Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

**ramseybuckeye** · 11-27-2010, 12:02 PM

Do you have or have you owned both the DA 40mm F2.8 Limited & DA 35mm F2.4 AL? If you did not have either which would you choose? I have not had either but I've narrowed my next lens down to the two. I want a fast auto focus prime and these two are in my price range right now since the 40 has dropped. Both seem to have some advantages. I know either will work, but will it be worth is to pay the extra for the 40?

greymda · 11-27-2010, 12:23 PM

what's the price of 40mm nowadays?

paperbag846 · 11-27-2010, 01:35 PM

340.

I like the 40mm over the 35mm because it absurdly small, extremely sharp wide open (for wide open) and it has 9 aperture blades, which means smoother out of focus areas when you stop down to f4 and beyond.

They are both very good though, you can't make a bad choice.

epqwerty · 11-27-2010, 03:29 PM

Hello, I am too in your predicament. Anyone with an in depth comparison of the two lenses? Speed wise they are very similar nothing that an ISO bump can't compensate for. However, the DA LTD size is a real turn on for the lens. But image quality wise is the price difference worth it. I know resale value it should be there if someone were to sell the lens.

Also the LTD is not weather resistant right? I don't recall. Only the WR and * lenses are right?

paperbag846 · 11-27-2010, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by epqwerty

Hello, I am too in your predicament. Anyone with an in depth comparison of the two lenses? Speed wise they are very similar nothing that an ISO bump can't compensate for. However, the DA LTD size is a real turn on for the lens. But image quality wise is the price difference worth it. I know resale value it should be there if someone were to sell the lens.

Also the LTD is not weather resistant right? I don't recall. Only the WR and * lenses are right?

IQ advantages of the 40 - sharper wide open, better out of focus areas when you stop down due to the number of aperture blades. I see more colour saturation with the 40, and less fringing.

Just look at sample photos from each at 5.6 and you will see what I mean. Neither lens is WR.

causey · 11-27-2010, 06:47 PM

I had the 40mm, now I'm tempted to get it again. Simply the best lens I've owned. Superb colors, extremely sharp at any aperture, tiny body... The only thing I didn't like about it was the focal length. A bit too long for street/everyday purposes. 35mm suits me much better; so I'm in the same boat with you. Trying to move from a zoom base to a prime base. Perhaps I'll get both the new 35mm and the 40mm in time. But to me the new 35mm doesn't seem less sharp wide open than the DA 40mm.

timo · 11-27-2010, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by ramseybuckeye

Do you have or have you owned both the DA 40mm F2.8 Limited & DA 35mm F2.4 AL? If you did not have either which would you choose? I have not had either but I've narrowed my next lens down to the two. I want a fast auto focus prime and these two are in my price range right now since the 40 has dropped. Both seem to have some advantages. I know either will work, but will it be worth is to pay the extra for the 40?

I have the DA40 and it's great but, as others have said, just a tad long in some circumstances. I were buying now, and because I have various 50s, I would probably go for the DA35, although the size of the 40 is a big big plus. What I would really prefer is a new DA28, the ideal length for chuffling around generally. Wish I hadn't sold my FA28.

In terms of technical quality all these lenses, without exception, are better than my photography, so it's entirely a matter of focal length, which is totally personal and hard to advise anyone on. Just depends what you want to take pictures of.

Andi Lo · 11-27-2010, 10:25 PM

I have both. For me personally it boils down to whether you need f/2 or a pancake. There's also other things to consider like bokeh, DA coatings vs FA coatings, quickshift, etc. But basically if you don't need f/2, you don't need FA 35. If you do, there's no other choice (other than Sigma 30/1.4 and 31 LTD). Whether the DA 40 is too long or not depends on your usage imho.

Just to make it more confusing... maybe you should consider the DA 35 macro? I keep thinking I should just bite the bullet and buy this 'best lens ever' (as have been said by many, many people now) from pentax.

my 2c.

**ramseybuckeye** · 11-27-2010, 11:02 PM

Thanks to everybody's responses, they are ALL helpful, keep them coming, I'm sure they could be a lot of people making this decision.

Originally posted by greymda

what's the price of 40mm nowadays?

$340 US at B&H. dropped $168, nough to put it in my ballpark, BTW, I hope this is a sign that all the lens prices are dropping.

Originally posted by Andi Lo

I have both. For me personally it boils down to whether you need f/2 or a pancake. There's also other things to consider like bokeh, DA coatings vs FA coatings, quickshift, etc. But basically if you don't need f/2, you don't need FA 35. If you do, there's no other choice (other than Sigma 30/1.4 and 31 LTD). Whether the DA 40 is too long or not depends on your usage imho.

