[ogl]

Anyway....rather dissapointing in terms of resolution - the cheap DA35/2.4 beats FA31 in resolution figures.....now i never tried DA35/2.4, but i find it hard to believe, because FA31 i had was very sharp.

The difference is not high. If print photo or look at the monitor, you won't see the difference.
DA-L35/2.4 is cheap and very sharp lens. And nothing else.

FA31 is mix of very good bokeh, construction, 9 blades aperture, high resolution and f1.8 aperture in compact body.

[Blue]

Wow, photozone is such a powerful site! It can make or break used lens values.

Not really. If you read, you will see that I said they never at many with the recommended rating anyway. They have never really like Pentax at Photozone. They have had the K-5 gong on 2 years and have only done a few tests/re-tests.

[mecrox]

Not really. If you read, you will see that I said they never at many with the :bigthumbsup: recommended rating anyway. They have never really like Pentax at Photozone. They have had the K-5 gong on 2 years and have only done a few tests/re-tests.

I've seen no evidence for that (photozone not liking Pentax). My impression is that they're often dependent on people lending them equipment to test. Since Pentax is a small brand with not that many users, it figures that photozone majors on Canonikon and that there is more Canonikon equipment available for testing.

[selar]

Pity I'm so far away, I'd be willing to send some lenses for testing on K5.

[lytrytyr]

As to other's comments about "older designs" and "designed for film," most of the lenses out there from all lens makers, have their roots in film.

Many prime lens designs, except retrofocus wide angles,
have their roots going back for a century
(more like glass plates than film).

When it comes to measurement with tools like Imatest,
the issue is whether a lens has been optimized for modern digital sensors.
That is the case for the DA Limiteds, and the new plastic-mount DA lenses.
Barring subtle, unannounced changes in coatings,
that is not the case for the FA Limiteds.
Of course, optimization for digital is a two-edged sword,
as it may inhibit special rendering qualities.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I've seen no evidence for that (photozone not liking Pentax). My impression is that they're often dependent on people lending them equipment to test. Since Pentax is a small brand with not that many users, it figures that photozone majors on Canonikon and that there is more Canonikon equipment available for testing.

+1

Let's not fuel a persecution complex.

[westmill]

+2
I can think of two pentax lenses that were given the rare thumbs up award off hand 31mm and also the 60-250

[Blue]

+2
I can think of two pentax lenses that were given the rare thumbs up award off hand 31mm and also the 60-250

There are 2 others, FA 35/2 and DA 70 LTD.

[westmill]

There are 2 others, FA 35/2 and DA 70 LTD.

Well thats not bad going Yes I remember the DA 70 too. I cant remember the FA35. Intresting actualy, Im going have to have a nose now lol

[Blue]

Well thats not bad going Yes I remember the DA 70 too. I cant remember the FA35. Intresting actualy, Im going have to have a nose now lol

You can add the FA* 300/4.5 to that as well. That brings it up to 5.

[ihasa]

You can add the FA* 300/4.5 to that as well. That brings it up to 5.

The pro-Pentax bias on that site is sickening. The Canikon fans must be seething...

[stevebrot]

+1

Let's not fuel a persecution complex.

Indeed! Klaus is a Pentax fan.

I have read through this and its sister thread (FA 43 LTD) and am struck by the lack of understanding. Photozone did not issue a revised review of either lens. Instead, they did a new review for both lenses against the best available modern sensor in the Pentax mount. The do this all the time with Nikon and Canon product. The previous review (conducted on the K10D) still stands and is as valid as it ever was. PZ states quite distinctly that the performance from one camera should only be used for comparison on that same camera. Now if the DA 35 gives a better show on the K-5, so be it. That does not, in the least, mean that the FA 31 sucks.

Comprende?


Steve

[Blue]

Indeed! Klaus is a Pentax fan.

I have read through this and its sister thread (FA 43 LTD) and am struck by the lack of understanding. Photozone did not issue a revised review of either lens. Instead, they did a new review for both lenses against the best available modern sensor in the Pentax mount. The do this all the time with Nikon and Canon product. The previous review (conducted on the K10D) still stands and is as valid as it ever was. PZ states quite distinctly that the performance from one camera should only be used for comparison on that same camera. Now if the DA 35 gives a better show on the K-5, so be it. That does not, in the least, mean that the FA 31 sucks.

Comprende?


Steve

His words were

we've just re-tested it again on the Pentax K5 (@16mp).

He gave the 31 a and the DA 32/2.4 did not. I agree Steve, Klaus is completely lacks understanding or overlooks how the FA 43 and 77 were designed. (See the post regarding Kirakawi Jun in the 43 thread.). https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/186679-photozo...ml#post1959369 Yet he shoots flat MFT subjects with them and doesn't discuss this part. Also, not all us were comparing the results directly from one sensor to another, comprehende? There are several people in these threads of late writing of existing production full frame lenses in the advent Pentax should release a ff body. We were discussing the overall evaluation of the 43 review and find it suspect. Then again, it is a single rep and bad units are known to exist. Part of the reviews are objective and part of them subjective.

[selar]

Do you think he will send out stickers for those that have these lenses?

[Blue]

Do you think he will send out stickers for those that have these lenses?

It would be a good promo for the site.