So a full plastic 35/2.4 is available at Nikkor 35/1.8 price?

**Ash** · 09-09-2010, 03:24 PM

Thanks Mark. I tend to believe positively, since much of business is about trying something new, different and even crazy to appeal to a certain market - but I'm definitely no businessman, so go figure.

I'm just a keen amateur and am just as keen to see Pentax succeed. Am I'm believing this to be a positive move - perhaps not the best that it could be, but given Pentax's limitations, probably still a winner.

Quicksand · 09-09-2010, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by MrCynical

We gearheads might think "well the CZJ Flektogon is only f2.4, and that's still a nice lens", whereas a newbie will do a "what lens should I buy?" Google search, read "the smaller the f-number is, the better the lens" and therefore buy Nikon.

And that's EXACTLY why I'm going to take a "wait and see" attitude toward this new lens.

My DA 15mm Ltd is f/4, for heaven's sake. f/4! And it's a fabulous lens. Another favorite of mine is the SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5. They both are tremendously sharp, from wide open, and have great contrast and color rendering.

Neither a polycarbonate mount nor a plastic lens barrel worries me all that much, frankly. It's all about the optics, and I'll wait for details and examples before I get worked up too much in either direction.

paperbag846 · 09-09-2010, 03:31 PM

I think the average consumer will remember an older camera with a prime attached to it.

I could equally see them reacting like this:

Wow it's so small! (Takes a picture of friend), wow! it's so crisp! The autofocus seems faster than the kit lens, and this is a great (misnomer for focal length) to take pictures of my family with!

I think this lens will have some sex appeal because of it's size and looks. Since it looks similar to the human FOV (attentional, not peripheral, Marc :P) I could see people saying "I don't care if it zooms, because this is an easy legnth to work with, and my pictures seem to come out nicer. Besides, I feel like an old-school journalist!" For this market it's not about numbers and technology, it's really more about fun. I think the type of person you see lurking a technology forum will skew your perspective as to what the average consumer looks for.

**Sailor** · 09-09-2010, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by kales

. . . . . . But a lens like DA35/2.4 at improper price will drive people away from Pentax, and finally kill the brand itself.

And I thought this was just another "starter" lens; I had no idea the pricing of this lens was pivotal to Pentax's future.

Jer

**montman** · 09-09-2010, 04:29 PM

2.4 Really? Why…

**Ash** · 09-09-2010, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Sailor

And I thought this was just another "starter" lens; I had no idea the pricing of this lens was pivotal to Pentax's future.

Jer

Well stated Jer

I think it's a clever business move frankly that will prove you wrong anyway OP.
A reasonably cheap prime with excellent IQ, quick AF, a small size and novelty colours should do quite well in my mind, even beyond Japan.

Quicksand, your point is a good one also. An f/4 prime doesn't sound exciting - until you see what it can do. Let's even take it a step further and go to the highly acclaimed, yet SLOW FA ltd series. And what were Pentax possibly thinking with f/1.8 and 1.9? Why not f/1.4 or 1.0?!?

If fastest aperture was the only measure of a lens's performance, the FA ltds would be pretty worthless against a Sigma 30/1.4, A 50/1.2 or FA 50/1.4 and all the 85/1.4s we see around.

I'm not surprised there is a huge moan and cry out to Pentax for yet another SLOW prime, but I'm no longer sensitive to it... Let's see this little plastic fantastic go...

johnmflores · 09-09-2010, 04:54 PM

The DA35 looks to be the perfect next lens for someone that bought the K-x or K-r with one or two kit zooms and is looking for:

a) something physically smaller than a zoom
b) something that can be used indoors for snapshots at family gatherings and friendly get-togethers.

I can also imagine plenty of folks bringing the K-x/K-r on vacation, using the kit zooms during the day and then swapping in the DA35 at the hotel and swinging the camera over their shoulder for dinner and a night out.

Both the K-x and K-r offer enough high ISO headroom to make the F2.4 a non-factor for people wanting to take nice snapshot.

JonPB · 09-09-2010, 05:01 PM

The f/2.4 specification gives me hope that Pentax designed this lens for its optics and handling rather than its spec sheet. I like Pentax for that very reason.

