Fast fifty vs. fa 35 f/2.0?

Deni · 11-16-2008, 01:15 PM

Which one would you people give priority on an aps-c sensor

to a fast fifty (f/fa 50mm f/1.4 - f/1.7)

or to fa 35 f/2.0

The fa 35 would be more a general purpose lens whereas the 50mm is a short tele portrait lens.

How do the fa 35 and the 50mm compare at f/2.0? Which one is sharper?

*Stratario* · 11-16-2008, 01:28 PM

At F2 the FA 35mm F2.0 is considerably sharper than FA 50 F1.4. Specially in the corners the 35 mm is hugely better. I have sold both of these lenses but I regret selling the FA 35.

JonPB · 11-16-2008, 01:31 PM

For me it is more satisfying to decide on subject matter to photograph and then pick a lens rather than the other way around. And, since my 35 and 50 are so small and light relative to my camera body and bag, I would bring both. That said, I'll try to answer the question.

Indoors, subjects will tend to be closer, so the 35. Outside, I can usually back up if I need to get more into the frame, and more things will be further away anyhow, so the 50.

kerrowdown · 11-16-2008, 01:33 PM

Hi, I'm afraid my vote goes for the fast 50mm, in my work style the 50 is normally as wide as I go, out of my four most used of 50, 85, 135 and 200, but hey, thats just me.

philbaum · 11-16-2008, 02:05 PM

I voted for FA 50 for two reasons:
1. It seems like newcomers are always getting saddled with these slow zooms. The FA 50 1.4 is fun for those low light situations and it definitely helps the Pentax slrs to focus.
2. The 50 is equiv to a 75mm lens at 35mm film terms and seems to work well for portraits, street photos, pet photos, etc.

*Sailor* · 11-16-2008, 02:55 PM

I didn't vote, because comparing different focal lengths is like comparing apples to oranges, and rational people can prefer either.

I have both lenses, and I use my FA 35/2 far more than my FA 50/1.4 - in part because I find the "normal" fov more versatile for the kind of shooting I do and because I much prefer the clean sharpness of the 35. Others find the 35 to have too "clinical" a rendering - so you run into the apples and oranges again.

Jer

*hwblanks* · 11-16-2008, 03:16 PM

I voted for the 35 for the more normal field of view it gives, but for my 35, I chose the DA35/2.8 macro. Granted, it is slower than the FA35, but it also offers 1:1 macro, which makes it even more useful as a walkaround lens.

With that being said, I definitely believe that there's enough room in anybody's bag for both a 35 and a 50. Not only is the 50 faster, it also pairs nicely with extension tubes for closeup shooting. There are so many "flavors" of the 50, both AF and MF that it doesn't hurt to check them all out--the K, M, and A series for manual and the F and FA series for autofocus.

Heather

Torphoto · 11-16-2008, 04:51 PM

I'll vote for the FA 35mm, as you can shoot it 1/45 F2 hand held, the 50mm you need higher than 1/60 to get it sharp and as the dof is so narrow at F1.4 you end up wanting to stop down as well.

**roentarre** · 11-16-2008, 08:13 PM

A fast 50mm is very fashionable.

Deni · 11-17-2008, 12:23 AM

The point of this thread is not to decide which one of the lens would have the priority in the bag, but which lens has a priority in purchasing first if one has limited finances.

I know comparing different focal lengths is like comparing apples to oranges, it depends if you like more apples or oranges.

I'm in the crossroad as I find the 50mm a tad too long and the extra stop might be useful sometimes. Then there's the rendering of the image which is magic.

On the other side the fa 35 is like a normal lens (imo it should be the kit lens of pentax cameras), the the shorter focal length might make up for the smaller aperture.

**Damn Brit** · 11-17-2008, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Deni

The point of this thread is not to decide which one of the lens would have the priority in the bag, but which lens has a priority in purchasing first if one has limited finances.

I know comparing different focal lengths is like comparing apples to oranges, it depends if you like more apples or oranges.

I'm in the crossroad as I find the 50mm a tad too long and the extra stop might be useful sometimes. Then there's the rendering of the image which is magic.

On the other side the fa 35 is like a normal lens (imo it should be the kit lens of pentax cameras), the the shorter focal length might make up for the smaller aperture.

I agree a prime should be offered as a kit but only as an option, the zoom is much more attractive as a kit lens to new customers.

You already have a 50mm f1.4 screwmount so logically you should get the FA 35.

With regards tospecifically answering your question, it's nigh on impossible to give you a definitive answer. There can be a world of difference between the two lens's depending on what you want to shoot. f1.4 is nice to have but it is quite limited in it's usefulness because of such a shallow DOF. The 35mm is useful as a portrait lens if you are in confined space but they are both good for portraits. They are both useful for landscapes. f2 is plenty fast enough for most applications, if not, that's what flashes are for (and chances are you would need a flash with the 50mm as well for the same shots).
I could go on and on but I'm sure you get my point.
I didn't vote for obvious reasons.

Voe · 11-17-2008, 02:17 AM

For my shooting style 50mm is more useful (especially when playing with DoF), but very often I also use 35mm focal length.

axl · 11-17-2008, 02:35 AM

I was in similar situation few months back. I was choosing "normal" lens for my camera. I was considering two lenses you are mentioning and DA40. Which is somewhere in between in terms of focal length but another stop slower. On the other side it's beautifly sharp edge to edge straight from f2.8, and it's CA/PF are better controlled then on the FA lenses (at least the two we're talking about here). At the end I went with DA40, knowing FA35 will be not wide enough (DA40 leaves space for somthing like 28 or 30 (FA31ltd if I'll get seriously rich)) and FA50 was tad too long for my liking. Since then the little pancake lives on my camera as my primary lens, and it delivers great shots again and again. Of course my LBA didn't go away for too long, so couple of months down the line I managed to get F50 f1.7. If I can, I take both of them with 40 being on camera and 50 for really low light, some portraits etc.
Now I'm still after something to fill the gap between my Sigma 10-20 and DA40 (as gap stop measure I got Tokina 28 f2.8, but I'm really after AF lens, or very good manual).
so my conclusion, good luck choosing, but I think it doesn't matter because sooner or later you'll get both (and many more...)

BR

Alvin · 11-17-2008, 08:03 AM

Reading the posts above, if you have a 50mm already, then go with the 35. My own past experience - I have two 50mm's and prefer them over my own 28/3.5 and a 28/2.8, which I borrow from time to time. I also have a 35-70/2.8-3.5 and still find myself zooming into the 50mm focal length. Comparing apples to oranges, yes, but I seem to like tighter shots when the situation calls for it.

Slowpoke Rodriguez · 11-17-2008, 09:10 AM

Like many others who have posted, I have a number of lenses at my disposal. I have two fast 50s and the FA 35. I find that the FA 35 is my default lens. It is what is on my camera most often, and I take it off when a scenerio that better suits one of my other lenses arrises. I tend to think of my lenses as tools for specific jobs, and the FA 35 on an APS-C sensor camera is the most versatile tool, for me.