DA 35mm/2.4 - A Plastic Wonder! -- DAL35 vs FA35 vs DA35m vs A35 (many photos!)

**kiwi_jono** · 10-29-2010, 02:55 AM

Wow - what lovely bokeh the DAL 35 has! Looks very pleasant to me.

Thanks Frank - I also really appreciate you taking the time to shoot and post this review. Very helpful.

You have caused me to add this to my buy list too (once prices have settled).

jolepp · 10-29-2010, 03:19 AM

Thanks for the thorough review! (I suppose I need to go to the pharmacy at once to ask for an anti LBA attack inhaler ;-)

wjjstu · 11-02-2010, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by indytax

I noticed the same thing in Frank's original post. I suppose someone will disassemble one soon enough to tell us.

Who will volunteer to be the first?

civiletti · 11-19-2010, 05:10 PM

Beside the A35's lack of sharpness at wide apertures, I see no clear differences between the lenses on resolution and contrast; especially given the exposure variance. The DA35 f2.4 has the smoothest bokeh. It also seems a bit sharper a f16, but again, the exposure variation may mask the true optical differences.

Without further evidence to the contrary, I would say that the new lens is quite a bargain and possibly as sharp as any Pentax 35, perhaps with the exception of the k35 3.5.

blende8 · 12-02-2010, 09:01 AM

I am wondering what the extra, large contact is on the DA35, at five o'clock:

farfisa · 12-02-2010, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by blende8

I am wondering what the extra, large contact is on the DA35, at five o'clock:

Don't touch it! It could be the only thing holding the lens together!

civiletti · 12-02-2010, 03:44 PM

perhaps it replaces the conductivity of the metal mount.

FHPhotographer · 12-02-2010, 04:06 PM

Hate to swim up stream on this, but the 35 f/2.4 is at best an average lens. Inexpensive to be sure compared to available lenses. It works well, focuses quick and well, produces nice colors etc etc but... something was lacking in the images I got. The 2.4 I had, and sent back, produced a (subjective) "flatness" compared to other prime Pentax lenses I've used (DA35, FA43, A50 1.7). It even lacked the same snap and the 3D feel of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 at the same aperture and focal length. It's may be a great value/quality offering, but it's just a average prime lens.
Brian

jolepp · 12-02-2010, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by civiletti

perhaps it replaces the conductivity of the metal mount.

Most likely, my k-x kit DA-Ls have these too (plastic mount with these too).

blende8 · 12-03-2010, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by civiletti

perhaps it replaces the conductivity of the metal mount.

Oh man, of course, yes!

omega leader · 12-03-2010, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by FHPhotographer

Hate to swim up stream on this, but the 35 f/2.4 is at best an average lens. Inexpensive to be sure compared to available lenses.

Brian, I think the main issue is compared to other inexpensive lenses, 18-55mm, etc. it is very good.

I don't think there is anything else you can get at $180 that even comes close. Personally I don't like the "normal" focal length, but it is something that has been lacking for parents who only have the kit lens.

Eagle_Friends · 12-03-2010, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by omega leader

Brian, I think the main issue is compared to other inexpensive lenses, 18-55mm, etc. it is very good.

I don't think there is anything else you can get at $180 that even comes close. Personally I don't like the "normal" focal length, but it is something that has been lacking for parents who only have the kit lens.

agree, why are you comparing it exclusively to lenses that cost many times more? This is one of the two perfect primes (the other being the incredible DA 40mm) for beginning Pentax users.

**jeffshaddix** · 12-03-2010, 10:51 PM

Looking at those test pics (which were excellent btw), the new 35mm looks great (especially for the price). The DA35macro still has them all beat for IQ in my opinion, but the difference is fairly small with the new DA, and I dare say the new lens has a bit better bokeh characteristics.

Anyway, nice samples, thanks!! (I'm still dreaming of the macro though) :P

FHPhotographer · 12-03-2010, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Eagle_Friends

agree, why are you comparing it exclusively to lenses that cost many times more? This is one of the two perfect primes (the other being the incredible DA 40mm) for beginning Pentax users.

