FA50mm 1.4 or DA35mm f2.4

s.randy · 03-08-2011, 03:42 PM

Need help from someone who has used both hopefully. I have a K-x and a M 50mm f1.7; I love that lens but I would like to have a AF alternative. I like the idea of another 50mm in the FA f1.4 but I was think maybe save some money and just get the DA 35mm f2.4 since I already have the 50 coverage. Any suggestions??

Also I like outdoor portraits the most and plan to piece together a single strobe set up...if that helps.

NicoleAu · 03-08-2011, 04:01 PM

35mm might be too wide for portraits and will likely be fairly unflattering. I was in the same situation and went and got a FA 50. However now I'm lusting after something with a longer length as I find I have to be closer to people than I would like with the 50...

enoeske · 03-08-2011, 04:08 PM

That really depends on what you are shooting. Full body portrait with 35mm isn't unflattering. 50mm is about as wide as I would go for a torso and up. 70mm or higher for headshots.

s.randy · 03-08-2011, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by NicoleAu

35mm might be too wide for portraits and will likely be fairly unflattering. I was in the same situation and went and got a FA 50. However now I'm lusting after something with a longer length as I find I have to be closer to people than I would like with the 50...

Sounds like you know where I'm coming from then. One thing I was considering is the fact that the FA 50 is getting harder to find new were the DA 35 f2.4 is something I could pick up later but then again later I would hope to be able to afford something better than the DA 35 f2.4.

I see you have both the M 50 and the FA 50, what is the comparison of the two?

NicoleAu · 03-08-2011, 04:27 PM

I like them both, but I'm not really qualified to make comparisons between the two. I mainly needed to get the FA because my children were far too fast to manually focus on. I loved the M lens because it made me consider my shots more carefully and it gave me the confidence to move off AV onto manual settings.

The 35 is a good lens, but if you're considering it for portraiture, not just full body, it can distort the features, which you don't really want unless you're going to that kind of look.

s.randy · 03-08-2011, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by NicoleAu

I like them both, but I'm not really qualified to make comparisons between the two. I mainly needed to get the FA because my children were far too fast to manually focus on. I loved the M lens because it made me consider my shots more carefully and it gave me the confidence to move off AV onto manual settings.

The 35 is a good lens, but if you're considering it for portraiture, not just full body, it can distort the features, which you don't really want unless you're going to that kind of look.

I have kids as well and that is the main reason I got tired of MF with the M 50.

I'm mainly trying to get the most bang for the buck, sharp and nice bokeh. The 35 was just appealing because I already have a 50 and the price is less but I also don't want to waste the little budget I do have.

NicoleAu · 03-08-2011, 04:44 PM

I bought my FA second-hand in mint condition for $350. New it's from $500-$600 over here, I don't know what prices are like there. Maybe check out Keh.com? I bought my Tammy from them and it was in perfect condition.

NicoleAu · 03-08-2011, 04:49 PM

Here's a link to some of my practice shots with the FA 50mm, don't expect too much from them as it's mainly me playing with the camera, but it will give you some idea. http://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=810982845

Here's another link to a bunch of portraits I did for a friend of mine, again, I'm not a pro, so don't expect too much me of me. Jennifer 25th Feb 2011 | Facebook

It'll give you an idea at least whether you think it's capable for your needs or to keep looking at the 35

s.randy · 03-08-2011, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by NicoleAu

Here's a link to some of my practice shots with the FA 50mm, don't expect too much from them as it's mainly me playing with the camera, but it will give you some idea. 50mm FA Practice | Facebook

Here's another link to a bunch of portraits I did for a friend of mine, again, I'm not a pro, so don't expect too much me of me. Jennifer 25th Feb 2011 | Facebook

It'll give you an idea at least whether you think it's capable for your needs or to keep looking at the 35

The FA new here is like $360ish USD. The 35 f2.4 is under $200.

I'll check out those links, thanks.

Colbyt · 03-08-2011, 06:30 PM

I am still undecided.

For any fence sitters ready to make the jump, Tri-State has the FA 1.4 on Ebay for 360 with free shipping. I don't recall if they are one of our sponsors or not, you may be be able to click through from here and support the site.

Metalwizards · 03-08-2011, 08:08 PM

If you want bokeh, get the 50. I have the DA 40MM, and I am able to take nice portraits with it so long as I crop, but the depth of field is not super shallow, and the 35 is only half a stop faster so I don't suspect it will be as shallow as you might want.

