[zxaar]

From the time this lense is announced there is a theme running in forums. That is
- a general user is unlikely know difference between F2.4 and F1.8. Hence it does not matter whether the lense is f2.4 or f1.8.

I do not agree with this view.

Why??

My view is that just because someone does not know the difference , it is not good idea to sell him something worse at the price of something good.

Give you a personal experience. My 50mm F1.2 was my first pentax lense and i bought it because the guy who sold me that insisted that it is better than 50mm F1.4 that i was about to buy. I bought it for roughly 100$s. Today i am glad that he did not sell me 50mm F1.4 for say 50$ or 70$s as an ignorant user i was not about to notice difference between F1.4 and F1.2. He is nice guy and today i am thankful that he did not believe that since general user will not notice difference it is alright to sell him anything.

[Rondec]

My personal opinion is that the fact that this lens is f2.4 will make absolutely no difference to the people using it. The real question is how sharp it will be at f2.8. If it is sharp there, then forget about it. People will love it. Cost wise it is perfect. Why do people buy the Canon 50mm f1.8? Is it the build? The beautiful bokeh? It is the cost of course.

My brother has the Nikon 35 f1.8 and it is a nice lens, but I will guarantee that the Pentax will auto focus circles around it. Screw driven lenses are much zippier than the in lens motor that is in that particular lens.

With high iso being what it is these days, most people would rather shoot at f2.8 anyway. Depth of field wider than that is tiny and you just get better results with it stopped down a little. People who want/need quality will continue to look at the DA limiteds and FA limiteds, since for them the cost will not stand in their way.

[Ash]

My view is that just because someone does not know the difference , it is not good idea to sell him something worse at the price of something good.

Why do you consider f/2.4 'worse' than f/1.8?
What if your f/1.8 version is not as sharp as the f/2.4 version at f/2.4?
Would you be saying the same thing then?

My point: if the 35/2.4 is an optically superior lens to its competitors - it will matter MUCH LESS that it is f/2.4 rather than f/1.8...

Give you a personal experience. My 50mm F1.2 was my first pentax lense and i bought it because the guy who sold me that insisted that it is better than 50mm F1.4 that i was about to buy. I bought it for roughly 100$s. Today i am glad that he did not sell me 50mm F1.4 for say 50$ or 70$s as an ignorant user i was not about to notice difference between F1.4 and F1.2. He is nice guy and today i am thankful that he did not believe that since general user will not notice difference it is alright to sell him anything.

You managed to get yourself an f/1.2 lens for $100?!?
Then my friend you are one fortunate person...
But the point still stands: if the 35/2.4 is sharp wide open, people will buy it - and there will be little to complain about (unless the lens falls apart on them, which I'd be surprised about). If a 35/1.8 or 35/2 were designed (with superior optics again) you can be sure it won't be costing as little as $200.

[Unsinkable II]

Thanks for the colours, Hoya.

I'll take mine in SH!T brown.

[Unsinkable II]

If a 35/1.8 or 35/2 were designed (with superior optics again) you can be sure it won't be costing as little as $200.

The FAB FA35/2.0 used to be around US$300. I can only see used ones going up at this point.

When Samsung can do a small 30/2.0 for little money, why can't Pentax? Isn't that their turf?

[Unsinkable II]

To all those saying that PnS upgraders will enjoy this lens and it will be a natural progression for them... bollox.

The kit 18-55 has basically no distortion at 35mm, and is only a point-and-a-bit slower. Considering a K-x is probably 2 points superior even recentish cameras, the whole point is moot. Other than narrow DOF which newbies (me included) can really enjoy. 2.4@35mm isn't as "wow" as 1.8@50mm.... which Canon are happy to sell you for a HUNDRED bucks!

I am very happy with Pentax. However, I cannot in good conscience recommend it to all my wife's friends who ask me how to improve their pictures. I say Canikon because it's good for them and SAFE for them. If I knowingly buy doomed gear, that's my perogative; I'm certainly not going to recommend it to others.

