Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-29-2011, 03:02 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
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.
if these were bad deals, I would consider the DA35/2.4 being overpriced as well. I'm not saying that I don't want cheaper nor anybody doesn't, but this is as far as from a consumer's point of view. but from the businessman's point of view, I wouldn't make any money. so in an economic sense, it isn't feasible if Pentax would make them cheaper.

as far as subjectivity goes, again this is more of a futile argument. there is no debate about the FA50/1.4 and FA50/1.7, they are clearly different. DA35 and FA35 also shows difference (sharpness and OOF rendering), so still not the same lens. if it were, the FA35 should be totally obsolete by now. but the resurgence and sales tell otherwise. it's difficult to convince it's the same lens and I don't think that marketing has to do with it.

04-29-2011, 03:16 PM   #32
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I don't think that marketing has to do with it.
I do. I think that's why the DA 35mm 2.4 is artificially limited to 2.4. The increased bokeh performance of the DA 35 is due to it serving as a normal, which requires DOF more than the wide-angle applications that the FA 35 was designed for. If you look at the optical formuli of both lenses you will see they are VERY similar, and the differences are mostly measurbator fodder.

Also, remember that this site is in large part a marketing machine for Pentax... and those who automatically guide those towards the more expensive option often work as unpaid Pentax employees.

For 95% of users, the extra money for the FA 35 isn't really worth it. If the FA 35 was being sold at it's pre-discontinued pre-cult-status price, then it would be worth it.

Also... the DA 40 at 500 dollars *is* a bad deal. You can find many, many lenses in that focal length range that sell for *less* that are faster.

And the FA 35 is a bad deal, IMHO, in *relation* to the price/performance you are going to get from the DA L 35 2.4.

Value is always relative. If the cheapest lens was 1000 dollars, a 999 dollar lens would be a great deal. When I'm evaluating the price of a lens, I'm thinking, "what else could I get with this 500 dollars?"
05-04-2011, 08:36 PM   #33
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
No 35mm f/2 or f/2.4 or f/2.8 is going to approach the DOF of any 50-55/1.4, period. To approximate the DOF, you must be much closer with a 35mm, which gives increased distortion. I use my 24-28-35mm f/2's for low light, not so much for subject isolation. I use my Fast Fifty's for both.

As suggested, you must decide which trade-offs are most important to you, as well as what you want to spend. Longer faster lenses with more iris blades give thinner DOF and smoother bokeh. Shorter slower lenses give more commercially-acceptable DOF and overall sharpness, generally. An AF prime may cost US$200+ more than a comparable MF prime. It's your choice.

Last edited by RioRico; 05-05-2011 at 05:49 PM.
05-05-2011, 01:30 PM   #34
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 103
When I got my K5 I bought both an FA50/1.4 and the DA35/2.4. I've barely used the DA, and I'm selling it. Of course I happen to like 50mm as a focal length so that plays a part as well.

05-05-2011, 01:34 PM   #35
Veteran Member
RickyFromVegas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Las Vegas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 366
I really like the 35mm f/2.4. I mean, the price, the look, the performance...What's not to like? (unless you are a professional photographer, and even the littlest performance lost is unacceptable).
I mean, it focuses fast, shots taken at 2.4 SEEMS like it's near 2.0 level.
Maybe it's just my biased opinion?
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 07:33 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