With my M 50 1.7 it is quite shallow. If you already have a manual 50, focusing is SUPER easy on a target that doesn't move. The secret is using live view and zooming in to max zoom on live view to the place you want in focus, like their eyes, at that point you will always nail focus. I was ready to give up manual focusing till I figured that out. If you do it through the view finder than it's almost impossible.

selar · 03-08-2011, 08:59 PM

Every person with a Pentax SLR should own a FA 50/1.4 Using it is of course, optional.

enoeske · 03-09-2011, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by selar

Every person with a Pentax SLR should own a FA 50/1.4 Using it is of course, optional.

I'll stick with my K 50mm f/1.4, thank you very much.

s.randy · 03-09-2011, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Metalwizards

If you want bokeh, get the 50. I have the DA 40MM, and I am able to take nice portraits with it so long as I crop, but the depth of field is not super shallow, and the 35 is only half a stop faster so I don't suspect it will be as shallow as you might want.

With my M 50 1.7 it is quite shallow. If you already have a manual 50, focusing is SUPER easy on a target that doesn't move. The secret is using live view and zooming in to max zoom on live view to the place you want in focus, like their eyes, at that point you will always nail focus. I was ready to give up manual focusing till I figured that out. If you do it through the view finder than it's almost impossible.

Thanks for that tip, I never even thought about that as an option. My only concern with the FA 50 is the AF ratings, seems to be low. On the other hand sharpness and bokeh score well.

epqwerty · 03-09-2011, 07:57 AM

For outside portraits, I would go with the FA 50 1.4 over the DA35 2.4. The 35mm is a little too wide for outdoors but indoors its pretty good. I personally have the 35 2.4 and a M50 1.4. Both I find really good depending on situation. If I remember corrrectly the FA50 1.4 is same design as the M50 1.4? If it is I find it really good in sharpness.

03-08-2011, 03:42 PM	#1
s.randy Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Seattle, Wa Posts: 177	FA50mm 1.4 or DA35mm f2.4 Need help from someone who has used both hopefully. I have a K-x and a M 50mm f1.7; I love that lens but I would like to have a AF alternative. I like the idea of another 50mm in the FA f1.4 but I was think maybe save some money and just get the DA 35mm f2.4 since I already have the 50 coverage. Any suggestions?? Also I like outdoor portraits the most and plan to piece together a single strobe set up...if that helps.

03-08-2011, 04:49 PM	#8
NicoleAu Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 539	Here's a link to some of my practice shots with the FA 50mm, don't expect too much from them as it's mainly me playing with the camera, but it will give you some idea. http://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=810982845 Here's another link to a bunch of portraits I did for a friend of mine, again, I'm not a pro, so don't expect too much me of me. Jennifer 25th Feb 2011 \| Facebook It'll give you an idea at least whether you think it's capable for your needs or to keep looking at the 35 Last edited by NicoleAu; 03-08-2011 at 04:50 PM. Reason: added link

03-08-2011, 06:30 PM	#10
Colbyt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Central Kentucky Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,418	I am still undecided. For any fence sitters ready to make the jump, Tri-State has the FA 1.4 on Ebay for 360 with free shipping. I don't recall if they are one of our sponsors or not, you may be be able to click through from here and support the site. Last edited by Colbyt; 03-08-2011 at 06:31 PM. Reason: typo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
a new lens <DA35mm F2.4 AL> on the K7	jay790	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	11-05-2010 01:29 AM
Already own DA35mm. Keep FA50mm f1.4?	raider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	08-30-2010 12:45 PM
FA77mm or DA70mm and DA35mm	TheTenaciousOne	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	09-03-2009 07:18 AM

03-08-2011, 04:01 PM	#2
NicoleAu Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 539	35mm might be too wide for portraits and will likely be fairly unflattering. I was in the same situation and went and got a FA 50. However now I'm lusting after something with a longer length as I find I have to be closer to people than I would like with the 50...

03-08-2011, 04:08 PM	#3
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	That really depends on what you are shooting. Full body portrait with 35mm isn't unflattering. 50mm is about as wide as I would go for a torso and up. 70mm or higher for headshots.

03-08-2011, 04:09 PM	#4
s.randy Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Seattle, Wa Posts: 177 Original Poster	Originally posted by NicoleAu 35mm might be too wide for portraits and will likely be fairly unflattering. I was in the same situation and went and got a FA 50. However now I'm lusting after something with a longer length as I find I have to be closer to people than I would like with the 50... Sounds like you know where I'm coming from then. One thing I was considering is the fact that the FA 50 is getting harder to find new were the DA 35 f2.4 is something I could pick up later but then again later I would hope to be able to afford something better than the DA 35 f2.4. I see you have both the M 50 and the FA 50, what is the comparison of the two?

