Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Pentaxor · 11-28-2010, 05:14 PM

DA35/2.4 for speed. focal length and price, DA40 for size and built.

Andi Lo · 11-28-2010, 05:44 PM

I just realized you asked about the DA and not the FA

Sorry about that. Imho f2.8 and f/2.4 is not much difference, and both lenses are quite the performer wide open. There's no reviews out yet on the resolution curves for DA 35, but if it really is based on FA 35, you can expect a liiiittle more resolution and sharpness than the DA 40. Optical and value wise I'd say the DA 35 wins hands down, but the DA 40 is superior in size and built. If you travel this might be a big deal, otherwise I'd say go with DA 35

**ramseybuckeye** · 11-28-2010, 08:12 PM

That's OK Andi, it's still good information and I appreciate it. I think I'm leaning towards the 35. Price is a big consideration and I'm a little more comfortable with 35 rather than 40, it's not much but a little. And I do have a 49mm rubber hood. I'll sleep on it tonight and hope to pull the trigger tomorrow, or maybe the next day. I'm remodeling a bathroom and don't have time to do much anyway!

photapioca · 11-28-2010, 08:50 PM

I have the same problem. I can't figure out which to get next.

kp0c · 11-28-2010, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by photapioca

I have the same problem. I can't figure out which to get next.

I too was in the same situation. I am moving away from fast autofocus lenses to replace them with small primes. Since I am on a tight budget, I bought the 35 (still waiting for it!). I really wanted to own a limited lens though and that thought alone almost made me purchased the 40mm. The 35mm is better suited for my needs though cause it's gonna be my fast and small indoor candid lens where wider is better! I will complement my kit with manual primes and start to save for the 15mm limited. I have a feeling that it will be my first limited despite the price.
Good luck with your decision.

causey · 11-28-2010, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Blue

The fact is, not of the 3 or 4 35mm offerings from Nikon are 1:1 and can touch it, especially for the money given the one that can is over $1K.

Isn't the DA 35mm ltd the Tokina 35mm macro, which is available in Nikon mount? Not an offering from Nikon, still, available to Nikon users...

causey · 11-28-2010, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

Optical and value wise I'd say the DA 35 wins hands down, but the DA 40 is superior in size and built. If you travel this might be a big deal, otherwise I'd say go with DA 35

Really? Is the DA 35mm better than the DA 40mm? What about corners? It seems I put too much trust in the Photozone review. Also, it's not easy to imagine something being visibly better than the DA 40mm...

sterretje · 11-28-2010, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by photapioca

I have the same problem. I can't figure out which to get next.

To make your live more difficult, add a little more choice to the list with the FA31Ltd and the FA43Ltd

photapioca · 11-28-2010, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by sterretje

To make your live more difficult, add a little more choice to the list with the FA31Ltd and the FA43Ltd

hmmm well speaking of price range. Those two are out.
I can justify spending 220-340 for a lens, but not more.
As a college student, I can't spend $600-1300.

Andi Lo · 11-29-2010, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by causey

Really? Is the DA 35mm better than the DA 40mm? What about corners? It seems I put too much trust in the Photozone review. Also, it's not easy to imagine something being visibly better than the DA 40mm...

Sorry if it's confusing, I should have put DA 35/2.4... I don't own the DA 35 ltd

And yes resolution wise FA 35 (which is reportedly the same lens as DA 35/2.4) is better than DA 40 on my copies. I like the DA colors and DA 40 bokeh a little better though.

paperbag846 · 11-29-2010, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

DA 40 bokeh

IMHO, the 35 wins in a lot of areas, but the 40 has the better bokeh.

While the 35mm is a great normal lens... it is a macro. It's optimized for close up. Like any marco, bokeh isn't as good for long focusing distances as it is for short ones.

To make it simpler though, I think it's wise to simply ask: do I want to shoot macro? If not, the 35mm is not really that good a deal when you have the DA 40 available.

causey · 11-29-2010, 09:01 AM

Andi Lo and paperbag, thank you for the clarifying lines. I think I'll go for the DA 40mm and later the DA L 35mm. I expect the price of the latter to go down a bit. Together they cost as much as the DA 35mm ltd alone, and I think two lenses are better than one.

paperbag846 · 11-29-2010, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by causey

I think I'll go for the DA 40mm and the DA L 35mm

I'm worried I might have confused you - I really would suggest only one of them. They are much more similar than they are different, and I don't see much use in owning both.

The major advantage of the DA 40 over the DAL 35mm is the 9 aperture blades, and it's size. They are both small, though, so let's focus on the photos. The DA 40 renders a nice and smooth out of focus area when you stop the lens down.

The advantages of the DAL 35mm is that it is a half-stop faster, and a little wider (for your purposes). Really, though, 40mm is not very different from the 35mm, so unless space is incredibly limited, 35mm is not going to really save you. Same goes for f2.4 vs. 2.8.

Hexagonal OOF highlights aren't really a big deal - it really is up to you how much it is worth it to you.

