[jslifoaw]

While 35/1.8 would have been nice (I have the FA31 so it's moot to me anyway), I think the grievances are a bit unjustified:

1) The FA35 was F2. Yes, and it was more expensive even at $300 (much less $450). So now you get 1/2 stop slower and about 35% cheaper. Pretty fair deal.

2) The Nikon is F1.8 for the same(ish) price. Yes, but Nikon sells tons of them (certainly more than Pentax would have sold of its DA35 even at F1.8) and benefits from economies of scale. Pentax probably cannot afford a loss leader, or at the very least, lower margins.

3) The Nikon is AF-S. Yes, but partially because entry level bodies don't have a screwdrive. It's true that quickshift would have been nice, but the majority of the target buyers probably want just AF anyway.

4) The Nikon is better built. Yes, but it sounds like people are picking their comparisons. Everybody is OK having a crummy-built Canon 50/1.8 because of its low price and that is brought up when comparing to Pentax. Finally Pentax offers a DA-L which probably isn't half as crummy as the Canon 50, and now we're saying the Nikon is higher quality.

I think most folks would observe that the only way to get "fast" apertures is to go big (DA* and FA Limited) or go old (old used lenses, FA Limited haha). The only DA lens faster than F2 is the 55. All the DA Limiteds are slower. It's not good when Pentax users feel the competition is better, but Pentax has made their offer on an affordable normal and if it's not good enough, users will leave and that's the way it is (sadly). Personally I have a friend with an F50/1.7 who likes the red version

[yeatzee]

While 35/1.8 would have been nice (I have the FA31 so it's moot to me anyway), I think the grievances are a bit unjustified:

1) The FA35 was F2. Yes, and it was more expensive even at $300 (much less $450). So now you get 1/2 stop slower and about 35% cheaper. Pretty fair deal.
Of course its more expensive at $300. Naturally $300>$200

It became expensive mainly because there was no other option for us Pentaxians that didn't cost a small fortune (read FA 31mm)..... that and its cult status that came out of know where


2) The Nikon is F1.8 for the same(ish) price. Yes, but Nikon sells tons of them (certainly more than Pentax would have sold of its DA35 even at F1.8) and benefits from economies of scale. Pentax probably cannot afford a loss leader, or at the very least, lower margins.
fair enough

3) The Nikon is AF-S. Yes, but partially because entry level bodies don't have a screwdrive. It's true that quickshift would have been nice, but the majority of the target buyers probably want just AF anyway.

For the first bit, good point but isn't it their version of SDM or w/e your talking about? And yes, I do wish it had quickshift for various reasons but i understand why it does not. No huge biggie

4) The Nikon is better built. Yes, but it sounds like people are picking their comparisons. Everybody is OK having a crummy-built Canon 50/1.8 because of its low price and that is brought up when comparing to Pentax. Finally Pentax offers a DA-L which probably isn't half as crummy as the Canon 50, and now we're saying the Nikon is higher quality.

We are comparing a "fast" cheap 35mm vs. a "fast" cheap 35mm, so how is that so? It seems you are the one picking the comparison.... what does a cheap "fast" 50mm have to do with this 35mm?

I think most folks would observe that the only way to get "fast" apertures is to go big (DA* and FA Limited) or go old (old used lenses, FA Limited haha). The only DA lens faster than F2 is the 55. All the DA Limiteds are slower. It's not good when Pentax users feel the competition is better, but Pentax has made their offer on an affordable normal and if it's not good enough, users will leave and that's the way it is (sadly). Personally I have a friend with an F50/1.7 who likes the red version

Just sayen....

(this is all IMO.... I am NOT complaining)

[jslifoaw]

Just sayen....

(this is all IMO.... I am NOT complaining)

That's completely fair

I brought up build quality because many of us Pentax folk used the Canon 50/1.8 to justify having Pentax make a flimsy lens (split between 35 and 50) as long as it was affordable and fast. Now Pentax has done that (presumably not as flimsy nor as fast), and we're bringing up the fact that the Nikon is better built! If Pentax had made a plain DA 35 (with metal mount and quick shift) for, say, $250, we might all be discussing why they didn't make it DA-L and $50 cheaper

[asdf]

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. .

At around 45-50mm, both lenses's MTF50 peaks at f/5.6. 16-45 is either sharper in the borders than 16-50 at f/4, or there is field curvature at fault there.

There are some things wrong with what you said about stopping down arbitrary lenses. If the lens starts at f/5.6 and the airy disk is already more-or-else larger than the pixels on the sensor, then stopping down will only degrade sharpness.

