[Flugelbinder]

I've looked around, but there aren't many threads/comparisons, and the ones I did find are already a bit dated.
I have a 35/2.4 that I'm not impressed with, so I will not keep it, although it's a focal length that really works for me... Anyway, the choice is between returning the 35 and get the DA, or (something that just came up) a trade for the F/1.7.
Any thoughts?

[Outis]

I don't know if this is helpful or not, but I was just browsing KEH and they have a ton of older used 50mm lenses: https://www.keh.com/search/list?s=pentax+50mm&category[]=Fixed+Focal+Length+Lenses%2C+Mfg

On the other hand, if you feel very strongly that you want auto aperture and auto focus, this may not be the best option for you.

[manntax]

Never any plastic mount lenses... never PLUS faster glass, better built, with its durability and image quality proven over many years beyond any doubt .. and full frame/ film compatible ! so for me the choice was simple - SMC-F is a winner lens - never gonna part with it ( unless I find a SMC-F 1.4 version :P - then I might consider switching over )

Ah and same goes for 35mm DA lens - when I was out for a one in this focal length and AF - I went straight for a winner to me, the FA 35 F2.0

[robthebloke]

What is it about the da35 you don't like? If you don't like that lens (assuming there is nothing wrong with it?), then really the da50, f50, and fa50 f1.4 aren't going to be to your liking either. You'd be better off looking at a da* or limited.

[Nicolas06]

@Flugelbinder

I don't know what you disliked about DA35 f/2.4 because optically it is a great performer. If it would be general advice, if optically DA35 f/2.4 is no good for you, you might need perfect lenses in the $3000+ range to be potentially happy... Because this is the kind of money you'd need to spend to get something really better. FA31 would start to be noticeably better but you already see even through not $3000, it is not cheap.

But I don't know, maybe it was something very specific like the plastic construction or that you really need something faster and want f/1.4 or nothing... Or maybe you think you really need the curved blade for bokeh.

It is just that reading that you are not happy with DA35 that is better than the DA/F50 I think we need much more detail on what you like and don't like. It must be something specific to me because again this DA35 is of very high level.

As an illustration I have DA15, DA21, DA35, FA50, FA77, DA50-135.

The FA77 is the best lense of all the other, that's for sure. Then it would be DA35 plastic wonder. Then it would be DA50-135, then FA50, then the DA21 & DA15...

[Nicolas06]

Ah and same goes for 35mm DA lens - when I was out for a one in this focal length and AF - I went straight for a winner to me, the FA 35 F2.0

Both DA35 & FA35 share the same optical formula and characteristics. The DA35 works better with digital through because it has been optimized for it and benefit from better coatings. So I wonder, was it after comparing the picture made by you from the 2 lenses that you decided or just because you disliked the finish of the DA?

[Na Horuk]

If you don't like DA 35mm f2.4, then go for F 50mm f1.7 (used) or a FA 50mm f1.4 (can still be bought as new, and of course as used).
The F 50mm f1.7 is, according to reviews, a great optical performer. A weakness is its loud AF, and relatively old lens coatings (though, if you use a good tight lens hood, it won't be a problem. 50mm lenses are resilient designs, don't require top notch space age coatings)

[Flugelbinder]

What is it about the da35 you don't like? If you don't like that lens (assuming there is nothing wrong with it?), then really the da50, f50, and fa50 f1.4 aren't going to be to your liking either. You'd be better off looking at a da* or limited.

That's what I'm afraid of...

---------- Post added 12-25-14 at 01:18 PM ----------

...really need something faster and want f/1.4 or nothing... Or maybe you think you really need the curved blade for bokeh...

The 35 is 'only' 2.4 and has to be stopped down... One needs all the light one can get; and then there's the bokeh, and the DOF...

---------- Post added 12-25-14 at 01:22 PM ----------

If you don't like DA 35mm f2.4, then go for F 50mm f1.7 (used) or a FA 50mm f1.4 (can still be bought as new, and of course as used).
The F 50mm f1.7 is, according to reviews, a great optical performer. A weakness is its loud AF, and relatively old lens coatings (though, if you use a good tight lens hood, it won't be a problem. 50mm lenses are resilient designs, don't require top notch space age coatings)

Thank you.
The AF was a little loud on the 35 already, so I guess there's something usual on screw-driven Pentax lenses - which kind of obscures the almost silent shutter... Are the older F, and FA even louder?

