Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-01-2011, 08:53 AM   #1
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,221
DA35/2.4 is better than FA35/2 in serious tests

http://www.optyczne.pl/221.1-Test_obiektywu-Pentax_smc_DA_35_mm_f_2.4_AL_Wstęp.html

Resolution
FA35/2

DA35/2.4



CA

FA35/2

DA35/2.4



COMA TEST
FA35/2

DA35/2.4




Advantages:
Small and compact design,
excellent image quality at the center of the frame,
decent image quality at the edge of the frame,
slight chromatic aberration,
low distortion,
very low coma,
negligible astigmatism
good work under the bright light
instant autofocus


Last edited by ogl; 03-01-2011 at 10:44 AM.
03-01-2011, 09:00 AM   #2
Site Supporter
enoeske's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surprise, Az
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,920
Sharper != Better
03-01-2011, 09:01 AM   #3
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,221
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by enoeske Quote
Sharper != Better
less CA, almost no coma, cheaper.
03-01-2011, 09:19 AM   #4
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
just take note that both lenses were tested on different cameras, K20D and K-5. so that could possibly affect the MTF results.

03-01-2011, 09:50 AM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
imtheguy's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Virginia Beach
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,950
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
just take note that both lenses were tested on different cameras, K20D and K-5. so that could possibly affect the MTF results.
I also noted they were not compared at the same apertures and although I understand why, I would prefer that head-to-head comparison shots used the same setup.
03-01-2011, 09:54 AM   #6
Veteran Member
macTak's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 759
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
just take note that both lenses were tested on different cameras, K20D and K-5. so that could possibly affect the MTF results.
I'm sure it does. They are always good about noting this so when the english translation comes out we'll know how much. But still the curves are clearly different, so there is some difference in the lenses (coma also looks clearly better, not surprising with a less aggressive maximum aperture)
03-01-2011, 10:40 AM   #7
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,221
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
just take note that both lenses were tested on different cameras, K20D and K-5. so that could possibly affect the MTF results.
MTF 50 is MTF 50 regardless of sensor. IMO. By the way, the real resolution of K20D and K-5 are almost identical.

it's not PHOTOZONE tests. They calculate lp/mm with MTF50.

Last edited by ogl; 03-01-2011 at 10:47 AM.
03-01-2011, 11:17 AM   #8
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,610
I own both

I own both lenses and have shot numerous numerous 'real world' comparison shots with both lenses on my K20D and my very subjective conclusion is that you cannot really tell the difference except that the FA 35 f/2.0 exposes about 1/3 a step higher. I had hoped that there would be at least some difference between the bokeh of the two lenses, but I really cannot see a significant difference. Couldn't find a difference in CA either. There may be measurable differences between the two lenses, but except for the previously mentioned exposure difference, I cannot SEE much of a difference between my two copies.

NaCl(close enought to identical that I will be selling the FA 35)H2O

03-01-2011, 11:45 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
MTF 50 is MTF 50 regardless of sensor. IMO. By the way, the real resolution of K20D and K-5 are almost identical.

it's not PHOTOZONE tests. They calculate lp/mm with MTF50.
I'm aware that it is not photozone, but lenstip has always reiterated resolution differences between cameras (not just between APS-C and FF, but also CMOS and CCD equivalence and between same sensor sizes and variance in MP resolution, otherwise they wouldn't noted what camera is used if such MTF50 results were negligible or show MTF variance between old and new cameras. I'm not so sure however what you meant by real resolution but the K-5 has considerably has a substantial MP resolution advantage that would influence lp/mm measurement.

basically, I was just saying that it would had been much easier to understand if both lenses were tested with the same camera.
03-01-2011, 01:12 PM   #10
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303

The URL you give, leads me to the test of the DA 35/2.4 alone, not to a comparative test. Did you copy the data from two different tests together?

Then the conclusions you draw are simply not valid.

The reviewers do not use MTF measurement equipment but simple test shots. To get comparable results this way, you need to use the same camera. The K5 and K20 seem to be too different to make a valid comparison base. This is especially true for any colour abberations, which are highly dependent on the micro lens array used on the sensor (as is vignetting, for instance.)

Also, comparing f/2.0 with f/2.4 is comparing apples and pears. It leaves out the basic, inherent advantage the faster lens has over the slower one in terms of light gathering. It is 1/2 f-stop, which can decide between getting a shrp shot and a slightly blurred one.

The only thing I can read from both tests is, that both lenses are very much worth the money and a competent choice, albeit different ones.

Ben
03-01-2011, 11:37 PM   #11
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
If you see coma at the center, does that mean the FA35 suffered from misalignment? The sudden drop at f5.6 is strange too.
03-02-2011, 01:40 AM   #12
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,221
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
The URL you give, leads me to the test of the DA 35/2.4 alone, not to a comparative test. Did you copy the data from two different tests together?
Could you use searching functions of sites?
http://www.optyczne.pl/149.1-Test_obiektywu-Pentax_smc_FA_35_mm_f_2_AL-Wstęp.html

Last edited by ogl; 03-02-2011 at 03:27 AM.
03-02-2011, 01:58 AM   #13
Veteran Member
krypticide's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,079
QuoteOriginally posted by enoeske Quote
Sharper != Better
Seconded. Sharpness is just one aspect of a lens.

Sent from my EVO 4G with CM7
03-02-2011, 12:43 PM   #14
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
No, I couldn't, because my Polish is non-existent. But I have found the FA 35/2 test without the search function. The point I wanted to make is, that the tests cannot be compared, because the technical base (the sensors) are too different.

Also, it does not really make much sense to compare a fast f 2.0 max. aperture with the mediocre f 2.4 max. aperture.

Ben
03-02-2011, 01:00 PM   #15
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
fast f 2.0 max. aperture with the mediocre f 2.4 max. aperture.
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.
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 11:40 AM. | 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