Can anyone provide bokeh sample for DA 35mm/2.4 and FA 50mm/1.4?

telly0050 · 07-11-2011, 11:03 AM

Hello, I need a fast prime lens, and I am considering getting either a DA 35mm f2.4, or the FA 50mm f1.4.

Personally 35mm is my favorite focal length, plus the sweet price and review of the f2.4, it is very tempting to me.

However, I am also a bokeh lover, and I heard that the 50mm f1.4 has very good bokeh result.

The price for the FA 50mm f1.4 is already my max budget, so please don't suggest me other lenses that cost 500 or 700 bucks.

So can anyone post some of their best real life bokeh photos from these lenses?
And also please share your opinion on the lenses.
Thank you.

mr.b.snowden · 07-11-2011, 11:06 AM

Hi there. I would say check out my Flickr page, as I have a lot of samples that are from my FA50 f/1.4. You might have to check out the image details for the EXIF data, but I have a bunch shot wide open on there, including some recent portraits and flower shots.

telly0050 · 07-11-2011, 11:06 AM

Sorry for double posting.

I also shoot a lot of portrait, so even though the f1.4 is a lot faster, but the dof may be too narrow and I will need to stop down to 2.0 or above for better focus is it true?
(I don't want the eyes to be focused and nose already start blurring out)

Therefore the f1.4 and f2.4 factor is not a big consideration?

Sorry for the many questions.

telly0050 · 07-11-2011, 11:06 AM

Thanks snowden, I will go take a look right now

mr.b.snowden · 07-11-2011, 11:20 AM

No worries about the double posting. I love the 50mm for portraits, as the 1.4 really makes people pop. Step it down some, like to 2.8, and it is amazingly sharp. Don't shoot portraits @ 4-5.6, as it's a little too sharp at times, where skin blemishes really become apparent. If price is too much of a factor, I would go with the DA35 f/2.4, but I think that one has six blades vs. the 50's eight blades, so I don't know how nice the bokeh would really be. If you are really wanting a great portrait lens and don't mind manual focus or getting an adapter, I would say check out the Helios 44M-4 or the 44K-4. The K-4 is harder to find, as it's a K-mount and the M-4 is M42 mount, which you'd need an adapter for. Granted, they are both manual focus and manual aperture, but the Helios 44M-4 is a bokeh monster. When shot in the right light, it can really make pictures look like surreal paintings. I can always shoot you a few samples tonight if you are interested in seeing that particular one. Check the forum if you need to find more info about the Helios, as it's a fun lens. A M42 version goes for around 40 bucks tops, shipped, but you'll have to import it from Europe, as they're hard to find in the US (thank goodness for Ebay). The K version goes for around $70 wherever you can find it.

fuent104 · 07-11-2011, 11:59 AM

I have a DA 35 2.4, and it is easily my least favorite prime. I have had a really hard time trying to get shots using this lens to look sharp. Below 3.2, it looks awful, and it also looks bad towards the edges of the frame. Even when that is where I've focused.

I'm heavily considering selling this lens. The only thing stopping me is that older 35mm lenses cost much more than the DA.

All of this being said, other people on the forum have been pretty happy with the DA.

Adam · 07-11-2011, 12:07 PM

Here are a few examples: Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Review | Pentax Lenses | PentaxForums.com

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

telly0050 · 07-11-2011, 12:32 PM

to snowben:
thanks to your opinion. and yes i had tried manual focus and it isn't my thing.
i bought a pentax-A 50mm f2 for cheap just to experience, and i even installed split screen for my k-x.
in some case when shooting still life it works fine, but when comes to event portrait where everyone's doing their thing, it is not quite possible for me to get a good focus.

to fuent:
thanks, it seems like you are the first one who's not in favor for this lens.
have you consider your lens is a bad copy and exchange another one?
i saw many shots from this lens and they all look pretty sharp to me.

to adam:
thanks, you gave me the 35mm macro one...
but anyways, i already read the 2.4 review there.

joe.penn · 07-11-2011, 01:11 PM

[EDIT: My post is for the 35 2.4]

Originally posted by telly0050

i saw many shots from this lens and they all look pretty sharp to me.

