Do I sell my DA35mm 2.4 AL to help fund an FA 43?

London Rob · 06-06-2011, 06:11 AM

Only recently acquired a new 35mm 2.4 AL and whilst it beats the kit lens hands down I'm still aware of it's limitations. In my bag at the moment I have my K-x, the 18-55 kit, M 50mm 1.7 and the 35. I adore the IQ and rendering of the 50 but cannot handle the focussing, not on a K-x anyway and the kit only gets used when I need something really wide. Ergo the 35 has been on pretty non-stop for the last 2 months.
Now I have the chance of a new FA 43mm for under £550, not internet scams, it's in stock at a local shop. Doubt I'd need 2 close-ish focal length lenses so I'm considering offing the 35 to help with the 43 cost. My main photo interests are portraits, the kids, a bit of street and an aversion to flash, hence a fondness for fastness. My dislikes of the 35 is it's 'so so' focal length (Does that make sense? The 50mm seems to really throw you in the mix and make you think hard about composition) and it's colour rendering, it just seems a bit 'cartoonish' and to close to the kit. My 50 has fabulous colours, quite neutral and inert but punchy when needs be.

So in a nutshell, will moving to the 43 give me the IQ and rendering I crave and is it so good as to make the 35 redundant ??? Also, is there a risk of me getting a dud ? Calibrating lenses is currently beyond my understanding but I've read on here of the FA43 or the body you mount it on needing some tweeks.

Basically, like many of us I'm striving to arrive at the best prime I can afford and the one lens that will stay on the body all the time.

Blue · 06-06-2011, 06:24 AM

It depends on how tight money is for you. If not a problem, go for the 43. Another option would be to pick up an F 50/1.7 for around $210 +/1 $15 or even an FA50/1.4. However, I am afraid you are always going to be lured to the 43.

freewheeler · 06-06-2011, 06:37 AM

In the film era I love'd my 50mm but would have liked it to be a bit longer
for environmental potraits indoors of for instance the kids.
Recently I bought a Voigtlander 40/2.0 and sold my FA35/2.0.
I'm very happy with the trade.
If I would have been an AF fan I might have traded the FA35 for the FA43.
Would be a nice combo with a FA28/2.8 for indoors too.
Go for it !

aurele · 06-06-2011, 07:31 AM

As you seem to wait for it : Go for your 43 ! but you should try it to be sure it won't be a "so so lense"

1r0nh31d3 · 06-06-2011, 08:44 AM

I can't comment on the 35mm but I bought the 43mm to replace my 50mm 1.7 and it has done well at that.

I find the 43mm focal a bit more useful indoors and the quality of the pictures is better than the 50mm 1.7. Well actually not always better but I find it more useful in more situations. The 50mm is better performer for portraits, especially at 1.7 if your looking for something a bit more gentle with skin blemishes and wrinkles, scars, etc...

I don't know if my advice was actually helpful at all. oops.

**Ash** · 06-06-2011, 02:07 PM

Having the 43 already, and also going for the 35, I will be using them for two different reasons. But I'm certain the 43's rendition will be a notch higher than the already brilliant 35. We're also talking about nearly a further stop of extra capability, but more importantly the solid build and exceptional 3D-like rendering of the 43 makes it a worthwhile upgrade.

epqwerty · 06-06-2011, 03:16 PM

The difference between the 43 and the 35 is noticeable. However the way your kit is set up i would get tge 43 and get rid of the 35 and 50. The focal lengths are so close that in my opinion you could get away with just the 43. But if i were to get the 43 my 35 would be gone. The 43 can cover the loss of the 35

robgo2 · 06-07-2011, 01:41 PM

The FA Limiteds are uniquely wonderful lenses, and of the three, I like the FA43 best. If you think that the focal length will suit your shooting needs, then do not hesitate to get it. I love it for portraits, but it is fairly useful as a general purpose lens also.

Rob

FA43, f4, K-7

**Ash** · 06-07-2011, 01:48 PM

Yes, and if money is not a great obstacle, and 43mm is too narrow for you, there's always the FA 31 ltd.