The quality of this lens will make or break it. Having better out-of-focus rendering than the Nikon competitor won't be hard, and if you're interested in f/1.8 over f/2.4 then you'd better demand good bokeh.

Will a small premium for a Pentax lens drive away people who already have a K-mount camera? I doubt it; the probable price difference pales in comparison to buying a new DSLR. Will it deter folks who are starting with interchangeable lenses and considering which system to buy into? I doubt it; the rest of the lens lineup matters too, and there are plenty there to drool over. And if they're already thinking about buying primes, then they'll look at image quality, where I expect the 35/2.4 to surprise. It would, however, be awesome if Pentax offers this lens as a kit lens option for folks who know they want better than a kit zoom.

And even if it is "full plastic," Pentax does that with higher build quality than competitors.

FotoPete · 09-09-2010, 05:02 PM

Well looking at the specs, there's a high chance its just the FA35 with a smaller image circle so there's probably no reservations in the IQ dept.

Just looks kinda ugly is all lol

brofkand · 09-09-2010, 05:38 PM

I owned a Nikkor 35 1.8, and it was ghastly wide open. Poor contrast, OK sharpness (not as sharp as the 18-55 kit, oddly enough) poor bokeh (I mean POOR), and even though it's a SWM focus was fairly slow. Stopped down to say f/4 the bokeh was still not very good (DOF coming into play here), but contrast was much better. Granted, this was on a D40; bottom of the barrel camera so I can't fault focus. Distortion was pretty psychedelic too; but for most shots it wasn't apparent.

Needless to say, the lens was never used at 1.8. I always stopped it down to at least 2.8.

My point is; who cares if this lens is 2.4? If it's good at 2.4, it's better (in my book, at least) than the 35 1.8 Nikkor. I'm optimistic, but I've moved on to fast 50's in Pentax's arsenal; the 35mm length is of limited use to me so unless it's street price is amazing I probably won't buy one.

No need in being so pessimistic about a product absolutely none of us have touched or even seen outside of JPGs on Pentaxforums.com...

Eruditass · 09-09-2010, 05:56 PM

Someone claimed that the 35mm f1.8 was really more like a f2.2. Is this true?

Originally posted by brofkand

I owned a Nikkor 35 1.8, and it was ghastly wide open. Poor contrast, OK sharpness (not as sharp as the 18-55 kit, oddly enough) poor bokeh (I mean POOR), and even though it's a SWM focus was fairly slow. Stopped down to say f/4 the bokeh was still not very good (DOF coming into play here), but contrast was much better. Granted, this was on a D40; bottom of the barrel camera so I can't fault focus. Distortion was pretty psychedelic too; but for most shots it wasn't apparent.

Needless to say, the lens was never used at 1.8. I always stopped it down to at least 2.8.

My point is; who cares if this lens is 2.4? If it's good at 2.4, it's better (in my book, at least) than the 35 1.8 Nikkor. I'm optimistic, but I've moved on to fast 50's in Pentax's arsenal; the 35mm length is of limited use to me so unless it's street price is amazing I probably won't buy one.

No need in being so pessimistic about a product absolutely none of us have touched or even seen outside of JPGs on Pentaxforums.com...

photozone.de has a different opinion:

Quote:

The Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G ist able to deliver very sharp pictures wide open already. The bokeh, one of the primary aspects for a fast prime, is well developed and generally pleasing (at least slightly stopped down).

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g?start=2

Corner performance wide open though is lacking.

aleonx3 · 09-09-2010, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Eruditass

Someone claimed that the 35mm f1.8 was really more like a f2.2. Is this true?

Even if the 35mm f1.8 is optically equivalent, the lack of SR makes the Nikkor lens less desirable to get good results. I bought one for my friend (he did not have amazon account) who has the D200 (now he has the D300s); he has only used it a few times because of that.

brofkand · 09-09-2010, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Eruditass

Someone claimed that the 35mm f1.8 was really more like a f2.2. Is this true?