[creampuff]

C'mon asdf, the DA 16-45 and DA* 16-50 are so different in focal range, lens design, build quality, maximum aperture and price that to make a valid comparison is really stretching it. Looking at the charts from photozone that you have posted here it is so obvious that both lenses are not the sharpest at their maximum aperture but stopped down. By the same token I don't expect the new DA 35mm to differ very much from the same trend, but at least if the max aperture was a stop bigger it would offer more options in aperture choice and a brighter viewfinder and the benefits that come with it. No need to talk about airy disk or other theoretical jargon. I've used lenses that start at f/5.6 before and I have not come across any that have not shown better sharpness than stopped down a little from the max aperture.

[Ash]

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,

Nope, not joking. Look at costs of modern UWA lenses, esp. zooms - they're all relatively pricey. Apart from FA-J lenses, most other Pentax lenses have decent IQ. In any case, the point is, Pentax make lenses of good IQ - this one should be no exception - even if price may not reflect 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.

What I really wanted to say is that there are examples, particularly with Pentax lenses, where IQ is excellent already at wide open, with only modest increases in sharpness when stopped down (can't improve much on excellent ). And these exist in cheaper lenses, not just limited or DA* lenses. I certainly hope this is the case for the 35/2.4

[B Grace]

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?

Possible reasons the Pentax 35 should be about the same price as or more expensive than the Nikon 35 include:

- Better materials used for the lens elements.
- Better materials used overall.
- The required mechanical AF drive in the Pentax lens.
- Lower expected sales targets requiring higher upfront retail price.

Looking at this from the other direction, the Nikon 35 might be a loss leader for Nikon since they've been heavily criticized from day one that the D40/D40x/D60/D3000/D5000/D3100 camera line can't auto-focus the non-AF-S lenses, these complaints coming from established Nikon shooters who have never used those cameras and never intend to use them. They still complain though and people listen. With Nikon now having an inexpensive 35, 50, 85 trio that will AF on those less expensive cameras the marketing problem has been solved.

[asdf]

C'mon asdf, the DA 16-45 and DA* 16-50 are so different in focal range, lens design, build quality, maximum aperture and price that to make a valid comparison is really stretching it. Looking at the charts from photozone that you have posted here it is so obvious that both lenses are not the sharpest at their maximum aperture but stopped down. By the same token I don't expect the new DA 35mm to differ very much from the same trend, but at least if the max aperture was a stop bigger it would offer more options in aperture choice and a brighter viewfinder and the benefits that come with it. No need to talk about airy disk or other theoretical jargon. I've used lenses that start at f/5.6 before and I have not come across any that have not shown better sharpness than stopped down a little from the max aperture.

Not sure what you mean there. All I am saying is the following:

Sharpness is a function of the f-stop, not (f-stop - minimum f-stop). OK?

(For example) the size of the airy disk is proportional to the f-stop not (f-stop - minimum f-stop):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk

(This would dictate peak performance of a theoretically ideal lens.)

[alexeyga]

It's amazing how much energy people are wasting defending or trashing stuff they've only heard about...

Nikon's 35/1.8 is a very nice piece of glass for the price... as much of a killer deal as Nikon's 50/1.8 for 100$...

All the WR mesurbators will be happy to find out that the 35/1.8 is about the only true WR lens on the market because it's a completely enclosed design. There's no external parts moving or extending, focusing is entirely internal.

Yes the bokeh is somewhat harsh... but if you expect anything better from the DA35's 6 blades... good luck with that...

Yes, it's not the fastest lens to focus, but it's still faster and snappier than any Pentax lens on any Pentax body ever was...

IQ? It's comparable to the AF-D 35/2 with enough room for pixelpeepers to brag about...

The downside of that lens is that it's BIG... it's actually bigger than the AF-D 50/1.4.... that's one of the reasons why I prefer the AF-D 35/2...

What's really disappointing with the new Pentax lens, is that for the same asking price it seems a lot cheaper... How it will perform? Only the time will tell. Is it fair for a company that, once upon a time, was very affordable for regular Joes, to charge premium prices for inferior quality product... well, that's up to regular Joes to decide....

[omega leader]

I keep seeing all these comments about the poor build quality. However to the best of my knowledge no-one has actually held one right?

[yeatzee]

It's amazing how much energy people are wasting defending or trashing stuff they've only heard about...

Nikon's 35/1.8 is a very nice piece of glass for the price... as much of a killer deal as Nikon's 50/1.8 for 100$...

All the WR mesurbators will be happy to find out that the 35/1.8 is about the only true WR lens on the market because it's a completely enclosed design. There's no external parts moving or extending, focusing is entirely internal.

Yes the bokeh is somewhat harsh... but if you expect anything better from the DA35's 6 blades... good luck with that...