Just to make it more confusing... maybe you should consider the DA 35 macro? I keep thinking I should just bite the bullet and buy this 'best lens ever' (as have been said by many, many people now) from pentax.

my 2c.

The 35 macro is out of my range at this time, this is between the 40 and the new DA 35/2.4.

Originally posted by epqwerty

Hello, I am too in your predicament. Anyone with an in depth comparison of the two lenses? Speed wise they are very similar nothing that an ISO bump can't compensate for. However, the DA LTD size is a real turn on for the lens. But image quality wise is the price difference worth it. I know resale value it should be there if someone were to sell the lens.

Also the LTD is not weather resistant right? I don't recall. Only the WR and * lenses are right?

I'm with you Epqwerty, WR would have sealed the deal for either. I've only read about great performance of the 40, but the 35 is that little bit wider, and $120 less, that could start the fund for the next lens. I'm not a fan of plastic mounts, but we are seeing glowing reviews of th optics.

causey · 11-28-2010, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

I have both. For me personally it boils down to whether you need f/2 or a pancake. There's also other things to consider like bokeh, DA coatings vs FA coatings, quickshift, etc. But basically if you don't need f/2, you don't need FA 35. If you do, there's no other choice (other than Sigma 30/1.4 and 31 LTD). Whether the DA 40 is too long or not depends on your usage imho.

Just to make it more confusing... maybe you should consider the DA 35 macro? I keep thinking I should just bite the bullet and buy this 'best lens ever' (as have been said by many, many people now) from pentax.

my 2c.

For the price of the DA 35mm ltd., one can have both the DA 40mm and the new DA L 35mm (the cheap version of the FA)--at least in the US... Photozone shows some border sofntess of the DA 35mm ltd. macro, which makes it a weaker choice for landscapes...

chessmen · 11-28-2010, 11:49 AM

seems like the 40mm has a better built

Blue · 11-28-2010, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by causey

For the price of the DA 35mm ltd., one can have both the DA 40mm and the new DA L 35mm (the cheap version of the FA)--at least in the US... Photozone shows some border sharpness of the DA 35mm ltd. macro, which makes it a weaker choice for landscapes...

I think Photozone is F.O.S. on that one.

paperbag846 · 11-28-2010, 12:40 PM

I would not worry too much about the difference in focal length or the plastic mount of the 35mm. The difference in FOV is not that great IMHO and the 40 pairs nicely with a 28mm, which I like better for tight quarters than the 35mm.

As for the size and price difference... it is important to note that you need to buy an use a hood with the 35 if you want to avoid flare, which makes the price difference a little smaller and the size difference quite a bit larger.

Overall, though, the 25mm looks like quite a steal for the quality you get, so I really don't think you would be short-changing yourself with the 35mm.

Blue · 11-28-2010, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by epqwerty

. . .

Also the LTD is not weather resistant right? I don't recall. Only the WR and * lenses are right?

Just to clarify, only the DA* and WR lenses are weather resistant. Previous * series lenses are not.

Blue · 11-28-2010, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by les3547

I Googled "F.O.S." and found a number of possible meanings such as:

Figure of Speech, First of Season (birding), French Onion Soup, Friend of the Sea, Full Operational Status, Factory Outlet Store, Finger of Suspicion, Fellowship of the Sun, Failure of Selection, Freedom of Speech, Feet on Street, Found On Shelf, Focus on Solving, Father Over Shoulder, Fit or Split, Funky Old Soul . . .

Only one had a possible relation to photography, "Fast Optical Shutter," but it doesn't seem to fit your meaning. I'm guessing you are a DA 35 Ltd. lover, and therefore in the context of your sentence that the acronym is either Full of Stuff, Full of Stool, or From Outer Space. Am I close?

Yes, I like the DA 35mm ltd. However, there comment "The Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited macro is a undoubtedly a high quality lens but it does not excel" is his subjective opinion and is based on the fact that he doesn't like it. His own test results make him a liar. Furthermore, non of the lenses discussed herein are bad landscape lenses. The DA 35/2.4 and DA 40/2.8 ltd would be quite good at that as well.

The second sentence in his conclusion is "The center performance is great straight from the max. aperture whereas the corner performance is slightly lower than expected for a "Limited" lens (still on a very good level in absolute terms)." which suggests he is penalizing it for being a LTD. 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.