Can't speak for that; I didn't measure the diaphragm. Nikon's 50mm lenses are something like 53.5mm though, at least according to Ken Rockwell.

opiet70 · 09-09-2010, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Ash

And that's the trump card Pentax can easily win with - if newbies (and even some enthusiasts) do the research and find the 35/2.4 outperforming any other 35mm kit prime at f/2.4 onwards, then the K-r + 35/2.4 will be a formidable combo.

Let's look at another aspect. A very inexpensive lens to go with a (hopefully) very good entry level camera and just in time for Christmas! My wife looked at this situation as beautiful marketing for people just past entry level in experience. Think of it...this lens will most likely be coupled with holiday discounts like happen each year. How affordable does that make this for Christmas gifts? How long has it been since someone could buy their family members a new lens for ~$200 or less?

Would I buy this lens for myself? Probably not but it doesn't really fit into the lenses I want. I think this lens is going to hot item during the holidays.

Diffusion · 09-10-2010, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by axl

After some exchanges with othe members in another threads I'll agree with Ash here. IF they got the IQ right this lens may be THE lens for many people with kit zooms wishing to experiment with faster primes yet not willing to spend money on ltds (be it DAs or FAs).
Example? My wife. She has blue K-x. She loves 31ltd, but it's big and heavy. Does she really care about 1.8 or 2.4? Hell no. 2.4 will be bneneficial for her as it will let her shoot wide open and will mask more AF errors that beginners like her are likely to encounter. If the IQ of this lens at 2.4 will be comparable to that of 40ltd at 2.8 then for the RRP (which is half compared to 35/40ltds and nearly half of FA50/1.4) this may help Pentax rather then kill it IMHO. Am I dissapointed with it being f2.4 only? Yes, but then I have 31ltd so no problem...

I agree with you, and yet I do not. 2.4 does not mask any AF or MF errors. If I know I have to mask any focusing errors I go to F4-F6.

09-09-2010, 04:39 PM	#21
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Sailor And I thought this was just another "starter" lens; I had no idea the pricing of this lens was pivotal to Pentax's future. Jer Well stated Jer I think it's a clever business move frankly that will prove you wrong anyway OP. A reasonably cheap prime with excellent IQ, quick AF, a small size and novelty colours should do quite well in my mind, even beyond Japan. Quicksand, your point is a good one also. An f/4 prime doesn't sound exciting - until you see what it can do. Let's even take it a step further and go to the highly acclaimed, yet SLOW FA ltd series. And what were Pentax possibly thinking with f/1.8 and 1.9? Why not f/1.4 or 1.0?!? If fastest aperture was the only measure of a lens's performance, the FA ltds would be pretty worthless against a Sigma 30/1.4, A 50/1.2 or FA 50/1.4 and all the 85/1.4s we see around. I'm not surprised there is a huge moan and cry out to Pentax for yet another SLOW prime, but I'm no longer sensitive to it... Let's see this little plastic fantastic go... Last edited by Ash; 09-09-2010 at 06:06 PM. Reason: spelling

09-09-2010, 05:56 PM	#26
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Someone claimed that the 35mm f1.8 was really more like a f2.2. Is this true? Originally posted by brofkand I owned a Nikkor 35 1.8, and it was ghastly wide open. Poor contrast, OK sharpness (not as sharp as the 18-55 kit, oddly enough) poor bokeh (I mean POOR), and even though it's a SWM focus was fairly slow. Stopped down to say f/4 the bokeh was still not very good (DOF coming into play here), but contrast was much better. Granted, this was on a D40; bottom of the barrel camera so I can't fault focus. Distortion was pretty psychedelic too; but for most shots it wasn't apparent. Needless to say, the lens was never used at 1.8. I always stopped it down to at least 2.8. My point is; who cares if this lens is 2.4? If it's good at 2.4, it's better (in my book, at least) than the 35 1.8 Nikkor. I'm optimistic, but I've moved on to fast 50's in Pentax's arsenal; the 35mm length is of limited use to me so unless it's street price is amazing I probably won't buy one. No need in being so pessimistic about a product absolutely none of us have touched or even seen outside of JPGs on Pentaxforums.com... photozone.de has a different opinion: Quote: The Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G ist able to deliver very sharp pictures wide open already. The bokeh, one of the primary aspects for a fast prime, is well developed and generally pleasing (at least slightly stopped down). http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/422-nikkor_35_18g?start=2 Corner performance wide open though is lacking. Last edited by Eruditass; 09-09-2010 at 07:20 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Misc Plastic humanity	causey	Post Your Photos!	13	01-07-2010 08:43 PM
Has the new plastic 55-300 the same IQ than the old one?	juanraortiz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	12-29-2009 02:06 PM
Stop using plastic	Damn Brit	General Talk	70	11-02-2009 09:38 PM
Full Moon Full Zoom	ismaelg	Post Your Photos!	8	06-08-2009 03:02 PM
Plastic Fantastic	Syb	Post Your Photos!	13	01-31-2009 08:52 AM