The lens is sharp from 2.8 all the way up to f/22 - night shots, day shots, any shot that I have come across with it so far.

(images x-posted)

Here is a sample bokeh image for you:

Shot at f/2.8 - focus on wood knot center left:

Here is a couple of other shots demonstrating overall sharpness and IQ:

Shot at f/22

Random shot at f/3.5

...

jimr-pdx · 07-11-2011, 02:03 PM

Shot at 2.4, 3.2, 5.0 -

fuent104 · 07-11-2011, 02:15 PM

I have considered that my lens is a bad copy. I hadn't considered that B & H might actually exchange it. I'll have to look into it.

fuent104 · 07-11-2011, 02:19 PM

Jimr, I'd like to hear your opinion. Would you consider the lens sharp?

Maybe I am spoiled by m-series primes. I don't know. I took a photo of my roommate with my M50 f1.7 from 5-7 feet away once, and I could actually zoom in and see his pores without seeing pixels or softness. That was a sharp lens.

I expect everything to look tack sharp without zooming in with a prime lens, and the DA 35 just hasn't fit the bill for me so far. I wonder if I am doing something wrong with it. I'll have to post some examples some time.

joe.penn · 07-11-2011, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by fuent104

I expect everything to look tack sharp without zooming in with a prime lens

Or, do you mean you expect it to look tack sharp before zooming in?

Shot jpeg, mute settings (flat), no sharpening:

Original:

100% Crop:

On the crop, there is no breakage (IQ loss) in the lines which in the end means a sharp image - pp can make this as sharp as you want...

---

telly0050 · 07-11-2011, 03:06 PM

joe:
thanks, these are great pics, esp the second one, it is incredible!

jimr:
thanks for your photos, the bokeh seems pretty smooth

i am really toward the 35mm now

fuent104 · 07-11-2011, 04:25 PM

Joe, to clarify, I meant that if I am looking at an image taken with a prime lens, I feel that it should look sharp. I didn't feel that any of the images Jimr posted were sharp. I'll post some images as soon as I have a chance to demonstrate what I was talking about with my lenses.

07-11-2011, 11:03 AM	#1
telly0050 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 233	Can anyone provide bokeh sample for DA 35mm/2.4 and FA 50mm/1.4? Hello, I need a fast prime lens, and I am considering getting either a DA 35mm f2.4, or the FA 50mm f1.4. Personally 35mm is my favorite focal length, plus the sweet price and review of the f2.4, it is very tempting to me. However, I am also a bokeh lover, and I heard that the 50mm f1.4 has very good bokeh result. The price for the FA 50mm f1.4 is already my max budget, so please don't suggest me other lenses that cost 500 or 700 bucks. So can anyone post some of their best real life bokeh photos from these lenses? And also please share your opinion on the lenses. Thank you.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
645D sample with FA 35mm	Royce Howland	Pentax Medium Format	9	01-21-2011 10:04 PM
Getting the 645d in a few days, will provide sample pics.	harklee	Pentax Medium Format	8	12-09-2010 03:17 PM
Any Sample Pics from the new Pentax 35mm Prime?	stlind	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	42	09-28-2010 06:08 AM
K7 and the AF-C mode - can someone provide sample shots?	jpzk	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	08-15-2010 09:44 AM
One more Software Bokeh sample fr. crappy P&S	JohnBee	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	07-29-2010 01:05 AM

07-11-2011, 11:06 AM	#2
mr.b.snowden Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 683	Hi there. I would say check out my Flickr page, as I have a lot of samples that are from my FA50 f/1.4. You might have to check out the image details for the EXIF data, but I have a bunch shot wide open on there, including some recent portraits and flower shots.

