DA 35mm F2.4 in low light?

paperbag846 · 06-21-2011, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Blue

I am not affiliated with these in either way. I like the early version of the Sigma, plus it would work on my af film body. I think the 24/1.8 is ~ 375. The 2.4 to 1.8 is about a full stop difference. The difference in 2.4 and 2 is half a stop or 50% more light getting to the sensor.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/147346-sale-s...worldwide.html

Edit: The 24/1.8 is a relatively large lens as is the successor to the above 28/1.8. This early version is relatively compact.

Good suggestion. f1.8 would likely be not particularly useful for full scenes, but would be helpful for close-focus images in low light.

I think I would prefer the 35mm f2.4 for the smaller size and lack of need of f1.8 for this sort of shooting, but others would find the aperture indispensable.

dgaies · 06-21-2011, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Good suggestion. f1.8 would likely be not particularly useful for full scenes, but would be helpful for close-focus images in low light.

Depends on the scene and where you're focusing; the DOF for a 28mm on crop (at f/1.8) isn't really that narrow.

For a scene/subject at a distance of 10 feet, you'd have a DOF of 3 feet.
For a scene/subject at a distance of 25 feet, you'd have a DOF of 20 feet.
For a scene/subject at a distance of 50 feet, you'd have a DOF of 132 feet.

paperbag846 · 06-21-2011, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

For a scene/subject at a distance of 10 feet, you'd have a DOF of 3 feet.
For a scene/subject at a distance of 25 feet, you'd have a DOF of 20 feet.
For a scene/subject at a distance of 50 feet, you'd have a DOF of 132 feet.

This is true. I suppose the 28 is a lens worth looking into... would you suggest that it's better than the DA L 35 in general? The FA 35 2.0 is a pretty highly rated lens, and the DA L 35 is pretty much identical except for that 1/2 stop aperture.

I just think people underrate what a deal the 35mm is, just because it's 2.4, when the K5 easily makes up for that difference and then some!

Similar experience with the FA 77 1.8. Sure, in the darkest scenarios, that extra stop of light helped... but the lens also had a large amount of CA, and it often looked better to stop it down to about f2.5 and bump the ISO anyways.

For portraits, the CA was very acceptable and the DOF control was welcome, but for scenes, the lens wide open was not really worth the price of admission.

And this is a highly, highly regarded lens.

dgaies · 06-21-2011, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

This is true. I suppose the 28 is a lens worth looking into... would you suggest that it's better than the DA L 35 in general? The FA 35 2.0 is a pretty highly rated lens, and the DA L 35 is pretty much identical except for that 1/2 stop aperture.

I just think people underrate what a deal the 35mm is, just because it's 2.4, when the K5 easily makes up for that difference and then some!

I think the DAL35/2.4 is an excellent value and would not hesitate to recommend it to just about anyone. Same goes for the FA35/2, which is one of my favorite lenses. I only sold the FA35/2 because I picked up the 31 and I didn't see the need to have both. I actually bought the DAL35/2.4 recently so that my son could use it as I was a little too nervous letting my 4 year-old use my 31

But I've also tried the 35/2.4 myself and feel it's a great lens and for <$200 an excellent value as well.

RioRico · 06-21-2011, 01:24 PM

I could blather about my (mostly) cheap fast manual-focus primes (24-28-35-85 f/2, 50-55 f/1.4), but my lens thoughts boil down to: 35mm isn't really quite right for my type of low-light street shooting -- I prefer wider (24-28) for more scope, or longer (50-55-85) for more selection. Have you shot a lot at 35mm and found that it's a good focal length for you? And do you *need* AF?

Your candidate 35/2.4 on APS-C is roughly equivalent in AoV and DoF to a 55/3.5 on 135/FF -- a bit long and a bit slow, with moderate DoF. My 24/2 is (roughly) like a 35/3.5, and I use it for that thicker DoF and wider AoV. Focusing with thin DoF doesn't bother me because I mostly use CIF (catch-in-focus) with my manual primes.

Of course, besides fast glass, the other ways to deal with low light are 1) tripod, 2) flash, and 3) boost ISO. Have you tried higher ISO? Have you determined your comfort level with noise? Viewers can accept much more noise in people-shots than in thing-shots, mostly. Boosting ISO is much cheaper than buying fast AF lenses!

Oh yeah: Getting the Vivitar-Komine Close-Focus 28/2 for US$20 was one of my best deals ever! Just a superior sharp fast wide-normal lens!

