[danielausparis]

Sorry guys, but this new lens frustrates me. Ok it's cheap and makes another low-level entry point in the Pentax system, but you had already the 18-55 for that purpose, which is very good at 35mm BTW - and perhaps even better.
What puzzles me more is the additional redundancy in a lens system that suffers already from complexity and redundancy. The 35mm range is already covered by DA*15-50, DA18-55, DA16-45, DA17-70, DA35, DA40, FA31... Frankly I don't understand Pentax marketing, given limited development and production means.

[Marc Sabatella]

I figure the f/2.4 is going to the be "missing viewfinder indicators" of the DA35. That is, we'll see a million inquiries over the next few months from people considering this lens, but wondering if f/2.4 is a problem. And lots of bickering back and forth in response.

The truth is, f/2.4 both is and isn't a problem, just as discussed here. With SR, the Pentax combo will actually perform thank Nikon better in situations where subject motion is not the main concern, worse when it is. The former probably outweigh the latter by a pretty large amount - it's not likely you're going to stop any *real* motion in low light without flash. But it's numbers that sell, not realities, so it's going to look like a mistake to many no matter how you slice it.

Some other comments:

- Somewhere in this thread someone claimed it was twice as expensive as the Nikon. That's not true. MSRP is only barely higher. The difference in street price might buy you a couple of Happy Meals. I suspect Nikon's 35mm is basically a loss leader for them, something they can probably afford to do better than Pentax.

- True to Pentax form, it's smaller and lighter than the competition, by a sort of surprisingly large margin - not that it *really* matters in a lens like this.

- Even if the DA35 had been f/2, I can't see it really touching the FA31 sales. No one buys the FA31 except extremely discriminating photographers who are, in relative terms anyhow, practically made of money. Most of them also buy it with the intent of using it on FF (film or potential digital), and love it as much for the build as anything else. I can't imagine that many people who were *seriously* considering the FA31 being tempted by an APS-C-only & plastic (even if it had a metal mount) DA35/2 unless Pentax has pulled off a miracle in optical performance here. In an event, the FA31 can't possibly sell in enough numbers for Pentax to really care that much about the occasional lost sale. So I don't think the risk of cannibalizing FA31 sales had anything to do with the f/2.4 decision. I think it was mostly about cost and weight.

- Similarly, I can't why why Pentax would care about cannibalizing sales of a lens they no longer sell, so the former existence of the FA35 in their lineup also doesn't strike me as relevant to why they may have chosen to go with f/2.4.

- Had it been f/2 instead of f/2.4, I might have bought one even though I already have the DA40 and a 28/2.8. As it is, I kind of doubt I will. What this indirectly leads me to realize is that a DA35/2 might cannibalizing DA40/2.8 sales by more than DA35/2.4 would. With a cheaper 35/2 in the lineup, build would be really the main reason to choose the 40 over a few pretty strong strong incentives to choose the 35 (speed, price, focal length - unless you happened to refer 40mm, of course). With a DA35/2.4, the incentive to choose the 35 over the 40 lessens - now it's mainly price and perhaps focal length. So *maybe* they saved themselves a few DA40 sales by making the 35 an f/2.4.

- Remember that video of that trade show a year or two back when some French sales rep made a comment about the DA15 "completing" the lineup, and all the controversy over what he meant? If nothing else, the release of this lens shows that Pentax has *not* pulled out of the new lens business.

- The fact that they are willing to put out an f/2.4 prime gives me a glimmer of hope that I may someday see the lens I really want: a DA26/2.4. True, I'd want mine a Limited with integrated hood, but if they can give me a DA L at half the price that a Limited would go for, I'd take it. Actually, though, the fact that the 35 is a DA L might suggest that *if* they put out a 26, it would need to be in a different class to avoid competition. So I'll keep hoping for the Limited.

- Are those color options for real? I don't see anything about them on the penxtaximaging site.

[Marc Sabatella]

Sorry guys, but this new lens frustrates me. Ok it's cheap and makes another low-level entry point in the Pentax system, but you had already the 18-55 for that purpose, which is very good at 35mm BTW - and perhaps even better.

Perhaps (actually, doubtful), but the kit lens is two stops slower. That's the main why people are interested in primes at this focal length.

What puzzles me more is the additional redundancy in a lens system that suffers already from complexity and redundancy. The 35mm range is already covered by DA*15-50, DA18-55, DA16-45, DA17-70, DA35, DA40, FA31... Frankly I don't understand Pentax marketing, given limited development and production means.

See the practically endless threads bemoaning the fact that Pentax doesn't have any *cheap* fast normal primes. *None* of the existing lenses fit that bill - they're either not cheat, not fast, not normal, or not primes. It's pretty obvious there was a demand for such a lens. The only real question is if it's fast enough to meet the demand fully, but it's in the right ballpark.

[dawaylong]

Is there any sample photos?
How is the wide open?

[paperbag846]

Just a thought (PS I am VERY happy pentax now has an affordable prime).

