DA 35mm F2.4 in low light?

rockyram · 06-21-2011, 10:16 AM

Just wondering how this lens is in low light.Looking for a reasonably priced prime.I have a K5 with the 18-135 and wanted something a little faster.

joe.penn · 06-21-2011, 10:19 AM

Very Impressive! See:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/14575...ml#post1527028

The 2nd and 3rd pic were shot with this lens...

---

Blue · 06-21-2011, 10:22 AM

Low light covers a lot of different kinds of shooting situations, but generally, the DA 35/2.4 will be better at it than the 18-135 especially on the K-5 with its ISO range. However, the Sigma 30/1.4 (it is kind of big) would be worth looking into as would the FA 35/2 and FA 50/1.4, and F 50/1.7. I think someone also has a Sigma 28/1.8 in the marketplace at present.

what kind of shooting, cityscapes, night scapes, parties, street scenes, action, still etc. or even video given you have the k-5?

rockyram · 06-21-2011, 10:43 AM

Probably more night scenes, street scenes.

joe.penn · 06-21-2011, 10:49 AM

If that's the case, then focal would be more desirable than speed.

24, 28, 35, 40

----

paperbag846 · 06-21-2011, 11:13 AM

If you don't need extreme DOF control, the 35mm f2.4 would be hard to beat.

Docrwm · 06-21-2011, 11:16 AM

I own both the 35/2.4 and the FA50/1.4. The FA50/1.4 does better in low light situations than the 35/2.4 IMHO. I'm enjoying shooting with the 35/2.4 and finding that it does a pretty good job in low light with little hunting on AF. All the other lenses that have been suggested are typically much more expensive than the DA35. I do consider the FA50/1.4 to have been very reasonable as I got it used for $230 or so and the DA35 is around $175 new. The 50 is a bit long for groups and normal room situations IMHO and that is why I bought the DA35. The Sigma is a nice lens from all reports but it sells for ~$500 new and I'm not sure its that much nicer than the 35/2.4

paperbag846 · 06-21-2011, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Docrwm

I own both the 35/2.4 and the FA50/1.4. The FA50/1.4 does better in low light situations than the 35/2.4 IMHO. I'm enjoying shooting with the 35/2.4 and finding that it does a pretty good job in low light with little hunting on FA. All the other lenses that have been suggested are typically much more expensive than the DA35. I do consider the FA50/1.4 to have been very reasonable as I got it used for $230 or so and the DA35 is around $175 new. The 50 is a bit long for groups and normal room situations IMHO and that is why I bought the DA35. The Sigma is a nice lens from all reports but it sells for ~$500 new and I'm not sure its that much nicer than the 35/2.4

50 1.4 is great for portrait / DOF control, but for street scenes it's too long in general, and too soft wide open. You can also get away with lower shutter speeds with the 35mm than with the 50mm, which almost makes up for the (usable) aperture difference (f2.0 vs. f2.4) for this typ of shooting.

High ISO on K5 outdoes aperture differences.

Docrwm · 06-21-2011, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

50 1.4 is great for portrait / DOF control, but for street scenes it's too long in general, and too soft wide open. You can also get away with lower shutter speeds with the 35mm than with the 50mm, which almost makes up for the (usable) aperture difference (f2.0 vs. f2.4) for this typ of shooting.

High ISO on K5 outdoes aperture differences.

I hear that old saw about the 50/1.4 being soft wide open - just not that big an issue IMHO. Too many people expect it to perform without a hood and due to its exposed front element design it just has to have a hood. Repeated comparisons here and elsewhere show that it sharpens up considerably with a hood in place. By 2.0 its sharp, sharp, sharp. Like all lenses, the 35/2.4 sharpens up too. So, its not a f2.0 vs f2.4, but is more an f2.0 vs f3.2 per the evaluation at PhotoZone.

paperbag846 · 06-21-2011, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Docrwm

I hear that old saw about the 50/1.4 being soft wide open - just not that big an issue IMHO. Too many people expect it to perform without a hood and due to its exposed front element design it just has to have a hood. Repeated comparisons here and elsewhere show that it sharpens up considerably with a hood in place. By 2.0 its sharp, sharp, sharp. Like all lenses, the 35/2.4 sharpens up too. So, its not a f2.0 vs f2.4 is more an f2.0 vs f3.2 per the evaluation at PhotoZone.
__________________

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.

Blue · 06-21-2011, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

50 1.4 is great for portrait / DOF control, but for street scenes it's too long in general, and too soft wide open. You can also get away with lower shutter speeds with the 35mm than with the 50mm, which almost makes up for the (usable) aperture difference (f2.0 vs. f2.4) for this typ of shooting.

High ISO on K5 outdoes aperture differences.

It really depends on the streets one is on. If it is a platform at Grand Central (name the city) and it may be an issue. Personally, I like to have the 21 on one body and either the 50/1.4 or 1.2 on another for most street work. If I go with just one, its usually the DA 35 ltd. I have tried the DA 40 but it doesn't bring anything to the table the 21 & 35 can't handle. I have also, used the FA 77/1.8 for street work (gasp

). The K 28/2 may shake things up a bit . . . the DA 40 may be packing its bags.

