[Metalwizards]

So mostly for the sake of discussion I would be very interested to hear what peoples experiences are regarding these two entry level primes. I've searched the forum and failed to find any discussions directly comparing these two lens since the 35mm was released.

They are extremely close focal in length and speed and both have been said to be excellent primes for first time buyers. The 35 is quite a bit cheaper, even though it has not gone down significantly in price, but both lenses are still very affordable. Obvious the 40mm is much cooler looking and of superior construction. I am wondering what people who own these lenses think. I would be especially interested in hearing from people who have significant experience with both.

I am most interested in hearing about the quality of photos delivered by the two lenses, and the differing characteriscs they display.

[axl]

Calling DA40 entry level prime?!? That's a first time
I wouldn't consider it as such but your mileage may varry.

DA35/2.4 is entry level. Cheap (although still decent) build, optics based off FA35, it uses AL element, has fewer aperture plades and is half stop faster.

DA40/2.8 is a niche lens. As you'd expect from Ltd lens it has excellent build, all metal (for some that's advantage, for some disadvantage), it has 9 aperture blades and as such I'd expect it to have smoother OOF when stopped down, and I'd expect it to last longer than the new DA35.
IQ wise (from what I've seen so far) you can pretty much toss a coin to decide...

[Clarkey]

Quickshift on the DA 40mm, and from my experience, basically no CA or flare. I don't have the 35.

Otherwise, very good question.

[GeneV]

DA40 is my most used prime. The quality is superb; it is light and I've gotten attached to the FL. I also would not call it an entry level lens.

That being said, I haven't tried the DA 35/2.4 and might find it an incredible bargain. Since I already own the FA35/2, I don't really need it.

[Ahab]

I would not go out of my way to get the 35 as my 40 more than meets my expectations. I don't believe the 35 can offer any improvement.

[paperbag846]

IQ wise (from what I've seen so far) you can pretty much toss a coin to decide...

I would be surprised if the 35 could match the 40 in the areas of contrast, flare resistance, and colour.

[audiobomber]

I have an FA 35 and DA 40. I prefer the 35mm focal length over 40mm (I prefer 28mm over either). The FA 35mm is a better lens IMO, because it's a whole stop faster and very slightly sharper, but suffers some CA under extreme conditions. I bought the 40mm for its tiny size and I don't regret that, even though optically it's a bit redundant in my kit.

Between the DA 35 2.4 and DA 40, there's not an obvious choice, because the 35mm isn't a whole lot faster, sharpness looks about equal, CA favours the 40mm, and of course, there is major appeal in using a solid little pancake lens. I do think the 35mm FL is more useful indoors, as is the extra speed. OTOH I'd rather have my photo taken with a 40mm than a 35mm (50mm over either). I think the choice of DA 35 vs. DA 40 should come down to what else you have in your kit.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 02-13-2011 at 09:27 AM.

[epqwerty]

In my opinion, if I already had a DA40 I would not spend the money on the DAL35. The speed benefit is minimal. Image quality the DA40 is better. The size the DA40 is much more convenient, very compact. In terms of cost you would not be saving a lot. If you were to sell your DA40 and then pick up a brand new DAL35. You would only make at most 100$ from the difference. Not worth it in my eyes. If however, you didn't own a DA40 the story would be different as the DAL35 is by far a good bang for the buck for the amateur photographer. Those that are serious would pony up the money for the DA35 Macro which by far surpasses both the DA40 and DAL35 in terms of every aspect except for size.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well you can have the DA40 also in Silver!

The DA35 you can buy in all does neet colours in Japan, I like the yellow one.

I think they match up to each other pretty nicely. The pricedifference is coming from build quality I think. I have a 40mm and it is a lovely lens.

[Clarkey]

In my opinion, if I already had a DA40 I would not spend the money on the DAL35. The speed benefit is minimal. Image quality the DA40 is better. The size the DA40 is much more convenient, very compact. In terms of cost you would not be saving a lot. If you were to sell your DA40 and then pick up a brand new DAL35. You would only make at most 100$ from the difference. Not worth it in my eyes. If however, you didn't own a DA40 the story would be different as the DAL35 is by far a good bang for the buck for the amateur photographer. Those that are serious would pony up the money for the DA35 Macro which by far surpasses both the DA40 and DAL35 in terms of every aspect except for size.

I would agree with everything on the DA 35 Macro excepting focus speed and Bokeh.

[axl]

I would be surprised if the 35 could match the 40 in the areas of contrast, flare resistance, and colour.

I wouldn't be that surprised really. As I said, from the shots I've seen so far, the new 35 seems pretty incredible lens for that money... They seem to have made some compromises in speed, quick shift and build but the IQ seens top notch IMO

[paperbag846]

I'm not sure. The 35 does look really amazing, particularly in terms of sharpness and oof wide-open. I don't think one would notice a difference here. However, I have not seen the same colours and contrast from the 35 samples I've seen, and I know for a fact that the 35 can flare up more than the 40. A lot of that is helped if you buy a hood, but the limiteds (all of them) seem to really hold their own with extremely high contrast images, and flare rejection.

That said, the 35 might be the best bang-for-the buck prime lens available new right now, so if that is the goal I would not suggest that the gains of the DA 40 are worth the extra money for someone on a tight budget. The 35 looks really great.

[Metalwizards]

The reason I say the DA 40mm is an entry level prime is that it is the cheapest DA prime aside from the 35, and while it is a bit more expensive, it's not THAT much more expensive at $340 from Adorama. The only other prime in that range is the FA 50mm, which goes for around the same price. Is this too expensive for entry level? It would seem in that case then only the DAL 35mm would be entry level, along with older manual focus lenses.

No one has used both lenses extensively?

[paperbag846]

The reason I say the DA 40mm is an entry level prime is that it is the cheapest DA prime aside from the 35, and while it is a bit more expensive, it's not THAT much more expensive at $340 from Adorama. The only other prime in that range is the FA 50mm, which goes for around the same price. Is this too expensive for entry level? It would seem in that case then only the DAL 35mm would be entry level, along with older manual focus lenses.

No one has used both lenses extensively?

I've used the 50 and the 40. I much preferred the 40 in all ways, sold the 50, and use an old manual 55 for low DOF when I really need it.

As for the 35 vs. 40, I've simply compared sample photos. I like the 40 better personally, but for me, sharpness is not everything. If you want a sharp lens, plain and simple, the 35 is great. Also, some people prefer that wider field of view. I personally use a 28mm for that. One again, personal taste.

Look around at the sample photos in each of the lenses' reviews. If you can't see the difference in colour and or contrast, just run with the 35.

[acrollet]

I'm going to throw out a curveball and recommend the Pentax-F 50mm f/1.7 - they pop up on the marketplace fairly often, and tend to go for about $200. If you're ok with the increased focal length, it's an amazing lens, makes magical pics especially for portraits/candids. I've shot with a 43mm limited, and honestly like the F50 better. (just my subjective opinion before people jump all over me