[paperbag846]

I have heard so many conflicting opinions - I have some specific questions. Keep in mind that I will likely be able to find the DA 40 within 100 dollars of the DAL new if I go used, so the price difference in negligible.

I want this to be a flexible people lens.

1) Will I notice a big difference in bokeh quality if I'm trying to do wider portrait work?
2) Is the DA 40 really that much sharper?
3) Will the DAL 35 be THAT much more flexible in low light?
4) If the extra money for the DA 40 more about the size, or the IQ? I don't really care about the size, but a jump in IQ would be worth it to me.

Thank you, and sorry for kicking a dead horse.

[lowspark86]

1) Not sure, but my guess is they are similar.
2) Sharpness doesn't seem to be a problem for either lens.
3) f2.4 vs f2.8 is half a stop. Not really a big difference unless you can't bump ISO a little. I would say this depends more on what camera you have. For the better low light cams I wouldn't bother to think about it.
4) I would say the DA 40 is about size, build quality, includes custom metal hoods and caps and a limited bag. Both lenses look like they will have good enough IQ.

[paperbag846]

if the IQ is equal I think this one is a no-brainer . Thanks so much! The extra 1/2 stop would help me, because I don't much like the K20D over 1600. However if the DA 40 would look better the 95% of the times that I would have enough light, I would rather buy that.

The lens will last me far longer than this camera body, which will eventually be replaced with some sort of night-vision super-cam considering the improvements made every year.

[Eruditass]

1) Wait for direct comparisons
2) See #1
3) Half a stop or 50% in ISO or shutter speeds.
4) No one knows yet.

I didn't care about the size originally, but now that I have more lenses, I can fit the DA40 in the side pouch or in my pocket where my 28mm or 50mm small primes wont.

That said, I am debating the 35mm as the 40 is awfully close to my 50's.

---

Last edited by Eruditass; 10-27-2010 at 12:28 PM.

[germar]

I love the DA40. It's images are truly fabulous and the size allows me to turn my K20D into a very portable and stowable high end traveling camera. Toss this lens on your dslr, drop it in your backpack and you're ready for anything. Just this flexibility alone is worth the additional cost over the 35mm f2.4 in my opinion.

Regards,

germar

[causey]

B&H and Adorama sell the DA 40mm for $340. Within the next few months the DA L 35mm will be around $200. I had the DA 40mm (which is a truly amazing lens) and I've seen some pics from the ;DA L 35mm; I think the difference in price doesn't justify going for the DA L 35mm yet. If the latter could be had for about $150, maybe.

[summonbaka]

I'd buy the 35mm if it had full time manual focus (and a distance scale, come on is it that expensive to print that on the lens?). I'm still wondering which, though. The 35, 40 or 43. No money for either, luckily.

[paperbag846]

I don't think the 5mm or the 1/2 stop are really pushing me towards the DAL 35mm, because 40mm is still forgiving, slightly more flattering, and the 1/2 stop is easily defeated by ISO (this is not going to be a super-thin DOF lens either way).

On the other hand, I'm thinking that the fast AF and 9 aperture blades, and sharpness from f2.8 on the DA 40 to be tipping the scales in it's favor.

... and I kinda want to buy it and wave it in front of my Canon wielding friends faces .

[Finger]

My thoughts about this are that it's not worth it to sell a used 40 to buy a new 35 2.4. But between buying the 2 new, I would try the 35 first.

[chalion]

I've watched franks thread in comparision to other 35mm lenses. What brought me to buy it overall was COST. The DA 35mm f2.4 was the lowest price. I received mine yesterday and have not had alot of time to play around with it. I tested it at a practice session of my townships football teams (kids league) and had alot of lens flare and blur, but this can be discounted because it was overcast and about an hour after the sun had set. (fields lights were on). I'd link a few, to show how bad my shooting is, but I have to learn how to load photos to albums first.

[Eagle_Friends]

I would go for the 40, you can get one for 290 used, so it's only a little more expensive than the 35.

Also, the built quality of the 40 is amazing, all metal, super smooth barrel, and the size!

I say the 40mm is a better lens.

[Pentaxor]

as I said before and I'll say it again,

DA40 - build, sexyness, IQ.
DA35/2.4 - price, focal length preference, speed.

[themmc]

chalion - where'd you get your DA 35mm f2.4 from?

[yusuf]

Curious, How both compares against FA35/2?

[axl]

I have heard so many conflicting opinions - I have some specific questions. Keep in mind that I will likely be able to find the DA 40 within 100 dollars of the DAL new if I go used, so the price difference in negligible.

I want this to be a flexible people lens.

1) Will I notice a big difference in bokeh quality if I'm trying to do wider portrait work?
2) Is the DA 40 really that much sharper?
3) Will the DAL 35 be THAT much more flexible in low light?
4) If the extra money for the DA 40 more about the size, or the IQ? I don't really care about the size, but a jump in IQ would be worth it to me.

Thank you, and sorry for kicking a dead horse.

1) wide open probably not, stopped down it's 6 blades against 9 and that'll show
2) can't compare becasue I've never shot DA or FA35. I used to have DA40 though and the good thing is that it's sharp across the frame, from corner to corner! And I mean that literally! Even at f2.8 and that's something hard to match...
3) it would have to be REALLY low light and your ISO or exposure time would really have to be pushed hard to notice 0.5 stop difference.
4) the money for DA40 will show in build quality, nine blades and size.

Judging all of this... the new 35 seems to be a great lens but if you have the funds for 40ltd I'd go with that