Originally posted by audiobomber The DA 35 2.4 should have been a DA 28 2.4.
I agree that 28mm makes more sense than 35mm. However, I guess a good 28mm is more difficult to construct than a 35mm (on the K-mount).
I don't think I'll become friends with a 35mm, but I'm open to be proven wrong.
I'm glad that Pentax seemed to prioritised getting the bokeh of the DAL 35/2.4 right. It seems to be not quite up to its 35mm competitors (sans the A35) in terms of other optical criteria but as far as I can see it wins in the bokeh department. Given that it is plenty sharp, I think that was the right thing to do for Pentax.
P.S.: Love the fact how everyone refers to the lens as a DA *L*. If Pentax cannot get it right, we can.
P.P.S.: It does look like as if the lens contained an artificial aperture limiter, just like the K 55/2.0 (compared to the K 55/1.8). Does anyone else think this is the case?
(The above image was originally included in the
first post of this thread.)