09-09-2010, 03:24 PM	#16
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Thanks Mark. I tend to believe positively, since much of business is about trying something new, different and even crazy to appeal to a certain market - but I'm definitely no businessman, so go figure. I'm just a keen amateur and am just as keen to see Pentax succeed. Am I'm believing this to be a positive move - perhaps not the best that it could be, but given Pentax's limitations, probably still a winner.

09-09-2010, 03:31 PM	#17
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by MrCynical We gearheads might think "well the CZJ Flektogon is only f2.4, and that's still a nice lens", whereas a newbie will do a "what lens should I buy?" Google search, read "the smaller the f-number is, the better the lens" and therefore buy Nikon. And that's EXACTLY why I'm going to take a "wait and see" attitude toward this new lens. My DA 15mm Ltd is f/4, for heaven's sake. f/4! And it's a fabulous lens. Another favorite of mine is the SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5. They both are tremendously sharp, from wide open, and have great contrast and color rendering. Neither a polycarbonate mount nor a plastic lens barrel worries me all that much, frankly. It's all about the optics, and I'll wait for details and examples before I get worked up too much in either direction.

09-09-2010, 03:31 PM	#18
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	I think the average consumer will remember an older camera with a prime attached to it. I could equally see them reacting like this: Wow it's so small! (Takes a picture of friend), wow! it's so crisp! The autofocus seems faster than the kit lens, and this is a great (misnomer for focal length) to take pictures of my family with! I think this lens will have some sex appeal because of it's size and looks. Since it looks similar to the human FOV (attentional, not peripheral, Marc :P) I could see people saying "I don't care if it zooms, because this is an easy legnth to work with, and my pictures seem to come out nicer. Besides, I feel like an old-school journalist!" For this market it's not about numbers and technology, it's really more about fun. I think the type of person you see lurking a technology forum will skew your perspective as to what the average consumer looks for.

09-09-2010, 03:55 PM	#19
Sailor Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Coastal Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,205	Originally posted by kales . . . . . . But a lens like DA35/2.4 at improper price will drive people away from Pentax, and finally kill the brand itself. And I thought this was just another "starter" lens; I had no idea the pricing of this lens was pivotal to Pentax's future. Jer

09-09-2010, 04:29 PM	#20
montman Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Kansas City Photos: Gallery Posts: 576	2.4 Really? Why…

09-09-2010, 04:54 PM	#22
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	The DA35 looks to be the perfect next lens for someone that bought the K-x or K-r with one or two kit zooms and is looking for: a) something physically smaller than a zoom b) something that can be used indoors for snapshots at family gatherings and friendly get-togethers. I can also imagine plenty of folks bringing the K-x/K-r on vacation, using the kit zooms during the day and then swapping in the DA35 at the hotel and swinging the camera over their shoulder for dinner and a night out. Both the K-x and K-r offer enough high ISO headroom to make the F2.4 a non-factor for people wanting to take nice snapshot.

09-09-2010, 05:01 PM	#23
JonPB Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 430	The f/2.4 specification gives me hope that Pentax designed this lens for its optics and handling rather than its spec sheet. I like Pentax for that very reason. The quality of this lens will make or break it. Having better out-of-focus rendering than the Nikon competitor won't be hard, and if you're interested in f/1.8 over f/2.4 then you'd better demand good bokeh. Will a small premium for a Pentax lens drive away people who already have a K-mount camera? I doubt it; the probable price difference pales in comparison to buying a new DSLR. Will it deter folks who are starting with interchangeable lenses and considering which system to buy into? I doubt it; the rest of the lens lineup matters too, and there are plenty there to drool over. And if they're already thinking about buying primes, then they'll look at image quality, where I expect the 35/2.4 to surprise. It would, however, be awesome if Pentax offers this lens as a kit lens option for folks who know they want better than a kit zoom. And even if it is "full plastic," Pentax does that with higher build quality than competitors.