Well no, it really isn't "perfect" and that's my point: good for the price, but at best an average quality prime. Paying $200 or $600 doesn't change the outcome I saw: the renderings of the 2.4 are flat.

Note that I didn't expect a inexpensive prime to be the same as the Limiteds, but I did expect that a new prime would hold it's own against a slower, two-year-old standard zoom under like conditions. It didn't.

Is the 35 f/2.4 IQ okay? Sure. And is that good enough? That's up to you.

Brian

Pentaxor · 12-04-2010, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by FHPhotographer

I did expect that a new prime would hold it's own against a slower, two-year-old standard zoom under like conditions. It didn't.

Brian

I wouldn't call the Tamron an ordinary standard zoom by all means, it's a very nice lens although you may have a point that 35/2.4 didn't meet your expectations. I can't fault Pentax if they came up with a cheap/affordable 35mm prime. obviously, the lens itself was made or marketed for the budget conscious newbies that can't afford or warrant a better lens and answer the clamor for a missing cheap 35mm prime lens. I believe Pentax did this on purpose inorder not to cannibalize the sales of the DA35 macro, DA40 and possibly the FA43.

as you mentioned, it can get the job done. but people shouldn't expect something miraculous from a $200 prime lens. if someone expects a miracle, he should look for more expensive options.

speaking of zoom lens versus the new prime 35mm, it is not even a fair statement that just because it's a prime, it suppose to be better. there are zooms that are better than a prime.

12-02-2010, 04:06 PM	#113
FHPhotographer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Fountain Hills, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,297	Hate to swim up stream on this, but the 35 f/2.4 is at best an average lens. Inexpensive to be sure compared to available lenses. It works well, focuses quick and well, produces nice colors etc etc but... something was lacking in the images I got. The 2.4 I had, and sent back, produced a (subjective) "flatness" compared to other prime Pentax lenses I've used (DA35, FA43, A50 1.7). It even lacked the same snap and the 3D feel of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 at the same aperture and focal length. It's may be a great value/quality offering, but it's just a average prime lens. Brian Last edited by FHPhotographer; 12-03-2010 at 10:54 PM.

12-02-2010, 04:15 PM	#114
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	Originally posted by civiletti perhaps it replaces the conductivity of the metal mount. Most likely, my k-x kit DA-Ls have these too (plastic mount with these too). Last edited by jolepp; 12-03-2010 at 12:37 AM.

12-03-2010, 10:52 PM	#119
FHPhotographer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Fountain Hills, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,297	Cost isn't the issue, quality is... Originally posted by Eagle_Friends agree, why are you comparing it exclusively to lenses that cost many times more? This is one of the two perfect primes (the other being the incredible DA 40mm) for beginning Pentax users. Well no, it really isn't "perfect" and that's my point: good for the price, but at best an average quality prime. Paying $200 or $600 doesn't change the outcome I saw: the renderings of the 2.4 are flat. Note that I didn't expect a inexpensive prime to be the same as the Limiteds, but I did expect that a new prime would hold it's own against a slower, two-year-old standard zoom under like conditions. It didn't. Is the 35 f/2.4 IQ okay? Sure. And is that good enough? That's up to you. Brian

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Cleaning Out - Tokina 17mm/3.5, M 20mm/4, A35-105mm, FA J 18-35mm etc ...	Dubesor	Sold Items	15	08-06-2010 01:06 PM
For Sale - Sold: [EU] Pentax K10Dkit, FA35/2, A50/1.7, A35-105/3.5, M28/2.8, 50-250/4-5,6, 85/2	shakkei	Sold Items	20	01-29-2009 08:13 PM
For Sale - Sold: K20D Kit, Grip, DA55-300, M85, A35-105, K45-125, A35-70, A70-210	alfdog	Sold Items	17	11-03-2008 07:57 AM
For Sale - Sold: Tokina 19-35mm f3.5 - 4.5 Plastic Fantastic	Rykoh	Sold Items	18	09-20-2008 01:25 AM

10-29-2010, 02:55 AM	#106
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	Wow - what lovely bokeh the DAL 35 has! Looks very pleasant to me. Thanks Frank - I also really appreciate you taking the time to shoot and post this review. Very helpful. You have caused me to add this to my buy list too (once prices have settled).

