. The zoom all happens inside the unit, it is also weatherproof, which is a plus. If you purchase it from me, and for any reason, like it isn't compatible with your camera, I will be happy to issue you a refund and pay for the shipping. It is compatible with all MFT mount cameras.
1398788
It is a great lens for portraits. That's what I primarily use it for. Another good option is an 85mm.
1250345
It's a great lens but I have not used it for portraits. I have used it for travel photography and other family events.
1549363
I've used this lens for macro photography for two+ years and it produces excellent results. It is also fine for portraits. However, it would not be my choice for action shots such as dance programs where the photographer may not be able to adjust his/her distance from the subjects. A better choice might be a good zoom lens from Nikon or Tokina.