Yes, it's not the fastest lens to focus, but it's still faster and snappier than any Pentax lens on any Pentax body ever was...
IQ? It's comparable to the AF-D 35/2 with enough room for pixelpeepers to brag about...

The downside of that lens is that it's BIG... it's actually bigger than the AF-D 50/1.4.... that's one of the reasons why I prefer the AF-D 35/2...

What's really disappointing with the new Pentax lens, is that for the same asking price it seems a lot cheaper... How it will perform? Only the time will tell. Is it fair for a company that, once upon a time, was very affordable for regular Joes, to charge premium prices for inferior quality product... well, that's up to regular Joes to decide....

Whens the last time you used a Pentax camera? K200d with a SDM lens?

Pentax's AF with my K-7 and F 135mm is faster than any auto focus I've tried to date in normal conditions.... including a D90 with the nikon 35mm F1.8....

[Blue]

While 35/1.8 would have been nice (I have the FA31 so it's moot to me anyway), I think the grievances are a bit unjustified:

1) The FA35 was F2. Yes, and it was more expensive even at $300 (much less $450). So now you get 1/2 stop slower and about 35% cheaper. Pretty fair deal.

2) The Nikon is F1.8 for the same(ish) price. Yes, but Nikon sells tons of them (certainly more than Pentax would have sold of its DA35 even at F1.8) and benefits from economies of scale. Pentax probably cannot afford a loss leader, or at the very least, lower margins.

3) The Nikon is AF-S. Yes, but partially because entry level bodies don't have a screwdrive. It's true that quickshift would have been nice, but the majority of the target buyers probably want just AF anyway.

4) The Nikon is better built. Yes, but it sounds like people are picking their comparisons. Everybody is OK having a crummy-built Canon 50/1.8 because of its low price and that is brought up when comparing to Pentax. Finally Pentax offers a DA-L which probably isn't half as crummy as the Canon 50, and now we're saying the Nikon is higher quality.

I think most folks would observe that the only way to get "fast" apertures is to go big (DA* and FA Limited) or go old (old used lenses, FA Limited haha). The only DA lens faster than F2 is the 55. All the DA Limiteds are slower. It's not good when Pentax users feel the competition is better, but Pentax has made their offer on an affordable normal and if it's not good enough, users will leave and that's the way it is (sadly). Personally I have a friend with an F50/1.7 who likes the red version

Those crummy built Canon 50/1.8 plasti-mount lenses is why I'm apprehensive about seeing Pentax using more and more mounts made that way.

Overall, other than the mount, the DA 35/1.3 only really gives up in 2 places on the paper comparison to the FA 35/2.4 and that is the .4 loss in aperture and the aperture ring.

They both have the same optical formula, Ghostless Coating, minimum focusing distance, maximum magnification and maximum length. The DA also gets the SP Coating on the front element. It also appears to have a better focus ring than the FA, but that will come down to dampening etc.

[alexeyga]

Whens the last time you used a Pentax camera? K200d with a SDM lens?

Pentax's AF with my K-7 and F 135mm is faster than any auto focus I've tried to date in normal conditions.... including a D90 with the nikon 35mm F1.8....

Let's not start another discussion about Pentax AF vs other's AF... but to be honest, i had the K7 long enough to note that screw-driven lenses were focusing noticeably faster than SDM lenses... b.t.w. in my experience, D90 while isn't the fastest-focusing Nikon's body is still much faster than K7 will ever be... Hopefully K5 will put Pentax on pares with big boys... about time to stop re-incarnating the Safox and come up with something that works...

Have you heard the story about the 3 K7 bodies I had to go through to find one with acceptably accurate AF? No i haven't found it funny either....

[yeatzee]

Let's not start another discussion about Pentax AF vs other's AF... but to be honest, i had the K7 long enough to note that screw-driven lenses were focusing noticeably faster than SDM lenses... b.t.w. in my experience, D90 while isn't the fastest-focusing Nikon's body is still much faster than K7 will ever be... Hopefully K5 will put Pentax on pares with big boys... about time to stop re-incarnating the Safox and come up with something that works...

Have you heard the story about the 3 K7 bodies I had to go through to find one with acceptably accurate AF? No i haven't found it funny either....

My experience differs..... (my best friend thats a photographer has one.... I use it all of the time).

And yes I have.... extremely unlucky.

[sherwood]

Back to old film days, we used fast primes to shoot in low light because the best films were slow and the fastest ones were grainy.

Now we have DSLRs with amazing IQ at high ISO settings and shake-reduction systems.

If those who claim here they need f1.8 primes had to pay for each frame they burn, would they still shoot wide opened ?