FA 31, f/5.6, K20D

But the 43 is my most favoured for kids and general portraits:

FA 43, f/5.6, K20D

robgo2 · 06-07-2011, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Yes, and if money is not a great obstacle, and 43mm is too narrow for you, there's always the FA 31 ltd.

FA 31, f/5.6, K20D

But the 43 is my most favoured for kids and general portraits:

FA 43, f/5.6, K20D

Ash,

Those girls are really cute and excellent models as well.

Rob

paperbag846 · 06-07-2011, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by London Rob

Only recently acquired a new 35mm 2.4 AL and whilst it beats the kit lens hands down I'm still aware of it's limitations. In my bag at the moment I have my K-x, the 18-55 kit, M 50mm 1.7 and the 35. I adore the IQ and rendering of the 50 but cannot handle the focussing, not on a K-x anyway and the kit only gets used when I need something really wide. Ergo the 35 has been on pretty non-stop for the last 2 months.
Now I have the chance of a new FA 43mm for under £550, not internet scams, it's in stock at a local shop. Doubt I'd need 2 close-ish focal length lenses so I'm considering offing the 35 to help with the 43 cost. My main photo interests are portraits, the kids, a bit of street and an aversion to flash, hence a fondness for fastness. My dislikes of the 35 is it's 'so so' focal length (Does that make sense? The 50mm seems to really throw you in the mix and make you think hard about composition) and it's colour rendering, it just seems a bit 'cartoonish' and to close to the kit. My 50 has fabulous colours, quite neutral and inert but punchy when needs be.

So in a nutshell, will moving to the 43 give me the IQ and rendering I crave and is it so good as to make the 35 redundant ??? Also, is there a risk of me getting a dud ? Calibrating lenses is currently beyond my understanding but I've read on here of the FA43 or the body you mount it on needing some tweeks.

Basically, like many of us I'm striving to arrive at the best prime I can afford and the one lens that will stay on the body all the time.

From all the things you say, either the FA 50 1.4 or FA 43 1.9 should do you well. You should use the kit at 43mm to see if you like it better than 50mm... and buy the autofocus prime that is in the focal length you like.

If you land on the 50, you could keep the 35, but you might prefer another prime (like a 28mm, 21mm or wider even) to complement it. If you bought the 43, I'd suggest keeping the 35 would be a little silly, and could be replaced with either a wider or longer compliment.

If you find you like longer focal lengths, also consider the DA * 55. It's just a bit tighter than the 50 1.4, and better in just about every way.

London Rob · 06-11-2011, 03:15 AM

Ok, great feedback as expected and it's been fantastic in helping me arrive at what I hope is the definitive conclusion. I started my journey for the 'king of primes' with a thread about the da 40mm and pretty much had made up my mind that I'd be adding that to my kx. I then wavered and got the 35 2.4 AL but as discussed above thought the 43 would blow this away so naturally considered putting all funds into this one limited.

Then mucking about the other day inside and out with kids swapping the 35 for the old manual 50 I realised that I really love the 1.7's focal length (Just hate it's focussing) so if I was to get a fast fifty I could perhaps keep the 35. So after days of research on here, flickr etc.... I am pretty much set on a Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM. Now I know this is a perceived step down from a 43 limited in IQ but the images I've seen partnered with a kx are far more my style and simply really appeal to my eye and visual sensibilities. I don't know why but they do.
And focal length it's hitting the right spot. Funds wise this allows me to keep OR maybe lose the 35 2.4 and make an investment elsewhere. But I've really enjoyed it's properties and FOV. I'm also acutely aware that both lenses have limitations regards minimum focus distance so I reckon I've come to the ultimate 2 piece prime solution for the direction my photography is going. (hopefully!) So my final decision for the glass I will add to the kx is the above Sigma and DA 35mm f2.8 Macro Limited.

The fast fifty AF I crave and an upgrade on the 35. Phew ! It's been a long road but I think this might just be it ! Opinions are of course very welcome..........

