[Rondec]

Obviously no one really has much experience with the Da 35 yet. I guess the lenses are not that much different with regard to sharpness. The DA 40 definitely has really good edge to edge sharpness and contrast. DA 35 is probably comparable though. The DA 40 is obviously a lot smaller, although I imagine weight is similar due to the fact that the DA 40 is made of metal versus plastic for the DA 35. Auto focus will be quite quick with both lenses. They are small and will both feel pretty zippy.

I guess I would lean toward the DA 40, just because I feel like it will hold up better over time. Ten years from now, I bet there will be a lot more broken DA 35's due to wear and tear than there will be DA 40s.

Since I have never handled a DA-L 35, please take everything I say with a grain of salt.

[paperbag846]

Thanks everyone. I've decided to score a DA 40 on the used market, or buy a new DAL 35 if I can't find the DA 40 used. The price of a DA 40 used is really not too different from that of the DAL 35 new. My thinking was really that if the DA 35 would look just as good at f2.8, what is the point, but I think the 9 bladed aperture will show when I move it up to f4 .

I really very rarely shoot below f 2.8 anyways... unless I HAVE TO... and in those situations the photo is often subpar. I'd rather deal with a little extra ISO noise than a undersized DOF or mis-focus.

Pentax really gave me a problem here - before the DAL 35, this would have been a no-brainer, but man does this new lens look really nice for the BEST price.

Aside: Was helping out my dad, as he hates his Canon 18-75 zoom for general use because it is quite large. I suggested a 35mm prime for ease of use, which he liked the idea of. I let it slip that Pentax just released a 200 dollar 35mm, and felt like a bit of an ass when I had to tell him that the equivalent in Canon land was over 400 bucks!

[ogl]

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) ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT OPTICAL FORMULAS. DA40/2.8 is typical TESSAR.
DA35 (I think) is PLANAR version
2) No.
3) What do you mean? It's shorter and a bit faster.
4) It's uncorrect comparision.
Diffent optical design, focal range, body quality, size and bokeh.

[paperbag846]

Thank you for your advice. I have 30 minutes to make a decision .

So, which of the two optical formulas would be better for a "people lens"?

I want the sharper lens, but with nice bokeh if I want to isolate the subject. I feel the 40mm would give me this ability more due to the aperture blades and slightly longer FOV, but I am not sure from your recommendations? Primarily I am wondering if the DA 40 will give me nicer pictures with more pop, or if I will be paying more to simply buy a smaller lens.

Pancake is nice, but not necessary for me.

[Steve Beswick]

I think it will be a much different story if and when the DAL 35 hits the $150 mark, but for now even I would nudge toward a used DA 40, and I'm using a K10.

[paperbag846]

If the IQ of the DA40 is going to be really special, it is worth it to me.

If not, I don't care about the size.

No one will tell me if they think the DA 40 is really that much better a lens... just compact..

EDIT: I let the ebay auction go... the sold price was 310, and while I thought that was a good deal, I did not want to make a rash decision!

[Pentaxor]

No one will tell me if they think the DA 40 is really that much better a lens... just compact..

refer to my post at #12. it should give you enough clue.

[paperbag846]

refer to my post at #12. it should give you enough clue.

I know I did read that - if you please elaborate on the IQ advantage it would be really great. I've looked tirelessly at sample images and it's just starting to make my brain hurt. More and more I think - it's the photographer that is making these images look good.

If the DA 40 is really going to be functionally better - i.e., actually sharper, better flare resistance, higher contrast, etc., to the DAL 35, I'll bite. But "IQ" could mean so many things... no one really cares to elaborate.

The size and build quality are nice, sure, but the IQ... the IQ...

PS for focal length, I really think I'm gonna need something wider than a 35 eventually... the 28mm will do for now, but I will need to decide on the wide end (DA 21, maybe the 15, maybe the 12-24). That will be my treat next year . I can buy this lens because I sold all sorts of music gear that sees no use anymore .

So really, people say "select the FL you need" I don't need either specifically... either will do. I want the best quality pictures.

Sorry for over-analyzing this one, but I really am a little confused by all the variables.

PPS: In canada, no way the DAL will hit 150. Henry's lists it for 280 right now (granted, they list the DA 40 at 600). No wonder they complain that they never sell pentax...

[Eruditass]

1) ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT OPTICAL FORMULAS. DA40/2.8 is typical TESSAR.
DA35 (I think) is PLANAR version

So the DA35 is better?