10-29-2010, 03:19 AM	#107
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	Thanks for the thorough review! (I suppose I need to go to the pharmacy at once to ask for an anti LBA attack inhaler ;-)

11-02-2010, 11:08 PM	#108
wjjstu Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 181	Originally posted by indytax I noticed the same thing in Frank's original post. I suppose someone will disassemble one soon enough to tell us. Who will volunteer to be the first?

11-19-2010, 05:10 PM	#109
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	Beside the A35's lack of sharpness at wide apertures, I see no clear differences between the lenses on resolution and contrast; especially given the exposure variance. The DA35 f2.4 has the smoothest bokeh. It also seems a bit sharper a f16, but again, the exposure variation may mask the true optical differences. Without further evidence to the contrary, I would say that the new lens is quite a bargain and possibly as sharp as any Pentax 35, perhaps with the exception of the k35 3.5.

12-02-2010, 09:01 AM	#110
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	I am wondering what the extra, large contact is on the DA35, at five o'clock:

12-02-2010, 09:54 AM	#111
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	Originally posted by blende8 I am wondering what the extra, large contact is on the DA35, at five o'clock: Don't touch it! It could be the only thing holding the lens together!

12-02-2010, 03:44 PM	#112
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	perhaps it replaces the conductivity of the metal mount.

12-03-2010, 01:47 AM	#115
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	Originally posted by civiletti perhaps it replaces the conductivity of the metal mount. Oh man, of course, yes!

12-03-2010, 04:47 PM	#116
omega leader Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Niagara Region, Ontario Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	Originally posted by FHPhotographer Hate to swim up stream on this, but the 35 f/2.4 is at best an average lens. Inexpensive to be sure compared to available lenses. Brian, I think the main issue is compared to other inexpensive lenses, 18-55mm, etc. it is very good. I don't think there is anything else you can get at $180 that even comes close. Personally I don't like the "normal" focal length, but it is something that has been lacking for parents who only have the kit lens.

12-03-2010, 07:37 PM	#117
Eagle_Friends Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 971	Originally posted by omega leader Brian, I think the main issue is compared to other inexpensive lenses, 18-55mm, etc. it is very good. I don't think there is anything else you can get at $180 that even comes close. Personally I don't like the "normal" focal length, but it is something that has been lacking for parents who only have the kit lens. agree, why are you comparing it exclusively to lenses that cost many times more? This is one of the two perfect primes (the other being the incredible DA 40mm) for beginning Pentax users.

12-03-2010, 10:51 PM	#118
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	Looking at those test pics (which were excellent btw), the new 35mm looks great (especially for the price). The DA35macro still has them all beat for IQ in my opinion, but the difference is fairly small with the new DA, and I dare say the new lens has a bit better bokeh characteristics. Anyway, nice samples, thanks!! (I'm still dreaming of the macro though) :P

12-04-2010, 12:14 AM	#120
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by FHPhotographer I did expect that a new prime would hold it's own against a slower, two-year-old standard zoom under like conditions. It didn't. Brian I wouldn't call the Tamron an ordinary standard zoom by all means, it's a very nice lens although you may have a point that 35/2.4 didn't meet your expectations. I can't fault Pentax if they came up with a cheap/affordable 35mm prime. obviously, the lens itself was made or marketed for the budget conscious newbies that can't afford or warrant a better lens and answer the clamor for a missing cheap 35mm prime lens. I believe Pentax did this on purpose inorder not to cannibalize the sales of the DA35 macro, DA40 and possibly the FA43. as you mentioned, it can get the job done. but people shouldn't expect something miraculous from a $200 prime lens. if someone expects a miracle, he should look for more expensive options. speaking of zoom lens versus the new prime 35mm, it is not even a fair statement that just because it's a prime, it suppose to be better. there are zooms that are better than a prime.