Docrwm · 06-11-2011, 04:46 AM

Rob,

I know what you mean about focal length and just feeling right. I have several Fast 50s and when I have all the time in the world I use a SuperTak and manually focus and shoot a # of shots. But, I found that with children and life at life's pace I needed AF so I now have an AF Fast 50 as well as my newest DA35/2.4. The rendering from the old glass in the SuperTak 50/1.4, SuperTak 55/1.8, and yes even the M50/2 is very different IMHO from that of my FA50. So, I urge you to consider trying your manual lens side-by-side with any new AF 50 you acquire. Good luck.

MSM · 06-11-2011, 06:50 AM

London Rob: I am coming late to this thread, but I thought I would add my thoughts. In reading your inital post, I thought that you and I are similar in needs. I have the 35 mm Limited and then in a trade bought the 43 mm. Now I have both. There is something about the 43 mm that just seems to inhibit the use of the 35 mm for me. For shooting wide open and indoors for close portraits of kids and many others it is a great lens. I may end up still keeping the 35mm, too hard to let go or an otherwise great lens. As others have said, they are just a little too close to really need both, especially if you need the money.

I see that you have made your mind up. I would only point out from my experience one matter. If you arrived at your decision because the lens(es) you buy in place of the 43 mm are truely a better fit, then go for it. Just don't let the purchase be a 'settle' or a 'better deal.'

The reason that I say this is because the limiteds have a way of 'calling' you back. Sometimes the call is maddening. Hang up as often as you like, but it just keeps you on speed dial. You need to make sure that your decision effectively unplugs the phone. You have got some great advice in this thread from some very respected posters. I like Blue's last statement regarding the allure of the 43 calling you back. I had this with the 31 mm. I went and tried it. It is a great lens but not one that I would use in my style of shooting enough to justify the cost. For me the 43 is the best limited. But by trying the 31 mm I feel I have effectively cut the phone line. There is no wonder for me whether I am missing out on the 31 mm.

I have seen it many times where a member chooses against a limited only to sell what s/he bought and buy the limited later. What happens is that we come back to the site and make the mistake of looking at images of the said limited only to see a series of killer images...alas, the phone line has just been connected.

Good Luck,

Mark

London Rob · 06-17-2011, 11:43 AM

Ok, so both lenses came so off with the 35mm 2.4 and on with the Sigma. Oh dear, what a beautiful lens but what a disapointment. Yes I know there's a lot of online chatter about quality control and 'trying to find a good copy' but I figure a big company making mainstream lenses as their core business could at least get the basics right, sadly my copy shouts otherwise very loudly. I hit more in focus shots with my manual 50 1.7. I tried my utmost to work with it but it rarely hit more than 2 out of 10 in focus and that includes perfect outdoor light at F8. I'm fully aware of the increase in skill required to get a fifty wide open to be anything other than soft but this thing just beats you into submission right across the apeture range. A good copy would on eveidence of when it gets it right be sublime but oh my this one is way off that.
So back it goes...............

Then the 35. Ok, this is just brilliant. Less 'cartoony' than the 2.4 and if you'll forgive the vagueness, more 'mature'. Stunning build and feel and you'd really have to be a proper numpty to screw focus up with this. Ergo I still think I've got it right to split my investment originally intended for the FA43 between the 35mm limited and a 50. It's just unnerving that the dissenting voices across all mounts regards the Sigma's issues seem to be on to something.

With that in mind I will try another Sigma but I'm now leaning toward swapping it for an FA 50 1.4. I want a 50 for the focal length, I accept softness under f2 but more than anything I just want great glass that works. Sadly the one in it's box on my table doesn't.

Thankfully the 35 limited makes it all better !!!

