Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-14-2011, 10:47 AM   #16
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,012
On our aps-c digital sensors, a 50mm lens isn't as useful as it was on film cameras. The narrow DOF is nice if you use it a lot but I think 35mm is far more practical today. Getting the 35/2.4 and looking for a used fast 50 is a good decision. A Sigma 30/1.4 or one of their other wide/fast primes might be worth a look.

01-14-2011, 11:04 AM   #17
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Hood helps IQ, but did not really help me with the autofocus.

The f1.7 tends to be sharper wide open... which might help the AF system.
I agree about the f/1.7 being sharper, which is what I found when I took these sample shots. I didn't do any direct AF comparisons, but I never personally found AF speed to be an issue with either lens and I don't recall any noticable difference between the two.

QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
I have not seen much to convince me that the FA 35 2.0 is worth twice the cost of the DA 35 2.4.
Again, having not used the DA35/2.4 that may be true. If the 35/2.4 is in fact based off the FA35/2 design, then I suppose that would further your position. However I will say that the FA35/2 is very usable wide open at f/2 so at there is at least a half-stop advantage with the FA. Not saying whether or not that's worth twice the price, but I certainly used the FA35 enough at f/2 that it would at least cross my mind if I were choosing.
01-14-2011, 11:10 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Minahasa, North Celebes (Sulawesi)
Photos: Albums
Posts: 585
I had M 50 1.4 and it performs magical.
No AF means more time composing, and in the end better results.
01-14-2011, 11:26 AM   #19
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I never personally found AF speed to be an issue with either lens and I don't recall any noticable difference between the two.
In good light, I found the 50mm 1.4 to be very speedy... those are the situations where MF would have been very easy. When the light gets more troublesome, I actually found the 50 1.4 to hunt alot, and often settle on the "wrong spot"... even if i used only the center focus point. Half of it is the low margin of error due to the low dof... but I'm inclined to believe that its also because the lens is rather soft wide open, were the lens is focusing.

I think the 50mm 1.4 just really taxes the AF system. The question is whether it is more my camera (k20d)... and whether the K7 or K5 would improve things! This is very possible. I decided to use a manual focus lens for much less money.

In comparison, I believe that the DA 40 is so fast not only because it is very small and light, but also because it is very sharp and high contrast wide open. I would suspect the DA 35 2.4 to preform better than the 50 in the AF department for those reasons.

01-14-2011, 11:48 AM   #20
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
In good light, I found the 50mm 1.4 to be very speedy... those are the situations where MF would have been very easy. When the light gets more troublesome, I actually found the 50 1.4 to hunt alot, and often settle on the "wrong spot"... even if i used only the center focus point. Half of it is the low margin of error due to the low dof... but I'm inclined to believe that its also because the lens is rather soft wide open, were the lens is focusing.

I think the 50mm 1.4 just really taxes the AF system. The question is whether it is more my camera (k20d)... and whether the K7 or K5 would improve things! This is very possible. I decided to use a manual focus lens for much less money.
I think you're right. Back 2-3 years ago when I had a K10D, I recall not being very happy with the overall AF performance of the FA50/1.4, especially in low light. I actually didn't use it much and almost always defaulted to my FA35/2. for low light. Once I got my K-7, things improved quite a bit and I don't recall having many problems with the FA50/1.4 in terms of low light focusing after that.

QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
In comparison, I believe that the DA 40 is so fast not only because it is very small and light, but also because it is very sharp and high contrast wide open. I would suspect the DA 35 2.4 to preform better than the 50 in the AF department for those reasons.
I also agree that the DA40 is fantastic in terms of AF speed, even in very dim light.
04-29-2011, 09:28 AM   #21
Forum Member
Jüri's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tartu, Estonia
Posts: 83
I apologise for digging out an old topic, but I'm having a similar dilemma between the two lenses. What I need is a lens that creates a nice blurred bokeh. The 50mm and f1.4 should have a very shallow DOF, but I've read the 2.4/35 will also perform very well in that aspect. So is there much difference between the lenses when considering rendering the bokeh?
04-29-2011, 09:50 AM   #22
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Jüri Quote
What I need is a lens that creates a nice blurred bokeh. The 50mm and f1.4 should have a very shallow DOF, but I've read the 2.4/35 will also perform very well in that aspect. So is there much difference between the lenses when considering rendering the bokeh?

absolutely.
04-29-2011, 10:41 AM - 1 Like   #23
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hanford, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 81
QuoteOriginally posted by Jüri Quote
So is there much difference between the lenses when considering rendering the bokeh?
When I was considering several lenses, someone helpful suggested the Pentax Gallery. You can browse images by "image data," then choose which lens' images you'd like to see. Of course, the lens review database here is also a wonderful resource -- many of the reviews contain example images. Finally, flickr may be of service to you as well. Search the tags for the lenses you like and go from there.