This is a consumer lens, mostly for beginners. I could see them selecting a maximum aperture of 2.4 in order to ensure high IQ at *any* setting, so as not to throw off beginners.

E.g., My 50mm 1.7 is really always shot at 2.0, or ideally, 2.8, and above. I never use 1.7. I suppose it's nice to have, but give that lens to a beginner and they would say "this lens is terrible, everything is so soft and there are chromatic aberrations everywhere!"

So maybe the engineers said "hey, we can give them a high IQ lens at any stop with this design, and keep the lens nice and sexy small".

No tests to prove it yet, but I have high hopes that this is Pentax's strategy. Maybe they are thinking that consumers use their eyes more than confusing specs to make decisions, and that by having a slower lens that performs better wide-open will sell more lenses than a lower number on paper.

[hangu]

I admit that the colorway made this lens much more interesting and funky, but I don't see any connection of such with regards to sharpness and contrast being amazing which is yet to be seen. also the f2.4 and f1.2 aperture equivalence is rather ridiculous and in no way possible, especially if we are talking about DOF. I dunno where you got that impression. if ever that is possible, then count me in as one of those who would consider such a lens.

I think you had your sarcasm detector on the off-switch. I'm not sure how anyone could have possibly taken me seriously there.

[omega leader]

No tests to prove it yet, but I have high hopes that this is Pentax's strategy. Maybe they are thinking that consumers use their eyes more than confusing specs to make decisions, and that by having a slower lens that performs better wide-open will sell more lenses than a lower number on paper.

This is my hope, if it is really an f2 lens limited to 2.4 and sharp wide open then even having 6 apature blades won't matter. It will be circular wide open.

Plus if you really wanted to I bet you could convert the mount to metal with a salvaged lens.

[hangu]

Plus if you really wanted to I bet you could convert the mount to metal with a salvaged lens.

Not likely. They all have different screw hole arrangements and you'd need to salvage it from a DA mount. How often do you see broken DA lenses for sale?

[Pentaxor]

Nikon and Sony do, and theirs are f/1.8. That fast aperture being the main gripe regarding the DA35/2.4, it seems.

Me, I already own a FA35/2, but I would likely be interested in the DA35/2.4 otherwise. What remains to be seen is how it will perform wide-open. Hopefully it will be very sharp from corner-to-corner.

I'm glad that you do. regarding your 1st paragraph, I think someone already asked about the difference between Pentax lenses and other brand counterparts.

whether it would be the same speed at 1.8 or half-stop slower, it would come down to how the lens would render images. the DA LTDs for that matter are excellent lenses not just by virtue of build quality but of image quality as well. and these lenses are way slower and way expensive than the other brand counterparts, but I believe these DA LTDs can give the competition a run for their money.

and I didn't have to include the FA LTDs, that would had been a massacre.

[Pentaxor]

I am a bit surprised about what appears to be a plastic mount. How much more can metal cost? I would pay $50 more for that for sure.

I am pretty excited to see some sample photos.

$50 would cover for shipping + duties, I wouldn't mind saving the extra dough.

[Pentaxor]

Sorry guys, but this new lens frustrates me. Ok it's cheap and makes another low-level entry point in the Pentax system, but you had already the 18-55 for that purpose, which is very good at 35mm BTW - and perhaps even better.
What puzzles me more is the additional redundancy in a lens system that suffers already from complexity and redundancy. The 35mm range is already covered by DA*15-50, DA18-55, DA16-45, DA17-70, DA35, DA40, FA31... Frankly I don't understand Pentax marketing, given limited development and production means.

the DA 18-55 doesn't do f2.4 at 35mm eventhough it is great at such focal length. we do however try to solve the mystery behind such venture.

for some reason, the only thing that comes to mind is it's a new cheap and fast prime AF lens alternative meant for the entry level market.

[paperbag846]

This whole metal mount thing is just luxury... a lens will work just fine if all that is holding it in place is super glue. How many people have broken their plastic mounts?

[Pentaxor]

I think you had your sarcasm detector on the off-switch. I'm not sure how anyone could have possibly taken me seriously there.

maybe because I was serious during that time.

[hangu]

maybe because I was serious during that time.

Hah, yeah, I just really like anything that looks really nice on my red K-x. It can suck but if it looks good, I know I'm good to go. I'm one of those folks that paid more for a black spotmatic.

Aside from all the back and forth, I think Marc really hit the nail on the head. This may not be what everyone wanted here but this is a step in the right direction for Pentax.

Comparing this lens exclusively against the Nikon 35/1.8 is also unfair. I know I did it but it was from the perception of Joe Schmoe. On paper the Nikon 35 looks much better. However, we can't take a photo with only a lens and without a camera body. If you look at it in terms of the K-r + DA35/2.4 vs the competitor's, this setup actually stacks up very well. I think we're overlooking that aspect.

[Unsinkable II]

The indicated price is only US$50 off a Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC). Even if it drops another $50, I don't see its benefit unless it has stellar IQ.

Hoya did this as a teaser without doubt. Just look at their press release. "introduction to lenses blah blah". It needed to be HALF its price.

FAIL.