[Nicolas06]

The 35 is 'only' 2.4 and has to be stopped down... One needs all the light one can get; and then there's the bokeh, and the DOF...

If you think the DA35 f/2.4 need to be stopped down to give good picture this is simple... No lense under f/4 will ever satisfy you. DA35 is simple one of the lenses with the best results wide open. I own FA50 f/1.4 that is very similar in rendering to FA50 f/1.7 and F50 or DA50. It really need at least f/4. f/2.8 is okish but far inferior to DA35 @f/2.4. My DA50-135, FA77 and DA35 plastic wonder all render far better at f/2.8 than the FA50 this guy does. And the DA35 & FA77 are the 2 that manage this apperture best.

As for the deph of field, either you need to be near to the subject (for an headshot for example) or you will have dof. That's not bad because it allow you to get scenes in low light at f/2.4... Something you couldn't do with a longer length like FA50 or FA77. But for sure if your are after shallow deph of field, 35mm f/2.4 is not going to do it... 35mm f/1.4 might do it but a longer focal is likely easier.



Here is a typical DA35 in low light, at f/2.4. Look at theses carefully to see "how bad it is"... And well go to dof master. f/1.4 would give just half the deph of field. So look at the picture. It is sharp everywhere, all in focus. Even f/1.4 would have done no wonder for a shallow deph of field effect. That was the intent... Because here we want everything in focus. But it just to make you understand.

DA35, f/2.4, 1/50, 1250 isos



and here another one:

DA35, f/2.4, 1/60, 800 isos



I hope everybody notice how bad quality id and how much I did need to boost the isos !

Also one day, I took a landscape and forgot to change the apperture. With most lenses this would go with so-so results. Not DA35:

DA35 f/3.2 iso 100, 1/4000



Honestly, if you thing the DA35 @f2.4 need to be stopped down... You'll not find a lense that is really better overall than this one at this apperture. This one is one of the few that is already sharp in the corners and contrasty at f/2.4. Man ! If my FA50 did perform that well at f/2.4 I would have never brougth the FA77 !

As for dof, large apperture like f/2 or wider it will work for putting a single subject in focus. For portraiture for example. Eyes in focus, nose not in focus. if you like that, that perfect and it work well for some kind of portraiture. Not for graphical or masculine one but at least for some dreamy feminine one. But as soon as you'll want to take a scene or a with 2 persons in the picture you'll need to stop down to have the subjects sharp. And that come more at f/5.6 setting anyway than f/2.4.

[Flugelbinder]

Interesting set, since I can't get my copy to focus properly over 15/20 feet... Maybe I do have a bad copy...

[Nicolas06]

Interesting set, since I can't get my copy to focus properly over 15/20 feet... Maybe I do have a bad copy...

There several possibilities then:

- the lense has back/front focus, but you didn't calibrate it.
- you relies on AF but use center AF and then reframe and the dof is too small and so the subject is no longer in focus
- you use one of the off center AF point and your body is not a K3. Then because the off center point are huge they catch something else in the scene and focus at the wrong place.
- your try to use auto focus in dim light while you do not have premium camera body that can focus in dim light. Only K5-II & K3 will focus accurately in dim light.
- your subject is near and the dof so tiny that it appear nothing is in focus. At 3 feets the dof is only 0.2feet with 35mm f/2.4. At 2 feets the dof is 0.1 feet only.

If I were you I would try to investigate all of this. You should do some tests (first ideally with tripod and lot of light), eventually post some pictures so we can see how it goes. Try to understand what typically go wrong when you you shoot, why you don't get the focus.

Chances are it can be fixed easily or you can get the lense serviced. Don't hesitate pictures of your tests if you need help.

[manntax]

Both DA35 & FA35 share the same optical formula and characteristics. The DA35 works better with digital through because it has been optimized for it and benefit from better coatings. So I wonder, was it after comparing the picture made by you from the 2 lenses that you decided or just because you disliked the finish of the DA?

For me important was 1) faster optics, 2) build quality with metal mount , 3) aperture ring for manual control, 4) full frame coverage ( with great corners!) = sorry, but that is no brainer and FA 35mm F2.0 wins hands down.

[robthebloke]

I use the da35 and da50 on full frame with no corner problems at all - they are both fine on FF. The build quality is pretty solid, and I've never had cause to worry about the mount. It's currently available new for £80 vs £400 for the fa f2. For most people, that makes the da35 a no brainer.

(As an aside, I have an older a35/2, and I don't think it's that good until f2.8).