09-09-2010, 05:02 PM	#24
FotoPete Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,774	Well looking at the specs, there's a high chance its just the FA35 with a smaller image circle so there's probably no reservations in the IQ dept. Just looks kinda ugly is all lol

09-09-2010, 05:38 PM	#25
brofkand Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 836	I owned a Nikkor 35 1.8, and it was ghastly wide open. Poor contrast, OK sharpness (not as sharp as the 18-55 kit, oddly enough) poor bokeh (I mean POOR), and even though it's a SWM focus was fairly slow. Stopped down to say f/4 the bokeh was still not very good (DOF coming into play here), but contrast was much better. Granted, this was on a D40; bottom of the barrel camera so I can't fault focus. Distortion was pretty psychedelic too; but for most shots it wasn't apparent. Needless to say, the lens was never used at 1.8. I always stopped it down to at least 2.8. My point is; who cares if this lens is 2.4? If it's good at 2.4, it's better (in my book, at least) than the 35 1.8 Nikkor. I'm optimistic, but I've moved on to fast 50's in Pentax's arsenal; the 35mm length is of limited use to me so unless it's street price is amazing I probably won't buy one. No need in being so pessimistic about a product absolutely none of us have touched or even seen outside of JPGs on Pentaxforums.com...

09-09-2010, 06:08 PM	#27
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by Eruditass Someone claimed that the 35mm f1.8 was really more like a f2.2. Is this true? Even if the 35mm f1.8 is optically equivalent, the lack of SR makes the Nikkor lens less desirable to get good results. I bought one for my friend (he did not have amazon account) who has the D200 (now he has the D300s); he has only used it a few times because of that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-09-2010, 06:09 PM	#28
brofkand Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 836	Originally posted by Eruditass Someone claimed that the 35mm f1.8 was really more like a f2.2. Is this true? Can't speak for that; I didn't measure the diaphragm. Nikon's 50mm lenses are something like 53.5mm though, at least according to Ken Rockwell.

09-09-2010, 06:36 PM	#29
opiet70 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 499	Originally posted by Ash And that's the trump card Pentax can easily win with - if newbies (and even some enthusiasts) do the research and find the 35/2.4 outperforming any other 35mm kit prime at f/2.4 onwards, then the K-r + 35/2.4 will be a formidable combo. Let's look at another aspect. A very inexpensive lens to go with a (hopefully) very good entry level camera and just in time for Christmas! My wife looked at this situation as beautiful marketing for people just past entry level in experience. Think of it...this lens will most likely be coupled with holiday discounts like happen each year. How affordable does that make this for Christmas gifts? How long has it been since someone could buy their family members a new lens for ~$200 or less? Would I buy this lens for myself? Probably not but it doesn't really fit into the lenses I want. I think this lens is going to hot item during the holidays.

09-10-2010, 12:21 AM	#30
Diffusion Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 74	Originally posted by axl After some exchanges with othe members in another threads I'll agree with Ash here. IF they got the IQ right this lens may be THE lens for many people with kit zooms wishing to experiment with faster primes yet not willing to spend money on ltds (be it DAs or FAs). Example? My wife. She has blue K-x. She loves 31ltd, but it's big and heavy. Does she really care about 1.8 or 2.4? Hell no. 2.4 will be bneneficial for her as it will let her shoot wide open and will mask more AF errors that beginners like her are likely to encounter. If the IQ of this lens at 2.4 will be comparable to that of 40ltd at 2.8 then for the RRP (which is half compared to 35/40ltds and nearly half of FA50/1.4) this may help Pentax rather then kill it IMHO. Am I dissapointed with it being f2.4 only? Yes, but then I have 31ltd so no problem... I agree with you, and yet I do not. 2.4 does not mask any AF or MF errors. If I know I have to mask any focusing errors I go to F4-F6.