06-06-2011, 06:11 AM	#1
London Rob Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 92	Do I sell my DA35mm 2.4 AL to help fund an FA 43? Only recently acquired a new 35mm 2.4 AL and whilst it beats the kit lens hands down I'm still aware of it's limitations. In my bag at the moment I have my K-x, the 18-55 kit, M 50mm 1.7 and the 35. I adore the IQ and rendering of the 50 but cannot handle the focussing, not on a K-x anyway and the kit only gets used when I need something really wide. Ergo the 35 has been on pretty non-stop for the last 2 months. Now I have the chance of a new FA 43mm for under £550, not internet scams, it's in stock at a local shop. Doubt I'd need 2 close-ish focal length lenses so I'm considering offing the 35 to help with the 43 cost. My main photo interests are portraits, the kids, a bit of street and an aversion to flash, hence a fondness for fastness. My dislikes of the 35 is it's 'so so' focal length (Does that make sense? The 50mm seems to really throw you in the mix and make you think hard about composition) and it's colour rendering, it just seems a bit 'cartoonish' and to close to the kit. My 50 has fabulous colours, quite neutral and inert but punchy when needs be. So in a nutshell, will moving to the 43 give me the IQ and rendering I crave and is it so good as to make the 35 redundant ??? Also, is there a risk of me getting a dud ? Calibrating lenses is currently beyond my understanding but I've read on here of the FA43 or the body you mount it on needing some tweeks. Basically, like many of us I'm striving to arrive at the best prime I can afford and the one lens that will stay on the body all the time.

06-07-2011, 01:41 PM	#8
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	The FA Limiteds are uniquely wonderful lenses, and of the three, I like the FA43 best. If you think that the focal length will suit your shooting needs, then do not hesitate to get it. I love it for portraits, but it is fairly useful as a general purpose lens also. Rob FA43, f4, K-7 Last edited by robgo2; 06-07-2011 at 04:51 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Should I sell these lenses to fund a DA70mm?	Chillibones	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	10-03-2010 09:22 AM
Re-Fund America	Driver3	General Talk	2	06-18-2010 07:00 AM
Film camera bodies - CLA then sell, or sell as is?	SOldBear	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	15	10-27-2009 04:18 PM
Sell Sigma 17-70 and FA 50 to fund DA* 16-50?	hinman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	01-22-2009 01:23 PM
Sell K10D to fund K20D....	Buddha Jones	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	01-12-2009 09:55 PM

06-06-2011, 06:24 AM	#2
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	It depends on how tight money is for you. If not a problem, go for the 43. Another option would be to pick up an F 50/1.7 for around $210 +/1 $15 or even an FA50/1.4. However, I am afraid you are always going to be lured to the 43.

06-06-2011, 06:37 AM	#3
freewheeler Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: amsterdam Posts: 130	In the film era I love'd my 50mm but would have liked it to be a bit longer for environmental potraits indoors of for instance the kids. Recently I bought a Voigtlander 40/2.0 and sold my FA35/2.0. I'm very happy with the trade. If I would have been an AF fan I might have traded the FA35 for the FA43. Would be a nice combo with a FA28/2.8 for indoors too. Go for it !

06-06-2011, 07:31 AM	#4
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	As you seem to wait for it : Go for your 43 ! but you should try it to be sure it won't be a "so so lense"

06-06-2011, 08:44 AM	#5
1r0nh31d3 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Edmonton, AB Posts: 136	I can't comment on the 35mm but I bought the 43mm to replace my 50mm 1.7 and it has done well at that. I find the 43mm focal a bit more useful indoors and the quality of the pictures is better than the 50mm 1.7. Well actually not always better but I find it more useful in more situations. The 50mm is better performer for portraits, especially at 1.7 if your looking for something a bit more gentle with skin blemishes and wrinkles, scars, etc... I don't know if my advice was actually helpful at all. oops.

06-06-2011, 02:07 PM	#6
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Having the 43 already, and also going for the 35, I will be using them for two different reasons. But I'm certain the 43's rendition will be a notch higher than the already brilliant 35. We're also talking about nearly a further stop of extra capability, but more importantly the solid build and exceptional 3D-like rendering of the 43 makes it a worthwhile upgrade.

