Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-04-2007, 01:09 PM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 15
FA 35 vs FA 28

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

11-04-2007, 02:20 PM   #2
Veteran Member
blende8's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bremen, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,484
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
11-04-2007, 03:28 PM   #3
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Graz, Austria
Posts: 15
Original Poster
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

????????
11-04-2007, 03:50 PM   #4
Veteran Member
RBellavance's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Near Montréal, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by amygdalax Quote
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).

11-04-2007, 06:50 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 423
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
11-04-2007, 07:11 PM   #6
Veteran Member
joele's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,309
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...
11-04-2007, 07:23 PM   #7
Pentaxian
hinman's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fremont, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,427
Any recommendation on M 35 or M 28

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
11-05-2007, 06:21 AM   #8
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
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.

11-05-2007, 07:36 PM   #9
Veteran Member
joele's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,309
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..

Last edited by joele; 11-05-2007 at 07:44 PM.
11-06-2007, 06:47 AM   #10
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
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
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!
fa, image, k-mount, lens, mm, pentax lens, quality, slr lens, vs fa
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:34 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