11-27-2010, 12:02 PM	#1
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,295	DA 40mm F2.8 Limited & DA 35mm F2.4 AL Do you have or have you owned both the DA 40mm F2.8 Limited & DA 35mm F2.4 AL? If you did not have either which would you choose? I have not had either but I've narrowed my next lens down to the two. I want a fast auto focus prime and these two are in my price range right now since the 40 has dropped. Both seem to have some advantages. I know either will work, but will it be worth is to pay the extra for the 40?

11-27-2010, 06:47 PM	#6
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	I had the 40mm, now I'm tempted to get it again. Simply the best lens I've owned. Superb colors, extremely sharp at any aperture, tiny body... The only thing I didn't like about it was the focal length. A bit too long for street/everyday purposes. 35mm suits me much better; so I'm in the same boat with you. Trying to move from a zoom base to a prime base. Perhaps I'll get both the new 35mm and the 40mm in time. But to me the new 35mm doesn't seem less sharp wide open than the DA 40mm. Last edited by causey; 11-28-2010 at 08:14 AM.

11-28-2010, 06:15 AM	#10
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by Andi Lo I have both. For me personally it boils down to whether you need f/2 or a pancake. There's also other things to consider like bokeh, DA coatings vs FA coatings, quickshift, etc. But basically if you don't need f/2, you don't need FA 35. If you do, there's no other choice (other than Sigma 30/1.4 and 31 LTD). Whether the DA 40 is too long or not depends on your usage imho. Just to make it more confusing... maybe you should consider the DA 35 macro? I keep thinking I should just bite the bullet and buy this 'best lens ever' (as have been said by many, many people now) from pentax. my 2c. For the price of the DA 35mm ltd., one can have both the DA 40mm and the new DA L 35mm (the cheap version of the FA)--at least in the US... Photozone shows some border sofntess of the DA 35mm ltd. macro, which makes it a weaker choice for landscapes... Last edited by causey; 04-08-2011 at 09:23 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

11-27-2010, 12:23 PM	#2
greymda Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Moldova, EU Posts: 150	what's the price of 40mm nowadays?

11-27-2010, 01:35 PM	#3
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	340. I like the 40mm over the 35mm because it absurdly small, extremely sharp wide open (for wide open) and it has 9 aperture blades, which means smoother out of focus areas when you stop down to f4 and beyond. They are both very good though, you can't make a bad choice.

11-27-2010, 03:29 PM	#4
epqwerty Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ontario Posts: 550	Hello, I am too in your predicament. Anyone with an in depth comparison of the two lenses? Speed wise they are very similar nothing that an ISO bump can't compensate for. However, the DA LTD size is a real turn on for the lens. But image quality wise is the price difference worth it. I know resale value it should be there if someone were to sell the lens. Also the LTD is not weather resistant right? I don't recall. Only the WR and * lenses are right?

11-27-2010, 03:59 PM	#5
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by epqwerty Hello, I am too in your predicament. Anyone with an in depth comparison of the two lenses? Speed wise they are very similar nothing that an ISO bump can't compensate for. However, the DA LTD size is a real turn on for the lens. But image quality wise is the price difference worth it. I know resale value it should be there if someone were to sell the lens. Also the LTD is not weather resistant right? I don't recall. Only the WR and * lenses are right? IQ advantages of the 40 - sharper wide open, better out of focus areas when you stop down due to the number of aperture blades. I see more colour saturation with the 40, and less fringing. Just look at sample photos from each at 5.6 and you will see what I mean. Neither lens is WR.

11-27-2010, 07:46 PM	#7
timo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: former Arsenal football stadium Photos: Gallery Posts: 431	Originally posted by ramseybuckeye Do you have or have you owned both the DA 40mm F2.8 Limited & DA 35mm F2.4 AL? If you did not have either which would you choose? I have not had either but I've narrowed my next lens down to the two. I want a fast auto focus prime and these two are in my price range right now since the 40 has dropped. Both seem to have some advantages. I know either will work, but will it be worth is to pay the extra for the 40? I have the DA40 and it's great but, as others have said, just a tad long in some circumstances. I were buying now, and because I have various 50s, I would probably go for the DA35, although the size of the 40 is a big big plus. What I would really prefer is a new DA28, the ideal length for chuffling around generally. Wish I hadn't sold my FA28. In terms of technical quality all these lenses, without exception, are better than my photography, so it's entirely a matter of focal length, which is totally personal and hard to advise anyone on. Just depends what you want to take pictures of.