Difference between Zeiss Planar and Zeiss Tessar? - Photo.net Medium Format Forum

[paperbag846]

So the DA35 is better?

Difference between Zeiss Planar and Zeiss Tessar? - Photo.net Medium Format Forum

From reading the link, I may have figured it out (maybe not).

Tessar: center sharpness is good. Bokeh is nicer.

but the DA 40 is rather slow, so maybe that is why we experience sharpness from edge to edge wide open.

Planar: sharper, faster designs, overcorrected, so poorer bokeh.

Hmmmm....

[axl]

1) ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT OPTICAL FORMULAS. DA40/2.8 is typical TESSAR.
DA35 (I think) is PLANAR version
-----.

to layman that means nothing.
I've gone through 20 odd lenses in 4 years with K mount but still can't tell difference in IQ between those Planar or Tessar or whatever.... And I don't think many in here could....

[paperbag846]

AXL:

Do you think I will notice a large difference between the 35 2.4 and the 40 2.8 as far as IQ is concerned? My thoughts are: Bokeh stopped down, contrast, and sharpness.

I would think the DA40 would have the nicer bokeh. Would the DA 40 be more flare resistant? Would contrast and sharpness even play a role between these two lenses?

[lowspark86]

Thinking about tessar vs planar might overanalyzing it a little. You've looked at lots of sample shots. Mentally comparing those is more valuable than analyzing optical design. Just forget all that is my advice and take a step back.....

One of the things I like about the DA 40 is the hood. Always on there, doesnt make it larger, great protection, use a film can cap. The new 35 doesn't have a hood so you'd need a screw in or clip on hood which tend to be larger and take up more space. They also aren't as convenient.

Now I'll add to the confusion......it is entirely possible that making a rigged DA40-like hood will work flawlessly on the new lens. Two step down rings and film can cap is all you need. SOldbear uses this set up on many 49mm diameter lenses. I've used the DA40 hood and 28's and 50's. The new 35mm looks basically full frame, so these hoods probably wouldnt vignette.

I feel a used DA40 at $290 is a better decision than a new DA35 f2.4 right when it comes out.

They really both appear to be quite good lenses which is why the decision is probably so tough for you to make.

[axl]

AXL:

Do you think I will notice a large difference between the 35 2.4 and the 40 2.8 as far as IQ is concerned? My thoughts are: Bokeh stopped down, contrast, and sharpness.

I would think the DA40 would have the nicer bokeh. Would the DA 40 be more flare resistant? Would contrast and sharpness even play a role between these two lenses?

I can't really answer to this direct question because I haven't shot DA35/2.4 and I don't think I will anytime soon. But in it's day DA40 was my workhorse. It's IQ is great (IMO), great corner to corner sharpness, great contrast, good colours. The sharpness is right there from f2.8 and get's great by 5.6. It's never as sharp as the FA43 nor (according to tests) as FA35. But unlike any of those you can shoot DA40 wide open and place your subject right to the corner and it'll be sharp. It's flare resistance is great, 9 aperture blades make great bokeh and size/weight make sure you'll take it everywhere... Only reason I sold it because I wanted faster f stop so I got rid of it and F50/1.7 and bought FA43. Now comparing those two.... in short, DA is sharper in corners, FA is sharper in centre. DA has more PF and FA has more (quite a bit) CAs. FA is one stop faster, and bigger and heavier (not too much though). Since then I got K50/1.2 so my need for speed is covered, and I'm thinking wheter to keep FA43 or get back either DA40 or F/FA50/1.7... oh well
anyway, back to you. DA40 gets big thumbs up from me to anyone who bothers to ask me about opinion. It's definitely one of the best lenses I've tried.

[lowspark86]

AXL:

Do you think I will notice a large difference between the 35 2.4 and the 40 2.8 as far as IQ is concerned? My thoughts are: Bokeh stopped down, contrast, and sharpness.

I would think the DA40 would have the nicer bokeh. Would the DA 40 be more flare resistant? Would contrast and sharpness even play a role between these two lenses?

I know you didn't ask me....but I'll throw some thoughts in anyways

Stopped down bokeh....you're on the right track with what people generally like.

DA40 is probably more flare resistant because of the deisgn. The front element appears to be smaller on the DA40 and it is recessed with antireflective black all around it even without the hood on. The DA35 f2.4 front element looks like the kind that sticks out a little (like cheap zooms) where it sort of seems like the element is cemented on the front of the lens. DA35 f2.4, to me, would be easier to catch flare.

Coatings have something to do with this too, but I don't know of any differences in coatings. Maybe someone else has that info.