When I was deciding I went with the 40 because no lens I have has a 9 bladed aperture and I wanted to try out a limited. I'm glad I did. However, if you re trying to save a buck, the DAL 35 is an absurd deal. Now that have a 40, I wouldn't bother with a 35mm, it's just too close.

causey · 11-29-2010, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

I'm worried I might have confused you - I really would suggest only one of them. They are much more similar than they are different, and I don't see much use in owning both.

The major advantage of the DA 40 over the DAL 35mm is the 9 aperture blades, and it's size. They are both small, though, so let's focus on the photos. The DA 40 renders a nice and smooth out of focus area when you stop the lens down.

The advantages of the DAL 35mm is that it is a half-stop faster, and a little wider (for your purposes). Really, though, 40mm is not very different from the 35mm, so unless space is incredibly limited, 35mm is not going to really save you. Same goes for f2.4 vs. 2.8.

Hexagonal OOF highlights aren't really a big deal - it really is up to you how much it is worth it to you.

When I was deciding I went with the 40 because no lens I have has a 9 bladed aperture and I wanted to try out a limited. I'm glad I did. However, if you re trying to save a buck, the DAL 35 is an absurd deal. Now that have a 40, I wouldn't bother with a 35mm, it's just too close.

I had the 40mm, and I plan to get it again. It's a wonderful lens, tiny and relatively inexpensive. I know its bokeh is better than that of the DA L 35mm. However, I find the 40mm to be a bit too long in many everyday/street contexts. It's too nice a lens not to have (and I'm not interested in macro, so I don't need to spend $500+ to get the DA ltd.). I suppose the DA L 35mm will be around $170 in less than a year, which is cheap enough to get it for the situations in which the 40mm becomes restrictive (although I use a Tak 35mm, and I find it very nice). The DA L is 'optional for me--it depends on how cheap it can get.

greymda · 11-29-2010, 10:15 AM

is those 5mm doing so much difference in specs of focal length to have them both (da 40mm and da 35mm) ?

11-28-2010, 08:12 PM	#18
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,295 Original Poster	That's OK Andi, it's still good information and I appreciate it. I think I'm leaning towards the 35. Price is a big consideration and I'm a little more comfortable with 35 rather than 40, it's not much but a little. And I do have a 49mm rubber hood. I'll sleep on it tonight and hope to pull the trigger tomorrow, or maybe the next day. I'm remodeling a bathroom and don't have time to do much anyway! Last edited by ramseybuckeye; 11-28-2010 at 08:13 PM. Reason: add

11-29-2010, 09:01 AM	#27
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Andi Lo and paperbag, thank you for the clarifying lines. I think I'll go for the DA 40mm and later the DA L 35mm. I expect the price of the latter to go down a bit. Together they cost as much as the DA 35mm ltd alone, and I think two lenses are better than one. Last edited by causey; 11-29-2010 at 09:17 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
35mm Limited or 40mm Limited? I'm very torn	manowar1978	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	04-04-2010 04:06 AM
opinion needed: DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limitedor DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited?	geocoris83	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	02-17-2010 10:54 PM
pentax limited 35mm macro vs 40mm	formula400me	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	02-16-2010 04:51 AM
Any advantage to 40mm limited over 35mm limited?	nixcamic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	10-16-2008 08:36 AM
Input from Owners: 40mm Limited x FA 35mm	BBear	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-18-2008 03:41 AM

11-28-2010, 05:14 PM	#16
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	DA35/2.4 for speed. focal length and price, DA40 for size and built.

11-28-2010, 05:44 PM	#17
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	I just realized you asked about the DA and not the FA Sorry about that. Imho f2.8 and f/2.4 is not much difference, and both lenses are quite the performer wide open. There's no reviews out yet on the resolution curves for DA 35, but if it really is based on FA 35, you can expect a liiiittle more resolution and sharpness than the DA 40. Optical and value wise I'd say the DA 35 wins hands down, but the DA 40 is superior in size and built. If you travel this might be a big deal, otherwise I'd say go with DA 35

11-28-2010, 08:50 PM	#19
photapioca Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Katy, Tx Posts: 34	I have the same problem. I can't figure out which to get next.

11-28-2010, 09:14 PM	#20
kp0c Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 761	Originally posted by photapioca I have the same problem. I can't figure out which to get next. I too was in the same situation. I am moving away from fast autofocus lenses to replace them with small primes. Since I am on a tight budget, I bought the 35 (still waiting for it!). I really wanted to own a limited lens though and that thought alone almost made me purchased the 40mm. The 35mm is better suited for my needs though cause it's gonna be my fast and small indoor candid lens where wider is better! I will complement my kit with manual primes and start to save for the 15mm limited. I have a feeling that it will be my first limited despite the price. Good luck with your decision.

11-28-2010, 09:35 PM	#21
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by Blue The fact is, not of the 3 or 4 35mm offerings from Nikon are 1:1 and can touch it, especially for the money given the one that can is over $1K. Isn't the DA 35mm ltd the Tokina 35mm macro, which is available in Nikon mount? Not an offering from Nikon, still, available to Nikon users...

