[mer]

where is your mind Pentax ? We have enough of these toys !!!

Give us 35mm F/1.0 !!!

C'MOOONNNNNNNNN !!! WAKE UP !!!

[Digitalis]

Give us 35mm F/1.0 !!!

as discussed before, A lens of that focal length in K mount it is physically impossible.

"No one buys the FA31 except extremely discriminating photographers who are, in relative terms anyhow, practically made of money"

funny you should say that marc, when I bought My FA31 I was in my final year of University...I didn't have a job, and I funded it purely on selling my wildlife prints. while I am a discriminating photographer, When i bought the FA31 I was hardly made of money....though that has changed now.

[Ash]

where is your mind Pentax ? We have enough of these toys !!!

Give us 35mm F/1.0 !!!

C'MOOONNNNNNNNN !!! WAKE UP !!!

Are you serious?
Do you have an FA 50/1.4? An A 50/1.2? Do you need thinner DoF than this?
Analyse your own work and see just how many keepers are shot below f/2...
Will an f/1 lens change how you shoot? Or do you just want it for the novelty of an f/1 lens?

Once you use primes such as the FA or DA ltd series, your seemingly unquenchable thirst for faster lenses will be quashed. Guaranteed.

[mer]

Are you serious?
Do you have an FA 50/1.4? An A 50/1.2? Do you need thinner DoF than this?
Analyse your own work and see just how many keepers are shot below f/2...
Will an f/1 lens change how you shoot? Or do you just want it for the novelty of an f/1 lens?

Once you use primes such as the FA or DA ltd series, your seemingly unquenchable thirst for faster lenses will be quashed. Guaranteed.

Hi, yes I am serious

I do own a M50/1.4 , K50/1.2 and a Porst 55/1.2 and I use them on my ME Super . Yes sometimes I need thinner DoF, especially when I shoot at long distances. 90% of all my keepers are shot at F/1.2, if this is what u are asking. A 55/1.2 lens used on a FF camera is equivalent to 35/0.8 for a APS-C camera... to achieve the same results. It may seem crazy to ask for a 35/0.8 lens but this is the lens you need to achieve the same results I get with the 55/1.2 on FF. I have used all the FA and DA limiteds...except the DALTD35 and yes they are great ... 31 and 77 are my favourite... but they don't compare to my 1.2 lenses... I am a sucker for thin DOF...and crazy bokeh

[yeatzee]

Hi, yes I am serious

I do own a M50/1.4 , K50/1.2 and a Porst 55/1.2 and I use them on my ME Super . Yes sometimes I need thinner DoF, especially when I shoot at long distances. 90% of all my keepers are shot at F/1.2, if this is what u are asking. A 55/1.2 lens used on a FF camera is equivalent to 35/0.8 for a APS-C camera... to achieve the same results. It may seem crazy to ask for a 35/0.8 lens but this is the lens you need to achieve the same results I get with the 55/1.2 on FF. I have used all the FA and DA limiteds...except the DALTD35 and yes they are great ... 31 and 77 are my favourite... but they don't compare to my 1.2 lenses... I am a sucker for thin DOF...and crazy bokeh

I like this guy already

[Ash]

Hi, yes I am serious

I do own a M50/1.4 , K50/1.2 and a Porst 55/1.2 and I use them on my ME Super . Yes sometimes I need thinner DoF, especially when I shoot at long distances. 90% of all my keepers are shot at F/1.2, if this is what u are asking. A 55/1.2 lens used on a FF camera is equivalent to 35/0.8 for a APS-C camera... to achieve the same results. It may seem crazy to ask for a 35/0.8 lens but this is the lens you need to achieve the same results I get with the 55/1.2 on FF. I have used all the FA and DA limiteds...except the DALTD35 and yes they are great ... 31 and 77 are my favourite... but they don't compare to my 1.2 lenses... I am a sucker for thin DOF...and crazy bokeh

I think you've already got what you want - unless you're after an A 50/1.2...
Any thinner DoF than f/1.2 and I'm wondering whether any pixels will be in focus...

[Digitalis]

I am a sucker for thin DOF...and crazy bokeh

you should see the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 ASPH can do on my 18Mp Full frame Leica M9, but at $11,800AUD the price is rather prohibitive.

[Diffusion]

I am really surprised at all the comments here.
Everyone was grunting and groaning that Pentax does not have a beginner prime lens that is cheap and affordable.
I used to shoot wide open on the K10D because I needed to. But for "normal" pictures, you best stay at 2.8 or so. And face it, the people buying this lens want "normal" picture, and with a K-x or K-r, you can shoot at 2.8 indoors even low light if necessary.
If you are an artiste, this lens indeed is not for you. But Pentax needs to sell lots of lenses, not a few to specialists.