06-06-2011, 03:16 PM	#7
epqwerty Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ontario Posts: 550	The difference between the 43 and the 35 is noticeable. However the way your kit is set up i would get tge 43 and get rid of the 35 and 50. The focal lengths are so close that in my opinion you could get away with just the 43. But if i were to get the 43 my 35 would be gone. The 43 can cover the loss of the 35

06-07-2011, 01:48 PM	#9
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Yes, and if money is not a great obstacle, and 43mm is too narrow for you, there's always the FA 31 ltd. FA 31, f/5.6, K20D But the 43 is my most favoured for kids and general portraits: FA 43, f/5.6, K20D

06-07-2011, 02:11 PM	#10
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Ash Yes, and if money is not a great obstacle, and 43mm is too narrow for you, there's always the FA 31 ltd. FA 31, f/5.6, K20D But the 43 is my most favoured for kids and general portraits: FA 43, f/5.6, K20D Ash, Those girls are really cute and excellent models as well. Rob

06-07-2011, 02:48 PM	#11
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by London Rob Only recently acquired a new 35mm 2.4 AL and whilst it beats the kit lens hands down I'm still aware of it's limitations. In my bag at the moment I have my K-x, the 18-55 kit, M 50mm 1.7 and the 35. I adore the IQ and rendering of the 50 but cannot handle the focussing, not on a K-x anyway and the kit only gets used when I need something really wide. Ergo the 35 has been on pretty non-stop for the last 2 months. Now I have the chance of a new FA 43mm for under £550, not internet scams, it's in stock at a local shop. Doubt I'd need 2 close-ish focal length lenses so I'm considering offing the 35 to help with the 43 cost. My main photo interests are portraits, the kids, a bit of street and an aversion to flash, hence a fondness for fastness. My dislikes of the 35 is it's 'so so' focal length (Does that make sense? The 50mm seems to really throw you in the mix and make you think hard about composition) and it's colour rendering, it just seems a bit 'cartoonish' and to close to the kit. My 50 has fabulous colours, quite neutral and inert but punchy when needs be. So in a nutshell, will moving to the 43 give me the IQ and rendering I crave and is it so good as to make the 35 redundant ??? Also, is there a risk of me getting a dud ? Calibrating lenses is currently beyond my understanding but I've read on here of the FA43 or the body you mount it on needing some tweeks. Basically, like many of us I'm striving to arrive at the best prime I can afford and the one lens that will stay on the body all the time. From all the things you say, either the FA 50 1.4 or FA 43 1.9 should do you well. You should use the kit at 43mm to see if you like it better than 50mm... and buy the autofocus prime that is in the focal length you like. If you land on the 50, you could keep the 35, but you might prefer another prime (like a 28mm, 21mm or wider even) to complement it. If you bought the 43, I'd suggest keeping the 35 would be a little silly, and could be replaced with either a wider or longer compliment. If you find you like longer focal lengths, also consider the DA * 55. It's just a bit tighter than the 50 1.4, and better in just about every way.

06-11-2011, 03:15 AM	#12
London Rob Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 92 Original Poster	Ok, great feedback as expected and it's been fantastic in helping me arrive at what I hope is the definitive conclusion. I started my journey for the 'king of primes' with a thread about the da 40mm and pretty much had made up my mind that I'd be adding that to my kx. I then wavered and got the 35 2.4 AL but as discussed above thought the 43 would blow this away so naturally considered putting all funds into this one limited. Then mucking about the other day inside and out with kids swapping the 35 for the old manual 50 I realised that I really love the 1.7's focal length (Just hate it's focussing) so if I was to get a fast fifty I could perhaps keep the 35. So after days of research on here, flickr etc.... I am pretty much set on a Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM. Now I know this is a perceived step down from a 43 limited in IQ but the images I've seen partnered with a kx are far more my style and simply really appeal to my eye and visual sensibilities. I don't know why but they do. And focal length it's hitting the right spot. Funds wise this allows me to keep OR maybe lose the 35 2.4 and make an investment elsewhere. But I've really enjoyed it's properties and FOV. I'm also acutely aware that both lenses have limitations regards minimum focus distance so I reckon I've come to the ultimate 2 piece prime solution for the direction my photography is going. (hopefully!) So my final decision for the glass I will add to the kx is the above Sigma and DA 35mm f2.8 Macro Limited. The fast fifty AF I crave and an upgrade on the 35. Phew ! It's been a long road but I think this might just be it ! Opinions are of course very welcome..........