11-27-2010, 10:25 PM	#8
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	I have both. For me personally it boils down to whether you need f/2 or a pancake. There's also other things to consider like bokeh, DA coatings vs FA coatings, quickshift, etc. But basically if you don't need f/2, you don't need FA 35. If you do, there's no other choice (other than Sigma 30/1.4 and 31 LTD). Whether the DA 40 is too long or not depends on your usage imho. Just to make it more confusing... maybe you should consider the DA 35 macro? I keep thinking I should just bite the bullet and buy this 'best lens ever' (as have been said by many, many people now) from pentax. my 2c.

11-27-2010, 11:02 PM	#9
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,295 Original Poster	Thanks to everybody's responses, they are ALL helpful, keep them coming, I'm sure they could be a lot of people making this decision. Originally posted by greymda what's the price of 40mm nowadays? $340 US at B&H. dropped $168, nough to put it in my ballpark, BTW, I hope this is a sign that all the lens prices are dropping. Originally posted by Andi Lo I have both. For me personally it boils down to whether you need f/2 or a pancake. There's also other things to consider like bokeh, DA coatings vs FA coatings, quickshift, etc. But basically if you don't need f/2, you don't need FA 35. If you do, there's no other choice (other than Sigma 30/1.4 and 31 LTD). Whether the DA 40 is too long or not depends on your usage imho. Just to make it more confusing... maybe you should consider the DA 35 macro? I keep thinking I should just bite the bullet and buy this 'best lens ever' (as have been said by many, many people now) from pentax. my 2c. The 35 macro is out of my range at this time, this is between the 40 and the new DA 35/2.4. Originally posted by epqwerty Hello, I am too in your predicament. Anyone with an in depth comparison of the two lenses? Speed wise they are very similar nothing that an ISO bump can't compensate for. However, the DA LTD size is a real turn on for the lens. But image quality wise is the price difference worth it. I know resale value it should be there if someone were to sell the lens. Also the LTD is not weather resistant right? I don't recall. Only the WR and * lenses are right? I'm with you Epqwerty, WR would have sealed the deal for either. I've only read about great performance of the 40, but the 35 is that little bit wider, and $120 less, that could start the fund for the next lens. I'm not a fan of plastic mounts, but we are seeing glowing reviews of th optics.

11-28-2010, 11:49 AM	#11
chessmen Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: San Diego Posts: 13	seems like the 40mm has a better built

11-28-2010, 11:55 AM	#12
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by causey For the price of the DA 35mm ltd., one can have both the DA 40mm and the new DA L 35mm (the cheap version of the FA)--at least in the US... Photozone shows some border sharpness of the DA 35mm ltd. macro, which makes it a weaker choice for landscapes... I think Photozone is F.O.S. on that one.

11-28-2010, 12:40 PM	#13
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	I would not worry too much about the difference in focal length or the plastic mount of the 35mm. The difference in FOV is not that great IMHO and the 40 pairs nicely with a 28mm, which I like better for tight quarters than the 35mm. As for the size and price difference... it is important to note that you need to buy an use a hood with the 35 if you want to avoid flare, which makes the price difference a little smaller and the size difference quite a bit larger. Overall, though, the 25mm looks like quite a steal for the quality you get, so I really don't think you would be short-changing yourself with the 35mm.

11-28-2010, 04:03 PM	#14
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by epqwerty . . . Also the LTD is not weather resistant right? I don't recall. Only the WR and * lenses are right? Just to clarify, only the DA* and WR lenses are weather resistant. Previous * series lenses are not.

11-28-2010, 04:11 PM	#15
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by les3547 I Googled "F.O.S." and found a number of possible meanings such as: Figure of Speech, First of Season (birding), French Onion Soup, Friend of the Sea, Full Operational Status, Factory Outlet Store, Finger of Suspicion, Fellowship of the Sun, Failure of Selection, Freedom of Speech, Feet on Street, Found On Shelf, Focus on Solving, Father Over Shoulder, Fit or Split, Funky Old Soul . . . Only one had a possible relation to photography, "Fast Optical Shutter," but it doesn't seem to fit your meaning. I'm guessing you are a DA 35 Ltd. lover, and therefore in the context of your sentence that the acronym is either Full of Stuff, Full of Stool, or From Outer Space. Am I close? Yes, I like the DA 35mm ltd. However, there comment "The Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited macro is a undoubtedly a high quality lens but it does not excel" is his subjective opinion and is based on the fact that he doesn't like it. His own test results make him a liar. Furthermore, non of the lenses discussed herein are bad landscape lenses. The DA 35/2.4 and DA 40/2.8 ltd would be quite good at that as well. The second sentence in his conclusion is "The center performance is great straight from the max. aperture whereas the corner performance is slightly lower than expected for a "Limited" lens (still on a very good level in absolute terms)." which suggests he is penalizing it for being a LTD. 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.