07-11-2011, 11:20 AM	#5
mr.b.snowden Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 683	No worries about the double posting. I love the 50mm for portraits, as the 1.4 really makes people pop. Step it down some, like to 2.8, and it is amazingly sharp. Don't shoot portraits @ 4-5.6, as it's a little too sharp at times, where skin blemishes really become apparent. If price is too much of a factor, I would go with the DA35 f/2.4, but I think that one has six blades vs. the 50's eight blades, so I don't know how nice the bokeh would really be. If you are really wanting a great portrait lens and don't mind manual focus or getting an adapter, I would say check out the Helios 44M-4 or the 44K-4. The K-4 is harder to find, as it's a K-mount and the M-4 is M42 mount, which you'd need an adapter for. Granted, they are both manual focus and manual aperture, but the Helios 44M-4 is a bokeh monster. When shot in the right light, it can really make pictures look like surreal paintings. I can always shoot you a few samples tonight if you are interested in seeing that particular one. Check the forum if you need to find more info about the Helios, as it's a fun lens. A M42 version goes for around 40 bucks tops, shipped, but you'll have to import it from Europe, as they're hard to find in the US (thank goodness for Ebay). The K version goes for around $70 wherever you can find it.

07-11-2011, 11:59 AM	#6
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	I have a DA 35 2.4, and it is easily my least favorite prime. I have had a really hard time trying to get shots using this lens to look sharp. Below 3.2, it looks awful, and it also looks bad towards the edges of the frame. Even when that is where I've focused. I'm heavily considering selling this lens. The only thing stopping me is that older 35mm lenses cost much more than the DA. All of this being said, other people on the forum have been pretty happy with the DA.

07-11-2011, 12:07 PM	#7
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Here are a few examples: Pentax-DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Review \| Pentax Lenses \| PentaxForums.com Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

07-11-2011, 12:32 PM	#8
telly0050 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 233 Original Poster	to snowben: thanks to your opinion. and yes i had tried manual focus and it isn't my thing. i bought a pentax-A 50mm f2 for cheap just to experience, and i even installed split screen for my k-x. in some case when shooting still life it works fine, but when comes to event portrait where everyone's doing their thing, it is not quite possible for me to get a good focus. to fuent: thanks, it seems like you are the first one who's not in favor for this lens. have you consider your lens is a bad copy and exchange another one? i saw many shots from this lens and they all look pretty sharp to me. to adam: thanks, you gave me the 35mm macro one... but anyways, i already read the 2.4 review there.

07-11-2011, 01:11 PM	#9
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	[EDIT: My post is for the 35 2.4] Originally posted by telly0050 i saw many shots from this lens and they all look pretty sharp to me. The lens is sharp from 2.8 all the way up to f/22 - night shots, day shots, any shot that I have come across with it so far. (images x-posted) Here is a sample bokeh image for you: Shot at f/2.8 - focus on wood knot center left: Here is a couple of other shots demonstrating overall sharpness and IQ: Shot at f/22 Random shot at f/3.5 ...

07-11-2011, 02:03 PM	#10
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	Shot at 2.4, 3.2, 5.0 -

07-11-2011, 02:15 PM	#11
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	I have considered that my lens is a bad copy. I hadn't considered that B & H might actually exchange it. I'll have to look into it.

07-11-2011, 02:19 PM	#12
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	Jimr, I'd like to hear your opinion. Would you consider the lens sharp? Maybe I am spoiled by m-series primes. I don't know. I took a photo of my roommate with my M50 f1.7 from 5-7 feet away once, and I could actually zoom in and see his pores without seeing pixels or softness. That was a sharp lens. I expect everything to look tack sharp without zooming in with a prime lens, and the DA 35 just hasn't fit the bill for me so far. I wonder if I am doing something wrong with it. I'll have to post some examples some time.

07-11-2011, 02:50 PM	#13
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by fuent104 I expect everything to look tack sharp without zooming in with a prime lens Or, do you mean you expect it to look tack sharp before zooming in? Shot jpeg, mute settings (flat), no sharpening: Original: 100% Crop: On the crop, there is no breakage (IQ loss) in the lines which in the end means a sharp image - pp can make this as sharp as you want... ---

07-11-2011, 03:06 PM	#14
telly0050 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 233 Original Poster	joe: thanks, these are great pics, esp the second one, it is incredible! jimr: thanks for your photos, the bokeh seems pretty smooth i am really toward the 35mm now

07-11-2011, 04:25 PM	#15
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	Joe, to clarify, I meant that if I am looking at an image taken with a prime lens, I feel that it should look sharp. I didn't feel that any of the images Jimr posted were sharp. I'll post some images as soon as I have a chance to demonstrate what I was talking about with my lenses.