[paperbag846]

I am very happy with Pentax. However, I cannot in good conscience recommend it to all my wife's friends who ask me how to improve their pictures. I say Canikon because it's good for them and SAFE for them. If I knowingly buy doomed gear, that's my perogative; I'm certainly not going to recommend it to others.

Not to be antagonistic, but I don't think that swapping brands will really help you "improve" your pictures unless it allows you access to gear the other system does not have.

Who said Pentax is doomed? They have been more profitable in the last year than in a long time. These new decisions that you claim will kill the brand, are actually increasing their bottom line. If anything, these quirky business decisions are breathing new life into the brand.

[creampuff]

Why do you consider f/2.4 'worse' than f/1.8?
What if your f/1.8 version is not as sharp as the f/2.4 version at f/2.4?
Would you be saying the same thing then?

My point: if the 35/2.4 is an optically superior lens to its competitors - it will matter MUCH LESS that it is f/2.4 rather than f/1.8...

The laws of physics don't change. You're making the assumption or hope that the new DA 35 f/2.4 is sharp from maximum aperture. If the budget Nikon 35mm f/1.8 has to be stopped down to get decent sharpness (it is sharpest at about f/4), than by the same principle the new Pentax plastic wonder would only attain optimal sharpness stopped down by about 2 stops. Whether a lens is soft at f/1.8 or not, it still gives more shooting options in aperture range plus the important added benefit of a brighter viewfinder. I'll be happy to be proved wrong but I'm gonna hazard a prediction that no matter the pedigree of the new DA 35mm f/2.4, it just won't be as sharp as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 at the same aperture.

If a 35/1.8 or 35/2 were designed (with superior optics again) you can be sure it won't be costing as little as $200.

Nikon and Canon (and very soon Sony) already deliver decent IQ with their 35mm budget lenses which have a larger maximum aperture that Pentax's budget offering. You want top performance, metal instead of plastic and better build quality? Then you'll need to cough out more money. Ask yourself why Pentax users should be paying about the same price as a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 for a smaller max aperture? Does that make sense?

[Brangdon]

My view is that just because someone does not know the difference , it is not good idea to sell him something worse at the price of something good.

We don't know that it is worse. When you make a cheap lens, you have to make trade-offs, and the hope is that making it relatively slow has enabled them to improve the image quality. If so, then that could be a good trade-off for the intended market.

Wide apertures are mainly for two things: shallow depth of field and low light. For newcomers, the wafer thin depth of field of f/1.4 can be a liability because it is so hard to work with. They have enough trouble understanding focussing as it is. They are used to tiny sensors with huge depth of field that covers up focussing problems. Shallow depth of field is one of the few things that still makes SLRs harder to use than compacts.

As for low light, with the K-x and K-r Pentax have the advantages of (a) best high ISO performance of their class; (b) image stabilisation in the camera. You can ramp up the ISO and use slower shutter speeds and still get good results. This makes it less important to get low-light performance from the lens. Other manufacturers need f/1.4 more than Pentax do.

I'm not saying it's not a compromise. I want the moon on a stick, same as everyone else. I'm saying the trade-offs for Pentax are different to those of rivals. With this lens they are playing to their camera's strengths.

He is nice guy and today i am thankful that he did not believe that since general user will not notice difference it is alright to sell him anything.

That cuts both ways. If it turns out that the Pentax f/2.4 delivers better results than a rival f/1.4, a good, knowledgeable salesman will guide customers towards it. In that regard, it doesn't matter so much if the customer is ignorant and doesn't do research.

[asdf]

The laws of physics don't change. You're making the assumption or hope that the new DA 35 f/2.4 is sharp from maximum aperture. If the budget Nikon 35mm f/1.8 has to be stopped down to get decent sharpness (it is sharpest at about f/4), than by the same principle the new Pentax plastic wonder would only attain optimal sharpness stopped down by about 2 stops.