Edit: I have also used the F 28/2.8 for a solo lens when out with 1 body.

paperbag846 · 06-21-2011, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Blue

It really depends on the streets one is on. If it is a platform at Grand Central (name the city) and it may be an issue. Personally, I like to have the 21 on one body and either the 50/1.4 or 1.2 on another for most street work. If I go with just one, its usually the DA 35 ltd. I have tried the DA 40 but it doesn't bring anything to the table the 21 & 35 can't handle. I have also, used the FA 77/1.8 for street work (gasp ). The K 28/2 may shake things up a bit . . . the DA 40 may be packing its bags.

I think I would personally prefer a 21 + 50 combo... but if I could only have one, I'd want something on the normal side of things... i.e. in between.

In this case I would prefer a 35 2.4 (or 2.0) over a 28mm f2.8 or 40mm f2.8 due to aperture control and a relatively moderate focal length.

Looks like you have a pretty robust set-up blue... rather advanced. Sounds like OP is looking for a simple solution

.

Blue · 06-21-2011, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

I think I would personally prefer a 21 + 50 combo... but if I could only have one, I'd want something on the normal side of things... i.e. in between.

In this case I would prefer a 35 2.4 (or 2.0) over a 28mm f2.8 or 40mm f2.8 due to aperture control and a relatively moderate focal length.

Looks like you have a pretty robust set-up blue... rather advanced. Sounds like OP is looking for a simple solution

.

That is why I put the F 50/1.7 in there since they go for around $200 and could be re-sold if they didn't work out. I also mentioned that Sigma 28/1.8 in the marketplace. There is also a Sigma 24/1.8 there at the moment as well.

paperbag846 · 06-21-2011, 11:45 AM

Perhaps the sigma would be better, but as I said before, I don't think the aperture difference between 2.4 and 1.8 is going to be so important with a K5 in hand (and with DOF considerations).

How much is the sigma going for? I couldn't find it.

Blue · 06-21-2011, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Perhaps the sigma would be better, but as I said before, I don't think the aperture difference between 2.4 and 1.8 is going to be so important with a K5 in hand (and with DOF considerations).

How much is the sigma going for? I couldn't find it.

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. All that said and I didn't have any lenses in that range, I would lean heavily towards the DA 35/2.4 but would probably try to get a decent deal on a FA 35/2.

06-21-2011, 10:16 AM	#1
rockyram Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 49	DA 35mm F2.4 in low light? Just wondering how this lens is in low light.Looking for a reasonably priced prime.I have a K5 with the 18-135 and wanted something a little faster.

06-21-2011, 11:51 AM	#15
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by paperbag846 Perhaps the sigma would be better, but as I said before, I don't think the aperture difference between 2.4 and 1.8 is going to be so important with a K5 in hand (and with DOF considerations). How much is the sigma going for? I couldn't find it. 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. All that said and I didn't have any lenses in that range, I would lean heavily towards the DA 35/2.4 but would probably try to get a decent deal on a FA 35/2. Last edited by Blue; 06-21-2011 at 12:00 PM.

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, 10:19 AM	#2
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Very Impressive! See: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/14575...ml#post1527028 The 2nd and 3rd pic were shot with this lens... ---

06-21-2011, 10:22 AM	#3
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Low light covers a lot of different kinds of shooting situations, but generally, the DA 35/2.4 will be better at it than the 18-135 especially on the K-5 with its ISO range. However, the Sigma 30/1.4 (it is kind of big) would be worth looking into as would the FA 35/2 and FA 50/1.4, and F 50/1.7. I think someone also has a Sigma 28/1.8 in the marketplace at present. what kind of shooting, cityscapes, night scapes, parties, street scenes, action, still etc. or even video given you have the k-5?

06-21-2011, 10:43 AM	#4
rockyram Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 49 Original Poster	Probably more night scenes, street scenes.

06-21-2011, 10:49 AM	#5
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	If that's the case, then focal would be more desirable than speed. 24, 28, 35, 40 ----

06-21-2011, 11:13 AM	#6
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	If you don't need extreme DOF control, the 35mm f2.4 would be hard to beat.

06-21-2011, 11:16 AM	#7
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	I own both the 35/2.4 and the FA50/1.4. The FA50/1.4 does better in low light situations than the 35/2.4 IMHO. I'm enjoying shooting with the 35/2.4 and finding that it does a pretty good job in low light with little hunting on AF. All the other lenses that have been suggested are typically much more expensive than the DA35. I do consider the FA50/1.4 to have been very reasonable as I got it used for $230 or so and the DA35 is around $175 new. The 50 is a bit long for groups and normal room situations IMHO and that is why I bought the DA35. The Sigma is a nice lens from all reports but it sells for ~$500 new and I'm not sure its that much nicer than the 35/2.4