Docrwm · 06-21-2011, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

I'm with you on the hood thing, but if I was shooting a 3d scene, f1.4 is not going to cut it no matter how sharp the in focus portions of the image are. Most of the scene will be soft.

With this focal length, f2 would be the minimum one would be able to get anything useful out of, IMHO.

However, for street scenes, my feeling is that a 35mm lens would generally be more useful than a 50. The 35 is sharp wide open, and the shorter focal lengths also enable lower shutter speeds, which help in low light.

The difference is primarily focal length, and while the 50 is a great portrait lens, the 35 is going to be better suited to street scenes.

Of course, the OP can determine which focal length works better for him/her by simply trying them out with his/her zoom.

I understand the difference between 35 and 50mm for shooting different scenes and that is why I own each lens. However, the tests I have seen at three difference sites do not support your assertion that the 35/2.4 is sharp wide open. It is very nice but sharpens up, just as the 50/1.4 does, a bit up at f3.2.

Docrwm · 06-21-2011, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Oh yeah: Getting the Vivitar-Komine Close-Focus 28/2 for US$20 was one of my best deals ever! Just a superior sharp fast wide-normal lens!

Bragging again I see

joe.penn · 06-21-2011, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

I have seen at three difference sites do not support your assertion that the 35/2.4 is sharp wide open

Define sharp...

---

joe.penn · 06-21-2011, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Oh yeah: Getting the Vivitar-Komine Close-Focus 28/2 for US$20 was one of my best deals ever! Just a superior sharp fast wide-normal lens!

Originally posted by Docrwm

Bragging again I see

My Super Tak's and Vivitar-Komine glass has always been my greatest assets for glass. My only zoom that I use on real shoots is my 70~210 Viv'ee S1 V3 2.8. I will put that lens up against any other lens in its zoom range it it will compete - that is a guarantee! And don't get me on film with that lens, IMO, it will crush any film lens in its focal range...

---

rockyram · 06-21-2011, 06:58 PM

Thanks for all the replies and insight.I think I will pick one up and see how it goes.If I don't like it I can always get rid of it on CL.

dgaies · 06-21-2011, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by rockyram

Thanks for all the replies and insight.I think I will pick one up and see how it goes.If I don't like it I can always get rid of it on CL.

That's the spirit

Pretty much what I've been doing for the past two years; buy, try, sell, repeat

paperbag846 · 06-21-2011, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

Pretty much what I've been doing for the past two years; buy, try, sell, repeat

If you do it well enough you can play with toys for free

.

dgaies · 06-21-2011, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

If you do it well enough you can play with toys for free

.

Which is the only reason I'm "allowed" to have this many toys

RioRico · 06-21-2011, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

Which is the only reason I'm "allowed" to have this many toys

I've mentioned this before: I have no disposable income. If I want to buy stuff, I must first sell stuff. That's why I'm an eBay lens trader. Buy some stuff; play with some of it; keep some of it; sell the rest of it; buy more stuff. Repeat forever, hopefully. Hmmm, I wonder what I can get for that Tascam ministudio?

BTW dgaies, I'm back home and I made it to the PO and the C-PK adapter is just fine, thanks! Now I just need a camera for it. More stuff...

dgaies · 06-21-2011, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

I've mentioned this before: I have no disposable income. If I want to buy stuff, I must first sell stuff. That's why I'm an eBay lens trader. Buy some stuff; play with some of it; keep some of it; sell the rest of it; buy more stuff. Repeat forever, hopefully. Hmmm, I wonder what I can get for that Tascam ministudio?

I have pretty much the same policy; if I want to buy a new lens (or body), I have to first raise the fund by selling another lens (or body). I'll extend myself "credit" (so to speak) if I see something I want to buy and haven't yet sold something to fund it, but at the end of the day I do make sure (the Pentax gear) balance sheet is in the black

Originally posted by RioRico

BTW dgaies, I'm back home and I made it to the PO and the C-PK adapter is just fine, thanks! Now I just need a camera for it. More stuff...