The one and only question for this lens will be if it is better at 2.4 and especially 2.8 than any of 2.8 zooms in that region. If this lens performs wide open, it is a winner. If it needs to warm up to 4.0 to be sharp, it is a loser lens.

[Steve Beswick]

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?

Well, you know, the lens does weigh a whole quarter of a pound! Heck, this is way more irresponsible than when Pentax started putting plastic mounts on the camera!

[Steve Beswick]

I have made similar speculations in a couple of these threads given that the DA L zooms all have a corresponding "regular" model. It is possible that they will release a DA 35/2 AL WR with the K-5.

Perhaps, but the DA L lenses haven't been aperture limited so far.

As a side note, does anyone find it funny that Canon's L line is their high end, while Pentax's L line is their bottom of the line?

[séamuis]

im going to buy this lens, without a doubt. a possible more expensive and slightly faster WR version would be nice, and if thats the case I may consider it, but if not this lens seems damn fine to me. I can use it and abuse it quite well. should be a nice ‘street’ lens for use on my K-7. I can see this being a great lens to use, and im not exactly a beginner. no ‘professional’ (not that the word has any real meaning anymore) but it seems to me to be a great choice for a small lens in the right focal range with decent speed. the truth is, that Pentax actually has quite a long history of putting out slower lenses than its competitors. they have had their share of oversized fast ones, but normally its a pentax trademark to have a slower lens to save on size and weight. so this is really nothing new, and with new cameras such as the K-7, K-x, K-r and upcoming K-5, all of which do (or will certainly do) very well high ISO (the k-7 of course being at the bottom of the list) the difference in what is offered and what is being asked for isn’t that much, because we all know that if it were an f2, pretty much nobody would be complaining. even the ones wanting a 1.8 would likely be reasonably satisfied.

[kuuan]

this lens is a very clever move from Pentax!

Many people bought the K-x and some have been mourning the lack of cheap Pentax primes. Pentax says this is aimed to be an entrance to primes for K-x / K-r users I I think it is just that. The choice of a 35mm was good for a first offering, but I hope it is just the beginning of a line of cheap Pentax primes.

I believe that there will be the option to have it bundled with the K-r ( since it comes in all the different colors the K-r comes in, see: ????????????PENTAX K-r ?????????? ) and thus I would expect the price coming down soon too.

It 'only' being f2.4 is not surprising, the full DA line seems to have more focused on compactness than being fast, as far as I know the only exceptions being the f2.8/14 and 1.4/55.

[Urkeldaedalus]

the truth is, that Pentax actually has quite a long history of putting out slower lenses than its competitors. they have had their share of oversized fast ones, but normally its a pentax trademark to have a slower lens to save on size and weight. so this is really nothing new, and with new cameras such as the K-7, K-x, K-r and upcoming K-5, all of which do (or will certainly do) very well high ISO (the k-7 of course being at the bottom of the list) the difference in what is offered and what is being asked for isn’t that much, because we all know that if it were an f2, pretty much nobody would be complaining. even the ones wanting a 1.8 would likely be reasonably satisfied.

I have to admit that the 35 f/2.4 actually appeals to me a little bit precisely because it is at f/2.4. I admire that some engineer out there was stubborn enough to make this decision based on whatever design limitations this lens would have, despite the fact that everyone wants a 35 f/1.8 because the other companies have one. It makes no sense in a perfect Pentax nonsense sort of way.

Actually, now that I think about it more, this lens reminds me a little of the 85 f/3.5 Macro lens released by Nikon recently. Hopefully this is a trend, as I say more cheap, good primes on the market can never be a bad thing.

[Blue]

Perhaps, but the DA L lenses haven't been aperture limited so far.

As a side note, does anyone find it funny that Canon's L line is their high end, while Pentax's L line is their bottom of the line?

Nor did the DA L have their lineage in an older lens such as the legendary FA 35/2 AL that even had Ghostless Coating. However, those DAL zooms lost their quick shift and stainless steel mounts and shipped without hoods. However, the f2.4 could be in part due to the slightly smaller elements that this lens has compared to the FA.

[Marc Sabatella]

The indicated price is only US$50 off a Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC).

Where are you finding the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for $270? I think you're off by over $100.

And in any case, the 35 is barely a quarter the weight of the zoom, barely half the length, takes a 49mm filter instead of 67mm.

Between the difference in price and the difference in size & weight, the prime will be a much more attractive option to many - being slightly faster is just a bonus. Those who tend to prefer large, heavy, and relatively expensive zooms were not the target market for this lens.

BTW, regarding the DA35/2 WR idea - even if Pentax didn't have this up their sleeve already, that's not to say it might not occur to them eventually. Assuming of course it really is as viable as suggested. Even if based on the FA35/2, I could imagine that the amount of glass they cut out to "optimize" the lens for APS-C might preclude f/2. But they of course could always go back to the original design.