Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-02-2011, 02:20 PM   #16
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
I think this might be a little overblown.

The difference between 2.8 and 2.0 is significant, but 2.4 and 2.0, well, less so.

Obviously there will be some times where it would be advantageous, but all else considered (let's say both lenses are equal aside from aperture), the price difference is pretty large for 1/2 stop. For light, 1/2 stop of ISO is not a lot of ask, and for DOF, at 35mm you aren't going to see a big difference.

In other lenses with a speed/price difference like that, the lenses usually are actually better, or at the very least different. It appears here that we have a lens that is 1/2 the price, and all you sacrifice is 1/2 of a stop.

As far as resolution is concerned - remember all that talk about the "soft" k5? If anything, the DA L on the K 5 should have been at a disadvantage w.r.t. sharpness because of the AA filter.

I don't find it surprising that Pentax might have improved on the optical design of the FA 35 after about 15-20 years.
Oh, I don't say, that the FA is better than the newer DA. If you read my post, you will see, that I simply cannot see a valid comparison made by two different tests.

And as I do not own the DA I cannot make any comment about its merrits. My personal choice is always for the fastest lens, I can get in a certain fl and so, the DA does not bother me personally at all. But I can compare my FA 35/2 to my old and battered M35/2 (I had two of those over the years) and my FA 31. And that leads me to the conclusion, that the FA 35/2 is a very sharp lens, even fully open. It beats the 31mm in center sharpness fully open.

You always pay about the same price premium, if you go 1/2 f-stop faster. Just look at the A 50/1.2 versus 50/1.4. And personally I am willing to shell out the extra money and found always worth it.

But ofcourse, other people have other preferences. If for instance the smallest form factor and lowest weight is more important, a slower lens would be the better choice.

Just do not compare different lenses at different settings, using different measurement equipment (in this case, different sensors), because this leads to conclusions which are not valid.

Ben

03-02-2011, 03:12 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
As far as resolution is concerned - remember all that talk about the "soft" k5? If anything, the DA L on the K 5 should have been at a disadvantage w.r.t. sharpness because of the AA filter.
it was all but talk and was never really proven that it is really soft due to AA filter. from what I have seen, the images from the K-5 are great especially from a 16.5 MP sensor. what is proven however is the sensor stain issues from the initial batch that might had probably affected the IQ performance of the camera.
03-02-2011, 03:27 PM   #18
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
Oh, I don't say, that the FA is better than the newer DA. If you read my post, you will see, that I simply cannot see a valid comparison made by two different tests.

And as I do not own the DA I cannot make any comment about its merrits. My personal choice is always for the fastest lens, I can get in a certain fl and so, the DA does not bother me personally at all. But I can compare my FA 35/2 to my old and battered M35/2 (I had two of those over the years) and my FA 31. And that leads me to the conclusion, that the FA 35/2 is a very sharp lens, even fully open. It beats the 31mm in center sharpness fully open.

You always pay about the same price premium, if you go 1/2 f-stop faster. Just look at the A 50/1.2 versus 50/1.4. And personally I am willing to shell out the extra money and found always worth it.

But ofcourse, other people have other preferences. If for instance the smallest form factor and lowest weight is more important, a slower lens would be the better choice.

Just do not compare different lenses at different settings, using different measurement equipment (in this case, different sensors), because this leads to conclusions which are not valid.

Ben
My only criticism of the FA 35 is that it's price is too high simply because it is discontinued. When it was available new, I think the price differential was fair considering the speed difference.

And as for the whole "soft" AA thing - I'm with you, I think the K5 looks great and the whole softness thing was overblown by pixel peepers. But MTF 50 is essentially scientific pixel peeping.
03-02-2011, 03:44 PM   #19
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
The FA35 actually is still available brand new... amazon japan has them

03-03-2011, 01:26 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
My only criticism of the FA 35 is that it's price is too high simply because it is discontinued. When it was available new, I think the price differential was fair considering the speed difference.

And as for the whole "soft" AA thing - I'm with you, I think the K5 looks great and the whole softness thing was overblown by pixel peepers. But MTF 50 is essentially scientific pixel peeping.
I agree on the overblown price tag. The built quality of the FA35 is not really high-end and less convincing, than the optical quality. Luckily I bought it a couple of years ago, when the price was still sensible...

Ben
03-03-2011, 02:02 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,859
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
My only criticism of the FA 35 is that it's price is too high simply because it is discontinued. When it was available new, I think the price differential was fair considering the speed difference.
That extra half stop is always expensive. Look at A50/1.4 vs. A50/1.2, though you get an extra aperture blade there.

I paid $300 for the FA. If my lens wasn't so used-looking, I could sell it for the current inflated price and get the new lens, plus quite a chunk of change.
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!
coma, da35/2.4, fa35/2, frame, image, k-mount, pentax lens, quality, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA35/2.4 AL and FA35/2 AL are the sisters. ogl Pentax News and Rumors 83 09-12-2010 02:47 PM
K7+FA35 or DA*55 VS KX+DA 40 surfmanjoe Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 06-30-2010 01:28 PM
FA35 available.... herzzreh Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 01-07-2010 05:55 PM
FA35 Bokeh k100d Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 03-08-2008 02:48 PM
Fa35? liketobe Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 04-25-2007 10:21 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:22 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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