By looking at all those images, you might start to get an idea of how each lens renders bokeh.

Good luck with your research.

04-29-2011, 11:07 AM   #24
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
If you want the creamiest bokeh on a budget, I don't think you can go wrong with a Pentax 50mm 1.4 (FA or manual focus). The 1.2 is better but you also pay a lot for them because they are so rare.

However the FOV difference is something to consider. If you like looser compositions, you would prefer the DA 35 2.4.
04-29-2011, 11:33 AM   #25
Forum Member
Jüri's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tartu, Estonia
Posts: 83
Thanks for the replies. I've already been browsing a lot of photos taken with the two lenses and that's what actually made me wonder about the difference in bokeh. While the 1.4/50 has larger aperture and more focal length, the 2.4/35 is also able to blur the background considerably when trying to compare the two. However, I guess the 2.4/35 still is a compromise with plastic build, less speed and lower price.
04-29-2011, 12:10 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Deimos's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingdom of Wonder
Posts: 1,707
F28 2.8

Almost like a $300 31 Ltd

Fantastic lens
04-29-2011, 12:28 PM   #27
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 14
I was thinking of a fast prime to replace my manual 50mm 1.7.

Regarding the 35mm 2.4 or the 18-50mm 2.8 zooms by Sigma and Tamron, can you blur the background at those apatures? Are they fast enough in low light?
04-29-2011, 12:51 PM   #28
Site Supporter
Deimos's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingdom of Wonder
Posts: 1,707
QuoteOriginally posted by Captquin Quote
I was thinking of a fast prime to replace my manual 50mm 1.7.

Regarding the 35mm 2.4 or the 18-50mm 2.8 zooms by Sigma and Tamron, can you blur the background at those apatures? Are they fast enough in low light?
You wont get the same blur from 2.8 as you will from 1.7 but you can still isolate subjects. Should be fine for low light as long as your camera doesnt have an issue with higher ISO.
04-29-2011, 02:25 PM - 1 Like   #29
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
the FA35 shouldn't be categorized on the same level as that of the DA35/2.4, plain and simple. there are people that are saying that both are the same lens and I have to argue on this part. eventhough the difference they say is just in terms of build, aperture control, and speed which is not. there was a thread here with a comparative test that show how different the two lenses resolving power were. if people are saying that is overpriced, then I don't see any sense why would anyone pay $500 for the DA40 as well. the FA35 is a heck of a lens in comparison to the DA40, so I dunno why would anyone categorize or price bracket the FA35 on a starter lens.

the point is, the DA35/2.4 was made and marketed as an entry-level kit prime lens. it wasn't made to compete or outperform any previous or existing 30-40mm lenses and answer the need for a fast and affordable 35mm lens. Pentax was clear on this one.
04-29-2011, 02:28 PM - 1 Like   #30
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
the point is, the DA35/2.4 was made and marketed as an entry-level kit prime lens. it wasn't made to compete or outperform any previous or existing 30-40mm lenses and answer the need for a fast and affordable 35mm lens.
Back in the day, that's how the FA 35 2.0 was marketed as well. It used to be a 200 dollar lens.

They are very similar lenses. The DA 35 2.4 has creamier bokeh, and therefore, is less sharp. Same goes for the difference between the FA 50 1.4 vs. 1.7. Neither lens is "best" unless you subjectively decide that sharpness is more important than bokeh, or vica versa.

PS 500 dollars for the DA 40 is a bad deal, too.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
50mm, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
used FA 50mm 1.7 or new DA 35mm 2.4? freshsnapper Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 21 05-03-2011 06:05 AM
For Sale - Sold: ME Super SE, ZX-M, M 35mm f/2, M 50mm 1.4, 2.0, A 50mm 2.0, others (Worldwide) jjdgti Sold Items 9 03-31-2010 10:27 AM
FA 35mm F/2 or FA 50mm F/1.4? badfish Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 12-02-2008 08:51 PM
For Sale - Sold: F 24-50mm 4, A 24-50mm 4, M 35mm 2, M 50mm 1.4, A 35-105mm 3.5, A 70-210mm 4 raybird Sold Items 7 08-29-2008 01:06 PM
A vs. FA - 35mm and 50mm raybird Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 08-29-2008 10:29 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:41 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top