06-21-2011, 11:18 AM	#8
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Docrwm I own both the 35/2.4 and the FA50/1.4. The FA50/1.4 does better in low light situations than the 35/2.4 IMHO. I'm enjoying shooting with the 35/2.4 and finding that it does a pretty good job in low light with little hunting on FA. All the other lenses that have been suggested are typically much more expensive than the DA35. I do consider the FA50/1.4 to have been very reasonable as I got it used for $230 or so and the DA35 is around $175 new. The 50 is a bit long for groups and normal room situations IMHO and that is why I bought the DA35. The Sigma is a nice lens from all reports but it sells for ~$500 new and I'm not sure its that much nicer than the 35/2.4 50 1.4 is great for portrait / DOF control, but for street scenes it's too long in general, and too soft wide open. You can also get away with lower shutter speeds with the 35mm than with the 50mm, which almost makes up for the (usable) aperture difference (f2.0 vs. f2.4) for this typ of shooting. High ISO on K5 outdoes aperture differences.

06-21-2011, 11:25 AM	#9
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by paperbag846 50 1.4 is great for portrait / DOF control, but for street scenes it's too long in general, and too soft wide open. You can also get away with lower shutter speeds with the 35mm than with the 50mm, which almost makes up for the (usable) aperture difference (f2.0 vs. f2.4) for this typ of shooting. High ISO on K5 outdoes aperture differences. I hear that old saw about the 50/1.4 being soft wide open - just not that big an issue IMHO. Too many people expect it to perform without a hood and due to its exposed front element design it just has to have a hood. Repeated comparisons here and elsewhere show that it sharpens up considerably with a hood in place. By 2.0 its sharp, sharp, sharp. Like all lenses, the 35/2.4 sharpens up too. So, its not a f2.0 vs f2.4, but is more an f2.0 vs f3.2 per the evaluation at PhotoZone.

06-21-2011, 11:31 AM	#10
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Docrwm I hear that old saw about the 50/1.4 being soft wide open - just not that big an issue IMHO. Too many people expect it to perform without a hood and due to its exposed front element design it just has to have a hood. Repeated comparisons here and elsewhere show that it sharpens up considerably with a hood in place. By 2.0 its sharp, sharp, sharp. Like all lenses, the 35/2.4 sharpens up too. So, its not a f2.0 vs f2.4 is more an f2.0 vs f3.2 per the evaluation at PhotoZone. __________________ 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.

06-21-2011, 11:33 AM	#11
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by paperbag846 50 1.4 is great for portrait / DOF control, but for street scenes it's too long in general, and too soft wide open. You can also get away with lower shutter speeds with the 35mm than with the 50mm, which almost makes up for the (usable) aperture difference (f2.0 vs. f2.4) for this typ of shooting. High ISO on K5 outdoes aperture differences. It really depends on the streets one is on. If it is a platform at Grand Central (name the city) and it may be an issue. Personally, I like to have the 21 on one body and either the 50/1.4 or 1.2 on another for most street work. If I go with just one, its usually the DA 35 ltd. I have tried the DA 40 but it doesn't bring anything to the table the 21 & 35 can't handle. I have also, used the FA 77/1.8 for street work (gasp ). The K 28/2 may shake things up a bit . . . the DA 40 may be packing its bags. Edit: I have also used the F 28/2.8 for a solo lens when out with 1 body.

06-21-2011, 11:37 AM	#12
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Blue It really depends on the streets one is on. If it is a platform at Grand Central (name the city) and it may be an issue. Personally, I like to have the 21 on one body and either the 50/1.4 or 1.2 on another for most street work. If I go with just one, its usually the DA 35 ltd. I have tried the DA 40 but it doesn't bring anything to the table the 21 & 35 can't handle. I have also, used the FA 77/1.8 for street work (gasp ). The K 28/2 may shake things up a bit . . . the DA 40 may be packing its bags. I think I would personally prefer a 21 + 50 combo... but if I could only have one, I'd want something on the normal side of things... i.e. in between. In this case I would prefer a 35 2.4 (or 2.0) over a 28mm f2.8 or 40mm f2.8 due to aperture control and a relatively moderate focal length. Looks like you have a pretty robust set-up blue... rather advanced. Sounds like OP is looking for a simple solution .

06-21-2011, 11:40 AM	#13
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by paperbag846 I think I would personally prefer a 21 + 50 combo... but if I could only have one, I'd want something on the normal side of things... i.e. in between. In this case I would prefer a 35 2.4 (or 2.0) over a 28mm f2.8 or 40mm f2.8 due to aperture control and a relatively moderate focal length. Looks like you have a pretty robust set-up blue... rather advanced. Sounds like OP is looking for a simple solution . That is why I put the F 50/1.7 in there since they go for around $200 and could be re-sold if they didn't work out. I also mentioned that Sigma 28/1.8 in the marketplace. There is also a Sigma 24/1.8 there at the moment as well.

06-21-2011, 11:45 AM	#14
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Perhaps the sigma would be better, but as I said before, I don't think the aperture difference between 2.4 and 1.8 is going to be so important with a K5 in hand (and with DOF considerations). How much is the sigma going for? I couldn't find it.