03-08-2011, 04:27 PM	#5
NicoleAu Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 539	I like them both, but I'm not really qualified to make comparisons between the two. I mainly needed to get the FA because my children were far too fast to manually focus on. I loved the M lens because it made me consider my shots more carefully and it gave me the confidence to move off AV onto manual settings. The 35 is a good lens, but if you're considering it for portraiture, not just full body, it can distort the features, which you don't really want unless you're going to that kind of look.

03-08-2011, 04:34 PM	#6
s.randy Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Seattle, Wa Posts: 177 Original Poster	Originally posted by NicoleAu I like them both, but I'm not really qualified to make comparisons between the two. I mainly needed to get the FA because my children were far too fast to manually focus on. I loved the M lens because it made me consider my shots more carefully and it gave me the confidence to move off AV onto manual settings. The 35 is a good lens, but if you're considering it for portraiture, not just full body, it can distort the features, which you don't really want unless you're going to that kind of look. I have kids as well and that is the main reason I got tired of MF with the M 50. I'm mainly trying to get the most bang for the buck, sharp and nice bokeh. The 35 was just appealing because I already have a 50 and the price is less but I also don't want to waste the little budget I do have.

03-08-2011, 04:44 PM	#7
NicoleAu Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 539	I bought my FA second-hand in mint condition for $350. New it's from $500-$600 over here, I don't know what prices are like there. Maybe check out Keh.com? I bought my Tammy from them and it was in perfect condition.

03-08-2011, 04:54 PM	#9
s.randy Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Seattle, Wa Posts: 177 Original Poster	Originally posted by NicoleAu Here's a link to some of my practice shots with the FA 50mm, don't expect too much from them as it's mainly me playing with the camera, but it will give you some idea. 50mm FA Practice \| Facebook Here's another link to a bunch of portraits I did for a friend of mine, again, I'm not a pro, so don't expect too much me of me. Jennifer 25th Feb 2011 \| Facebook It'll give you an idea at least whether you think it's capable for your needs or to keep looking at the 35 The FA new here is like $360ish USD. The 35 f2.4 is under $200. I'll check out those links, thanks.

03-08-2011, 08:08 PM	#11
Metalwizards Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Santa Cruz Photos: Albums Posts: 124	If you want bokeh, get the 50. I have the DA 40MM, and I am able to take nice portraits with it so long as I crop, but the depth of field is not super shallow, and the 35 is only half a stop faster so I don't suspect it will be as shallow as you might want. With my M 50 1.7 it is quite shallow. If you already have a manual 50, focusing is SUPER easy on a target that doesn't move. The secret is using live view and zooming in to max zoom on live view to the place you want in focus, like their eyes, at that point you will always nail focus. I was ready to give up manual focusing till I figured that out. If you do it through the view finder than it's almost impossible.

03-08-2011, 08:59 PM	#12
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Every person with a Pentax SLR should own a FA 50/1.4 Using it is of course, optional.

03-09-2011, 06:23 AM	#13
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	Originally posted by selar Every person with a Pentax SLR should own a FA 50/1.4 Using it is of course, optional. I'll stick with my K 50mm f/1.4, thank you very much.

03-09-2011, 07:43 AM	#14
s.randy Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Seattle, Wa Posts: 177 Original Poster	Originally posted by Metalwizards If you want bokeh, get the 50. I have the DA 40MM, and I am able to take nice portraits with it so long as I crop, but the depth of field is not super shallow, and the 35 is only half a stop faster so I don't suspect it will be as shallow as you might want. With my M 50 1.7 it is quite shallow. If you already have a manual 50, focusing is SUPER easy on a target that doesn't move. The secret is using live view and zooming in to max zoom on live view to the place you want in focus, like their eyes, at that point you will always nail focus. I was ready to give up manual focusing till I figured that out. If you do it through the view finder than it's almost impossible. Thanks for that tip, I never even thought about that as an option. My only concern with the FA 50 is the AF ratings, seems to be low. On the other hand sharpness and bokeh score well.

03-09-2011, 07:57 AM	#15
epqwerty Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ontario Posts: 550	For outside portraits, I would go with the FA 50 1.4 over the DA35 2.4. The 35mm is a little too wide for outdoors but indoors its pretty good. I personally have the 35 2.4 and a M50 1.4. Both I find really good depending on situation. If I remember corrrectly the FA50 1.4 is same design as the M50 1.4? If it is I find it really good in sharpness.