[amygdalax]

hi!

now i have a FA 50 and i'm already thinking to buy also a standard lens for the k100d.
i would like to have an 28 mm with the image quality of the 35 mm lens.
how is the image quality of the 28 in comparison to the 35 lens?
the speed isn't so a problem.
have anybody both lens and can me tell about the two lenses.
thanks.

greetings
mario

[blende8]

If speed isn't a problem the FA28 is as good as the FA35.
Wide open the contrast of the FA35 is much better though.
Resolution is about the same.



Method:
Lens testing

[amygdalax]

now i have read many posts about the 16-45 and this lens should come near to primes.
is it as good as the fa 28? how compares it to the 35?
it could replace then my kit lens. mmhh


da 16-45
instead of
da 18-55 + fa 28
or
da 18-55 + fa 35

????????

[RBellavance]

now i have read many posts about the 16-45 and this lens should come near to primes.

I don't know in general IQ terms, but one area where the DA16-45 cannot compete with the primes is speed. Its maximum aperture is only f/4, whereas the FA35 is f/2.0 (2 stops faster), and the FA28 is f/2.8 (one stop faster).

[kjao]

Hi

I have FA28 and used to have FA35. I sold FA35 because I prefer the FoV from FA28 better than FA35. From my feeling (ie no scientific test), FA35 might be sharper wide open. Other than that, I think both lenses are excellent lenses.

cheers
Kenny

[joele]

I owned both, sold the fa28 and LOVE the fa35 (wouldn't even consider selling)... YMMV but I found wide open the FA35 is much sharper than the fa28, thats with the 35 at f2 and the 28 at f2.8. Both at f2.8 and my FA35 was head and shoulders above the FA28 in both resolution and contrast.. Also the FA28 suffers more from PF than the FA35 does in difficult backlit scenes.

The 28 wasn't a bad lens, great colour and contrast and resolution when stopped down a little (f4 onwards), but my fa35 is just great even from wide open...

[hinman]

I have pentax FA 50 f/1.4 and I love it.

Thoughts on FA 50 f/1.4
Thoughts on Pentax FA 50 f/1.4 - Hin's Tech Corner

Night shooting with FA 50 f/1.4 wanting a wider angle (hand held as I didn't have a tripod yet)
L_late_coffee - a photoset on Flickr
hin_man's slideshow on Flickr

Night shooting with a p&s at 36mm f/2.8 with a joby gorillapod)
Oct07_N_Practical_BayCoffee - a photoset on Flickr

But I find FA 50 f/1.4 not wide enough and hence I want the FA 35 /2.0 but I can't afford at the moment. Can someone recommend either a M 35 or M 28 with reasonable speed and I intend to use for street photography and I want something light and good for night shooting. I know that the manual focusing can be tough without AF, please share your thoughts on manual 35 or 28 in night shooting.

Thanks,
Hin

[Nesster]

I have some comparison shots that include the 16-45 and a mf smc-a 28/2.8.
lens_testing Photo Gallery by jussi at pbase.com

Bottom line? the primes do have a resolution & contrast edge over the 16-45, but that is not usually significant - in most conditions - pictorally. The way the camera computes exposure is more different with digital than with film, which was a bit of a surprise for me.

The limitation I experience with the 16-45 has to do with autofocus in lower light - the f/4 makes the lens hunt a bit, which it won't with the faster primes. That said, even the difference between 2.8 and faster than f/2 is significant in lower light.

[joele]

The A28/2.8 is a bad comparison to base an opinion of primes on, I have it too and it is a rather old wide angle infact the optical design is the same as the M28/2.8 which is now 27 years old, not really fair to compare to a newly designed zoom. It is was not one of pentax's best quality lenses even in its day (fairly soft)..

Your test also compares 100% crops at the center, what about the edges and corners where the 16-45 is rather poor IMO..

[Nesster]

You can look at the full size images for the edges. And I also compared the 43 ltd (as well as the old Tamron SP 35-80). I had loaded up another 43/16-45 comparison here:
IMGP2326 1645.jpg photo - jussi photos at pbase.com
IMGP2317 43.jpg photo - jussi photos at pbase.com

As I said, for pictures (ie. communication of image) the defects of the 16-45 aren't significant, in most situations, for me. Yet I felt both the less-than-Pentax best 28 and the 43 out-resolved etc the zooms.

@amydgalax ~ the tradeoff for your prime+kit vs 16-45 for me comes down to max aperture and the overall image quality. The 43 does more for me than either the 28 or the 16-45; and the latter two each have their trade offs. (With the US rebate, the 43 is $60-70 more than the 35.) I don't have a hankering to replace the 16-45, and probably would want a longer prime next rather than something that duplicates the range. Apart from its tendency to underexpose on a digital body, the 16-45 for me has a wonderful concentration of image and tone. LOL I just have to try to forget these pixel peeps