I personally think the limiteds and da* lenses are a better bet if you are after the best image quality. The plastic fantastics and fa's are great lenses, but the limiteds and *'s are much better.

---------- Post added 12-25-14 at 09:58 PM ----------

If you think the DA35 f/2.4 need to be stopped down to give good picture this is simple... No lense under f/4 will ever satisfy you. DA35 is simple one of the lenses with the best results wide open. I own FA50 f/1.4 that is very similar in rendering to FA50 f/1.7 and F50 or DA50. It really need at least f/4. f/2.8 is okish but far inferior to DA35 @f/2.4. My DA50-135, FA77 and DA35 plastic wonder all render far better at f/2.8 than the FA50 this guy does. And the DA35 & FA77 are the 2 that manage this apperture best.

QFT.

I personally think the da35 f2.8 macro, and da40 are better wide open than the da35 f2.4 - but not by much! (The limiteds have more pixie dust in the rendering and bokeh though).

I can't help feeling that either the lens needs an autofocus correction, or it's just a bad copy.

[Flugelbinder]

There several possibilities then:

- the lense has back/front focus, but you didn't calibrate it.
- you relies on AF but use center AF and then reframe and the dof is too small and so the subject is no longer in focus
- you use one of the off center AF point and your body is not a K3. Then because the off center point are huge they catch something else in the scene and focus at the wrong place.
- your try to use auto focus in dim light while you do not have premium camera body that can focus in dim light. Only K5-II & K3 will focus accurately in dim light.
- your subject is near and the dof so tiny that it appear nothing is in focus. At 3 feets the dof is only 0.2feet with 35mm f/2.4. At 2 feets the dof is 0.1 feet only.

If I were you I would try to investigate all of this. You should do some tests (first ideally with tripod and lot of light), eventually post some pictures so we can see how it goes. Try to understand what typically go wrong when you you shoot, why you don't get the focus.

Chances are it can be fixed easily or you can get the lense serviced. Don't hesitate pictures of your tests if you need help.

- the lense has back/front focus, but you didn't calibrate it. - I have, and I've settled with a +3 adjustment.

- you relies on AF but use center AF and then reframe and the dof is too small and so the subject is no longer in focus - My tests were done using the center focus point with no recomposing. Even with brick walls it always a bit off...

- you use one of the off center AF point and your body is not a K3. Then because the off center point are huge they catch something else in the scene and focus at the wrong place. - I use the center point, but I do understand the size of the af points on the K-5 series are very big, and this may be the issue I'm dealing with... Lots of reports about this matter...

- your try to use auto focus in dim light while you do not have premium camera body that can focus in dim light. Only K5-II & K3 will focus accurately in dim light. - I'm using a K-5 II.

- your subject is near and the dof so tiny that it appear nothing is in focus. At 3 feets the dof is only 0.2feet with 35mm f/2.4. At 2 feets the dof is 0.1 feet only. - I do understand this, but my issue is with distances over 15/20 feet. Closer subjects are dead on. An example...

[Nicolas06]

- the lense has back/front focus, but you didn't calibrate it. - I have, and I've settled with a +3 adjustment.

- you relies on AF but use center AF and then reframe and the dof is too small and so the subject is no longer in focus - My tests were done using the center focus point with no recomposing. Even with brick walls it always a bit off...

- you use one of the off center AF point and your body is not a K3. Then because the off center point are huge they catch something else in the scene and focus at the wrong place. - I use the center point, but I do understand the size of the af points on the K-5 series are very big, and this may be the issue I'm dealing with... Lots of reports about this matter...

- your try to use auto focus in dim light while you do not have premium camera body that can focus in dim light. Only K5-II & K3 will focus accurately in dim light. - I'm using a K-5 II.

- your subject is near and the dof so tiny that it appear nothing is in focus. At 3 feets the dof is only 0.2feet with 35mm f/2.4. At 2 feets the dof is 0.1 feet only. - I do understand this, but my issue is with distances over 15/20 feet. Closer subjects are dead on. An example...

Your shoot look fine. The eyes are perfectly sharp and in focus and the rest of the subject is more or less in blur due to tiny dof.

If the issue is only "15-20fts" and you have the problem consistently in full light on tripod with calibration and also maybe removing it and that's consistent, you have a defective lens. Just get it serviced before the warranty expire. You didn't say if the issue persist with contrast AF through.

Anyway you explained you liked the focal length so it would make no sence to go 50mm instead...