I had almost forgotten about that, glad it arrived safely. That was one of those items I got bundled with something else and frankly couldn't see myself needing it now or down the road, so I figured it was best to give it to someone who might (eventually) get some use out of it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Low Light? How about Zodiacal Light?	KansasHorizons.com	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	31	03-03-2011 03:23 PM
35mm f2.4 low light capable?	sweetwillow	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	41	02-26-2011 03:57 PM
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Low Light AF-C Accuracy - Pentax 35mm f/2.4 Performance?	Eric Seavey	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	35	12-17-2010 09:33 AM
Low light versus Poor light	d.bradley	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	07-11-2007 07:53 AM
Low Light - Low Experience - Fix $$$ ?	daacon	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	04-26-2007 07:52 PM

06-21-2011, 11:58 AM	#16
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Blue I am not affiliated with these in either way. I like the early version of the Sigma, plus it would work on my af film body. I think the 24/1.8 is ~ 375. The 2.4 to 1.8 is about a full stop difference. The difference in 2.4 and 2 is half a stop or 50% more light getting to the sensor. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/147346-sale-s...worldwide.html Edit: The 24/1.8 is a relatively large lens as is the successor to the above 28/1.8. This early version is relatively compact. Good suggestion. f1.8 would likely be not particularly useful for full scenes, but would be helpful for close-focus images in low light. I think I would prefer the 35mm f2.4 for the smaller size and lack of need of f1.8 for this sort of shooting, but others would find the aperture indispensable.

06-21-2011, 12:14 PM	#17
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by paperbag846 Good suggestion. f1.8 would likely be not particularly useful for full scenes, but would be helpful for close-focus images in low light. Depends on the scene and where you're focusing; the DOF for a 28mm on crop (at f/1.8) isn't really that narrow. For a scene/subject at a distance of 10 feet, you'd have a DOF of 3 feet. For a scene/subject at a distance of 25 feet, you'd have a DOF of 20 feet. For a scene/subject at a distance of 50 feet, you'd have a DOF of 132 feet.

06-21-2011, 12:22 PM	#18
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by dgaies For a scene/subject at a distance of 10 feet, you'd have a DOF of 3 feet. For a scene/subject at a distance of 25 feet, you'd have a DOF of 20 feet. For a scene/subject at a distance of 50 feet, you'd have a DOF of 132 feet. This is true. I suppose the 28 is a lens worth looking into... would you suggest that it's better than the DA L 35 in general? The FA 35 2.0 is a pretty highly rated lens, and the DA L 35 is pretty much identical except for that 1/2 stop aperture. I just think people underrate what a deal the 35mm is, just because it's 2.4, when the K5 easily makes up for that difference and then some! Similar experience with the FA 77 1.8. Sure, in the darkest scenarios, that extra stop of light helped... but the lens also had a large amount of CA, and it often looked better to stop it down to about f2.5 and bump the ISO anyways. For portraits, the CA was very acceptable and the DOF control was welcome, but for scenes, the lens wide open was not really worth the price of admission. And this is a highly, highly regarded lens.

06-21-2011, 12:29 PM	#19
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by paperbag846 This is true. I suppose the 28 is a lens worth looking into... would you suggest that it's better than the DA L 35 in general? The FA 35 2.0 is a pretty highly rated lens, and the DA L 35 is pretty much identical except for that 1/2 stop aperture. I just think people underrate what a deal the 35mm is, just because it's 2.4, when the K5 easily makes up for that difference and then some! I think the DAL35/2.4 is an excellent value and would not hesitate to recommend it to just about anyone. Same goes for the FA35/2, which is one of my favorite lenses. I only sold the FA35/2 because I picked up the 31 and I didn't see the need to have both. I actually bought the DAL35/2.4 recently so that my son could use it as I was a little too nervous letting my 4 year-old use my 31 But I've also tried the 35/2.4 myself and feel it's a great lens and for <$200 an excellent value as well.

06-21-2011, 01:24 PM	#20
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I could blather about my (mostly) cheap fast manual-focus primes (24-28-35-85 f/2, 50-55 f/1.4), but my lens thoughts boil down to: 35mm isn't really quite right for my type of low-light street shooting -- I prefer wider (24-28) for more scope, or longer (50-55-85) for more selection. Have you shot a lot at 35mm and found that it's a good focal length for you? And do you need AF? Your candidate 35/2.4 on APS-C is roughly equivalent in AoV and DoF to a 55/3.5 on 135/FF -- a bit long and a bit slow, with moderate DoF. My 24/2 is (roughly) like a 35/3.5, and I use it for that thicker DoF and wider AoV. Focusing with thin DoF doesn't bother me because I mostly use CIF (catch-in-focus) with my manual primes. Of course, besides fast glass, the other ways to deal with low light are 1) tripod, 2) flash, and 3) boost ISO. Have you tried higher ISO? Have you determined your comfort level with noise? Viewers can accept much more noise in people-shots than in thing-shots, mostly. Boosting ISO is much cheaper than buying fast AF lenses! Oh yeah: Getting the Vivitar-Komine Close-Focus 28/2 for US$20 was one of my best deals ever! Just a superior sharp fast wide-normal lens!

