Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2010, 12:08 AM   #16
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote

That's very disappointing. That's one of the few things going for it in comparison to the Nikon/Canon budget offerings.
Would it have disappointed you if your desired DA 35/2.4 with ltd build quality was made and sold for $500?

09-09-2010, 12:15 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Would it have disappointed you if your desired DA 35/2.4 with ltd build quality was made and sold for $500?
I want to see products that clearly stand out from the competition's. The DA35/2.4 so far does not. Of course, we haven't seen a single test image yet but the Canon/Nikon's offering is clearly superior on paper. The only thing justifying the DA35/2.4 in my mind was the superior build quality, now that that is no longer the case, I've lost some excitement.
09-09-2010, 12:22 AM   #18
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
I want to see products that clearly stand out from the competition's. The DA35/2.4 so far does not. Of course, we haven't seen a single test image yet but the Canon/Nikon's offering is clearly superior on paper. The only thing justifying the DA35/2.4 in my mind was the superior build quality, now that that is no longer the case, I've lost some excitement.
It does.... it's half stop slower than any other competition
09-09-2010, 12:25 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
It does.... it's half stop slower than any other competition
It's closer to 1 full stop and costs twice as much.

What a disappointing day, first the K-r, now this.

09-09-2010, 12:29 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
You all are looking too much at the specs. Because in real life, in the same low lighting situation, the K-r + DA 35/2.4 will still give sharp photos handheld whereas a photo made with for instance the Nikon with 35/1.8 will only deliver blurry pictures.

I'd choose sharp pictures above blurry pictures
09-09-2010, 12:34 AM   #21
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
I want to see products that clearly stand out from the competition's. The DA35/2.4 so far does not. Of course, we haven't seen a single test image yet but the Canon/Nikon's offering is clearly superior on paper. The only thing justifying the DA35/2.4 in my mind was the superior build quality, now that that is no longer the case, I've lost some excitement.
And what of IQ?
We know of Tamron's lenses not being the best in build quality, but come to optical quality and all of a sudden, people's heads start turning.
09-09-2010, 12:39 AM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
You all are looking too much at the specs. Because in real life, in the same low lighting situation, the K-r + DA 35/2.4 will still give sharp photos handheld whereas a photo made with for instance the Nikon with 35/1.8 will only deliver blurry pictures.

I'd choose sharp pictures above blurry pictures
Yes, I'm aware that we haven't seen a single test image yet but you're also dreaming about the image quality here. The Nikon 35/1.8 is plenty sharp wide open, so is the Canon 50/1.8. I doubt the DA 35/2.4 is THAT much better than I'm willing to trade the extra stop for the extra sharpness.

Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G - Review / Test Report - Analysis

A center sharpness of 2027 at f1.8 WIDE OPEN for the Nikon 35/1.8 is very good. I doubt the Pentax DA 35/2.4 will score much higher. The Pentax DA Ltd 35/2.8 Macro only scored 2029.5 at f2.8. It was only 2.5 points higher while a stop and a half slower compared to the Nikon 35/1.8.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II - Review / Test Report - Analysis

The Canon 50/1.8 is slightly disappointing at 1690 at f1.8 but it's still respectable. By f2.8, it is 1949, less than 100 points behind the DA 35 LTD!

I doubt the 35/2.4 will have superior image quality compared to the DA 35 LTD 2.8. So yeah, this is pretty disappointing.
09-09-2010, 12:42 AM   #23
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
You all are looking too much at the specs. Because in real life, in the same low lighting situation, the K-r + DA 35/2.4 will still give sharp photos handheld whereas a photo made with for instance the Nikon with 35/1.8 will only deliver blurry pictures.

I'd choose sharp pictures above blurry pictures
blurry pictures? I think Jaysherman used to have one, he even compared it to DA35ltd and I don't think it came out on the bad side.... so why do you talk of blurry pictures?

09-09-2010, 12:42 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
And what of IQ?
We know of Tamron's lenses not being the best in build quality, but come to optical quality and all of a sudden, people's heads start turning.
See my post above. The Nikon 35/1.8 beats the Pentax DA LTD 35/2.8 at f2.8. It's less than 3 pts behind when wide open at f1.8 compared to the 35 at f2.8. That's just sad. Unless the DA 35/2.4 has better sharpness/IQ than the DA35/2.8 macro, it's going to be pretty disappointing.
09-09-2010, 12:45 AM   #25
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
Yes, I'm aware that we haven't seen a single test image yet but you're also dreaming about the image quality here. The Nikon 35/1.8 is plenty sharp wide open, so is the Canon 50/1.8. I doubt the DA 35/2.4 is THAT much better than I'm willing to trade the extra stop for the extra sharpness.

Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G - Review / Test Report - Analysis

A center sharpness of 2027 at f1.8 WIDE OPEN for the Nikon 35/1.8 is very good. I doubt the Pentax DA 35/2.4 will score much higher. The Pentax DA Ltd 35/2.8 Macro only scored 2029.5 at f2.8. It was only 2.5 points higher while a stop and a half slower compared to the Nikon 35/1.8.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II - Review / Test Report - Analysis

The Canon 50/1.8 is slightly disappointing at 1690 at f1.8 but it's still respectable. By f2.8, it is 1949, less than 100 points behind the DA 35 LTD!

I doubt the 35/2.4 will have superior image quality compared to the DA 35 LTD 2.8. So yeah, this is pretty disappointing.
IF the new DAL is using the FA35 optical formula, just restricted to f2.4 than we are in for a good ride IMO. But I still think they should have made it faster
09-09-2010, 12:51 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
IF the new DAL is using the FA35 optical formula, just restricted to f2.4 than we are in for a good ride IMO. But I still think they should have made it faster
I'm discounting a lot of factors here. Such as bokeh and the fact that Pentax probably has superior lens coating. There's more to a lens than center sharpness and aperture speed. It's just too bad the vast majority of photographers don't know that.
09-09-2010, 12:54 AM   #27
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
I'm discounting a lot of factors here. Such as bokeh and the fact that Pentax probably has superior lens coating. There's more to a lens than center sharpness and aperture speed. It's just too bad the vast majority of photographers don't know that.
hm, we seem to be in quite an agreement this morning.
I'm with you here, but unfortunately it's mostly those unknowing starters this lens should be appealing to....
09-09-2010, 12:57 AM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 264
f2.4?

maybe better to save some more money for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8
09-09-2010, 12:59 AM - 1 Like   #29
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
blurry pictures? I think Jaysherman used to have one, he even compared it to DA35ltd and I don't think it came out on the bad side.... so why do you talk of blurry pictures?
I didn't mean to say that the Nikon is a bad lens, just that in bad lighting the Nikon won't stand a chance against the K-r + DA 35/2.4 because of the SR. A 35/1.8 wins in DOF control no doubt, but in practical usage the Pentax wins BIG TIME. Below 1/30s and at f/1.8 you won't get any sharp pictures with the Nikon handheld because of camera shake. Period. And no-one shoots at f/1.8 on a tripod unless it is purely for DOF purposes.

Why does anyone buy a 35/1.8? To use it in bad light wide open, and then Pentax still has MORE STOPS advantage, even at f/2.4, thanks to the SR.
09-09-2010, 01:07 AM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
I didn't mean to say that the Nikon is a bad lens, just that in bad lighting the Nikon won't stand a chance against the K-r + DA 35/2.4 because of the SR. A 35/1.8 wins in DOF control no doubt, but in practical usage the Pentax wins BIG TIME. Below 1/30s and at f/1.8 you won't get any sharp pictures with the Nikon handheld because of camera shake. Period. And no-one shoots at f/1.8 on a tripod unless it is purely for DOF purposes.

Why does anyone buy a 35/1.8? To use it in bad light wide open, and then Pentax still has MORE STOPS advantage, even at f/2.4, thanks to the SR.
That's all well and true but we're looking at this from an average consumer's point of view. They don't know about just how good SR is or the fact that the K-r probably has better NR than any Canon/Nikon camera in its class. All they see is that the Nikon 35/1.8 is faster, cheaper and sharper.

I feel like an idiot yapping about all this when none of us has even seen a single test image....
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macro New DA35 Ltd goddo31 Post Your Photos! 4 12-05-2009 09:15 PM
DA35 Limited joelovotti Post Your Photos! 0 06-07-2009 09:10 AM
DA70 ltd or DA35 ltd NorrisTudor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 06-04-2009 10:40 PM
I can't believe what I did with my DA35 (WAAAHHH!) heatherslightbox General Talk 33 08-01-2008 06:40 PM
For those who have the DA35/2.8... volosong Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 04-23-2008 09:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:21 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top