06-11-2011, 04:46 AM	#13
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Rob, I know what you mean about focal length and just feeling right. I have several Fast 50s and when I have all the time in the world I use a SuperTak and manually focus and shoot a # of shots. But, I found that with children and life at life's pace I needed AF so I now have an AF Fast 50 as well as my newest DA35/2.4. The rendering from the old glass in the SuperTak 50/1.4, SuperTak 55/1.8, and yes even the M50/2 is very different IMHO from that of my FA50. So, I urge you to consider trying your manual lens side-by-side with any new AF 50 you acquire. Good luck.

06-11-2011, 06:50 AM	#14
MSM Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Alabama Photos: Gallery Posts: 994	London Rob: I am coming late to this thread, but I thought I would add my thoughts. In reading your inital post, I thought that you and I are similar in needs. I have the 35 mm Limited and then in a trade bought the 43 mm. Now I have both. There is something about the 43 mm that just seems to inhibit the use of the 35 mm for me. For shooting wide open and indoors for close portraits of kids and many others it is a great lens. I may end up still keeping the 35mm, too hard to let go or an otherwise great lens. As others have said, they are just a little too close to really need both, especially if you need the money. I see that you have made your mind up. I would only point out from my experience one matter. If you arrived at your decision because the lens(es) you buy in place of the 43 mm are truely a better fit, then go for it. Just don't let the purchase be a 'settle' or a 'better deal.' The reason that I say this is because the limiteds have a way of 'calling' you back. Sometimes the call is maddening. Hang up as often as you like, but it just keeps you on speed dial. You need to make sure that your decision effectively unplugs the phone. You have got some great advice in this thread from some very respected posters. I like Blue's last statement regarding the allure of the 43 calling you back. I had this with the 31 mm. I went and tried it. It is a great lens but not one that I would use in my style of shooting enough to justify the cost. For me the 43 is the best limited. But by trying the 31 mm I feel I have effectively cut the phone line. There is no wonder for me whether I am missing out on the 31 mm. I have seen it many times where a member chooses against a limited only to sell what s/he bought and buy the limited later. What happens is that we come back to the site and make the mistake of looking at images of the said limited only to see a series of killer images...alas, the phone line has just been connected. Good Luck, Mark

06-17-2011, 11:43 AM	#15
London Rob Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 92 Original Poster	Ok, so both lenses came so off with the 35mm 2.4 and on with the Sigma. Oh dear, what a beautiful lens but what a disapointment. Yes I know there's a lot of online chatter about quality control and 'trying to find a good copy' but I figure a big company making mainstream lenses as their core business could at least get the basics right, sadly my copy shouts otherwise very loudly. I hit more in focus shots with my manual 50 1.7. I tried my utmost to work with it but it rarely hit more than 2 out of 10 in focus and that includes perfect outdoor light at F8. I'm fully aware of the increase in skill required to get a fifty wide open to be anything other than soft but this thing just beats you into submission right across the apeture range. A good copy would on eveidence of when it gets it right be sublime but oh my this one is way off that. So back it goes............... Then the 35. Ok, this is just brilliant. Less 'cartoony' than the 2.4 and if you'll forgive the vagueness, more 'mature'. Stunning build and feel and you'd really have to be a proper numpty to screw focus up with this. Ergo I still think I've got it right to split my investment originally intended for the FA43 between the 35mm limited and a 50. It's just unnerving that the dissenting voices across all mounts regards the Sigma's issues seem to be on to something. With that in mind I will try another Sigma but I'm now leaning toward swapping it for an FA 50 1.4. I want a 50 for the focal length, I accept softness under f2 but more than anything I just want great glass that works. Sadly the one in it's box on my table doesn't. Thankfully the 35 limited makes it all better !!!