Not quite true.

Look at MTF charts of DA 14-45 f/4, for example, and compare them to DA* 16-50 f/2.8.

[Ash]

The laws of physics don't change. You're making the assumption or hope that the new DA 35 f/2.4 is sharp from maximum aperture. If the budget Nikon 35mm f/1.8 has to be stopped down to get decent sharpness (it is sharpest at about f/4), than by the same principle the new Pentax plastic wonder would only attain optimal sharpness stopped down by about 2 stops.

And again, have a look at the DA 12-24. Sharp, and exceptionally good IQ right from f/4.
There are other examples, but I know it can be done.
Of course, I'm not assuming anything - I have no clue what the 35/2.4 will be like.
For all I know it could have shocking IQ, but somehow I highly doubt that...

[excanonfd]

Not quite true.

Look at MTF charts of DA 14-45 f/4, for example, and compare them to DA* 16-50 f/2.8.

There was a Nikon E series lens that delivered higher IO than it's Nikkor counterpart but that is an exception not the rule. If you truly want to make a comparison between current Pentax zooms then it should be the DA 18-55 vs DA 16-45 f4.0 or DA 18-55 vs DA 16-50 f2.8. I don't think anyone would consider the DA 16-45 f4.0 as a 'budget' lens, given it's pricing as new; $390.00 CDN in my locale.

Thanks,

[excanonfd]

And again, have a look at the DA 12-24. Sharp, and exceptionally good IQ right from f/4.
There are other examples, but I know it can be done.
Of course, I'm not assuming anything - I have no clue what the 35/2.4 will be like.
For all I know it could have shocking IQ, but somehow I highly doubt that...

You must be joking! A DA 12-24 at current street pricing (my locale) is six times higher than the newly announced Pentax plastic wonder 35 f2.4. If DA 12-24 did not deliver exceptional IQ from the widest aperture opening, it would have been ridiculed off the shelf before it had any chance of collecting dust.

Thanks,

[asdf]

There was a Nikon E series lens that delivered higher IO than it's Nikkor counterpart but that is an exception not the rule. If you truly want to make a comparison between current Pentax zooms then it should be the DA 18-55 vs DA 16-45 f4.0 or DA 18-55 vs DA 16-50 f2.8. I don't think anyone would consider the DA 16-45 f4.0 as a 'budget' lens, given it's pricing as new; $390.00 CDN in my locale.

Thanks,

The point I was making was about the MTF charts: 16-45 is already pretty good at f/4.

A theoretically perfect lens system is limited only by diffraction -- the Airy disk depends on the chosen f-stop NOT the maximum aperture.

(creampuff was talking about physics.)

[creampuff]

Not quite true.

Look at MTF charts of DA 14-45 f/4, for example, and compare them to DA* 16-50 f/2.8.

First off there is no DA 14-45 f/4, so I'm assuming you're referring to the discontinued DA 16-45mm. I've owned the DA 16-45mm before and it does deliver even sharpness but at f/4 the faster and more expensive DA*16-50mm already edges it in the center. Even if we look at both lenses individually, they reach optimal sharpness stopped down a little. To me this is not a very good comparison to make as the design differences between the two lenses are really quite different.

And again, have a look at the DA 12-24. Sharp, and exceptionally good IQ right from f/4.
There are other examples, but I know it can be done.
Of course, I'm not assuming anything - I have no clue what the 35/2.4 will be like.
For all I know it could have shocking IQ, but somehow I highly doubt that...

Ash, I have the DA 12-24mm too so I know this lens is very sharp in the center at f/4 (only at 12mm) but the edge sharpness is lagging. I find that I gotta shoot at f/5.6 if I want better edge sharpness and give up a little on that center sharpness and reduce the CA. Other than at 12mm, the lens is like other lenses in that sharpness improves noticeably if stopped down a little.