06-21-2011, 02:02 PM	#21
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by paperbag846 I'm with you on the hood thing, but if I was shooting a 3d scene, f1.4 is not going to cut it no matter how sharp the in focus portions of the image are. Most of the scene will be soft. With this focal length, f2 would be the minimum one would be able to get anything useful out of, IMHO. However, for street scenes, my feeling is that a 35mm lens would generally be more useful than a 50. The 35 is sharp wide open, and the shorter focal lengths also enable lower shutter speeds, which help in low light. The difference is primarily focal length, and while the 50 is a great portrait lens, the 35 is going to be better suited to street scenes. Of course, the OP can determine which focal length works better for him/her by simply trying them out with his/her zoom. I understand the difference between 35 and 50mm for shooting different scenes and that is why I own each lens. However, the tests I have seen at three difference sites do not support your assertion that the 35/2.4 is sharp wide open. It is very nice but sharpens up, just as the 50/1.4 does, a bit up at f3.2.

06-21-2011, 02:05 PM	#22
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by RioRico Oh yeah: Getting the Vivitar-Komine Close-Focus 28/2 for US$20 was one of my best deals ever! Just a superior sharp fast wide-normal lens! Bragging again I see

06-21-2011, 02:07 PM	#23
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by Docrwm I have seen at three difference sites do not support your assertion that the 35/2.4 is sharp wide open Define sharp... ---

06-21-2011, 02:11 PM	#24
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by Docrwm Oh yeah: Getting the Vivitar-Komine Close-Focus 28/2 for US$20 was one of my best deals ever! Just a superior sharp fast wide-normal lens! Originally posted by Docrwm Bragging again I see My Super Tak's and Vivitar-Komine glass has always been my greatest assets for glass. My only zoom that I use on real shoots is my 70~210 Viv'ee S1 V3 2.8. I will put that lens up against any other lens in its zoom range it it will compete - that is a guarantee! And don't get me on film with that lens, IMO, it will crush any film lens in its focal range... ---

06-21-2011, 06:58 PM	#25
rockyram Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 49 Original Poster	Thanks for all the replies and insight.I think I will pick one up and see how it goes.If I don't like it I can always get rid of it on CL.

06-21-2011, 07:00 PM	#26
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by rockyram Thanks for all the replies and insight.I think I will pick one up and see how it goes.If I don't like it I can always get rid of it on CL. That's the spirit Pretty much what I've been doing for the past two years; buy, try, sell, repeat

06-21-2011, 07:03 PM	#27
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by dgaies Pretty much what I've been doing for the past two years; buy, try, sell, repeat If you do it well enough you can play with toys for free .

06-21-2011, 07:04 PM	#28
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by paperbag846 If you do it well enough you can play with toys for free . Which is the only reason I'm "allowed" to have this many toys

06-21-2011, 07:28 PM	#29
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by dgaies Which is the only reason I'm "allowed" to have this many toys I've mentioned this before: I have no disposable income. If I want to buy stuff, I must first sell stuff. That's why I'm an eBay lens trader. Buy some stuff; play with some of it; keep some of it; sell the rest of it; buy more stuff. Repeat forever, hopefully. Hmmm, I wonder what I can get for that Tascam ministudio? BTW dgaies, I'm back home and I made it to the PO and the C-PK adapter is just fine, thanks! Now I just need a camera for it. More stuff...

06-21-2011, 07:40 PM	#30
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by RioRico I've mentioned this before: I have no disposable income. If I want to buy stuff, I must first sell stuff. That's why I'm an eBay lens trader. Buy some stuff; play with some of it; keep some of it; sell the rest of it; buy more stuff. Repeat forever, hopefully. Hmmm, I wonder what I can get for that Tascam ministudio? I have pretty much the same policy; if I want to buy a new lens (or body), I have to first raise the fund by selling another lens (or body). I'll extend myself "credit" (so to speak) if I see something I want to buy and haven't yet sold something to fund it, but at the end of the day I do make sure (the Pentax gear) balance sheet is in the black Originally posted by RioRico BTW dgaies, I'm back home and I made it to the PO and the C-PK adapter is just fine, thanks! Now I just need a camera for it. More stuff... I had almost forgotten about that, glad it arrived safely. That was one of those items I got bundled with something else and frankly couldn't see myself needing it now or down the road, so I figured it was best to give it to someone who might (eventually) get some use out of it.