11-28-2010, 09:39 PM	#22
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by Andi Lo Optical and value wise I'd say the DA 35 wins hands down, but the DA 40 is superior in size and built. If you travel this might be a big deal, otherwise I'd say go with DA 35 Really? Is the DA 35mm better than the DA 40mm? What about corners? It seems I put too much trust in the Photozone review. Also, it's not easy to imagine something being visibly better than the DA 40mm...

11-28-2010, 10:14 PM	#23
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by photapioca I have the same problem. I can't figure out which to get next. To make your live more difficult, add a little more choice to the list with the FA31Ltd and the FA43Ltd

11-28-2010, 10:21 PM	#24
photapioca Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Katy, Tx Posts: 34	Originally posted by sterretje To make your live more difficult, add a little more choice to the list with the FA31Ltd and the FA43Ltd hmmm well speaking of price range. Those two are out. I can justify spending 220-340 for a lens, but not more. As a college student, I can't spend $600-1300.

11-29-2010, 07:45 AM	#25
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by causey Really? Is the DA 35mm better than the DA 40mm? What about corners? It seems I put too much trust in the Photozone review. Also, it's not easy to imagine something being visibly better than the DA 40mm... Sorry if it's confusing, I should have put DA 35/2.4... I don't own the DA 35 ltd And yes resolution wise FA 35 (which is reportedly the same lens as DA 35/2.4) is better than DA 40 on my copies. I like the DA colors and DA 40 bokeh a little better though.

11-29-2010, 08:56 AM	#26
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Andi Lo DA 40 bokeh IMHO, the 35 wins in a lot of areas, but the 40 has the better bokeh. While the 35mm is a great normal lens... it is a macro. It's optimized for close up. Like any marco, bokeh isn't as good for long focusing distances as it is for short ones. To make it simpler though, I think it's wise to simply ask: do I want to shoot macro? If not, the 35mm is not really that good a deal when you have the DA 40 available.

11-29-2010, 09:23 AM	#28
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by causey I think I'll go for the DA 40mm and the DA L 35mm I'm worried I might have confused you - I really would suggest only one of them. They are much more similar than they are different, and I don't see much use in owning both. The major advantage of the DA 40 over the DAL 35mm is the 9 aperture blades, and it's size. They are both small, though, so let's focus on the photos. The DA 40 renders a nice and smooth out of focus area when you stop the lens down. The advantages of the DAL 35mm is that it is a half-stop faster, and a little wider (for your purposes). Really, though, 40mm is not very different from the 35mm, so unless space is incredibly limited, 35mm is not going to really save you. Same goes for f2.4 vs. 2.8. Hexagonal OOF highlights aren't really a big deal - it really is up to you how much it is worth it to you. When I was deciding I went with the 40 because no lens I have has a 9 bladed aperture and I wanted to try out a limited. I'm glad I did. However, if you re trying to save a buck, the DAL 35 is an absurd deal. Now that have a 40, I wouldn't bother with a 35mm, it's just too close.

11-29-2010, 09:38 AM	#29
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by paperbag846 I'm worried I might have confused you - I really would suggest only one of them. They are much more similar than they are different, and I don't see much use in owning both. The major advantage of the DA 40 over the DAL 35mm is the 9 aperture blades, and it's size. They are both small, though, so let's focus on the photos. The DA 40 renders a nice and smooth out of focus area when you stop the lens down. The advantages of the DAL 35mm is that it is a half-stop faster, and a little wider (for your purposes). Really, though, 40mm is not very different from the 35mm, so unless space is incredibly limited, 35mm is not going to really save you. Same goes for f2.4 vs. 2.8. Hexagonal OOF highlights aren't really a big deal - it really is up to you how much it is worth it to you. When I was deciding I went with the 40 because no lens I have has a 9 bladed aperture and I wanted to try out a limited. I'm glad I did. However, if you re trying to save a buck, the DAL 35 is an absurd deal. Now that have a 40, I wouldn't bother with a 35mm, it's just too close. I had the 40mm, and I plan to get it again. It's a wonderful lens, tiny and relatively inexpensive. I know its bokeh is better than that of the DA L 35mm. However, I find the 40mm to be a bit too long in many everyday/street contexts. It's too nice a lens not to have (and I'm not interested in macro, so I don't need to spend $500+ to get the DA ltd.). I suppose the DA L 35mm will be around $170 in less than a year, which is cheap enough to get it for the situations in which the 40mm becomes restrictive (although I use a Tak 35mm, and I find it very nice). The DA L is 'optional for me--it depends on how cheap it can get.

11-29-2010, 10:15 AM	#30
greymda Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Moldova, EU Posts: 150	is those 5mm doing so much difference in specs of focal length to have them both (da 40mm and da 35mm) ?

DA 40mm F2.8 Limited & DA 35mm F2.4 AL

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!