Pentax DA 35mm f2.4 vs Pentax 35mm 2.8 macro

smack1019 · 07-29-2012, 07:01 AM

I'm in the market for a 35mm lens and have been going back and forth between buying the 35 f2.4 or the 35 f2.8 macro. I know there is a big difference in price and while that is a concern it is not my primary. I can afford the f2.8. My concern is the quality of the pictures. Is there a big difference between the pictures that are taken with the lenses. I know the limited is a better build that the f2.4 but both have gotten good user reviews on this site. I would mainly be using the lens as a walk around/portrait lens. I am not too interested in the macro capabilities since I already have a DA 100mm. What concerns me most about the f2.4 is that it says it is for beginners and I consider myself past that stage so I want the best 35mm there is but don't want to break the bank unless I have too. So if you had the choice, which would you get?

Last edited by smack1019; 07-29-2012 at 07:32 AM.

Kona · 07-29-2012, 07:12 AM

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 2.4; it is an excellent lens. My second favourite of the ones I have, by a good margin. Don't worry about the naysayers complaining about the plastic mount, or claiming it's a newbie/beginner lens. The optics are superb. If you don't need the close focusing of the macro, save yourself a few hundred bucks and get the 2.4.

Danny Delcambre · 07-29-2012, 07:32 AM

Yesterday I got my new DA 35mm f2.4 and 49mm len hood for my birthday. 2.4 is awesome pictures!! I like it so much! Smile

loco · 07-29-2012, 07:35 AM - **1 Like**

I have never tried the 35 macro and I know it has a huge following (best lens ever and all that). But the 35/2.4 is amazing value. Every time I use it I'm surprised by how sharp and contrasty and just plain good it really is. I know the macro is a better lens, but I really have no interest in it because I feel I have that FL covered with the "plastic fantastic".

ofer4 · 07-29-2012, 07:35 AM

Do you frequently use quick shift or a distance scale? These two bells-and-whistles are a distinction between the two lenses.

(FWIW, I have a 35mm f2.4 on the way right now.

)

**todd** · 07-29-2012, 07:45 AM

In my mind, the reason to choose the macro over the 2.4 would be for the macro... I am not a beginner and just recently purchased the 2.4 about a month ago and for the price am very happy with it. That's why I bought it - it's a lot of bang for buck, for a new lens. The only thing I can say is that it's doesn't have a distance scale and that is a nice feature for manual focusing, so if you prefer manual focus, that might be a factor.

pezmaker · 07-29-2012, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by loco

"plastic fantastic"

hahaha, I love it... I've not heard this before. It certainly is just this. I had some reservations before I got it, but once I did, they all went right out the window. Some people really do absolutely hate on this lens because of the plastic mount, but I think it's out of spite and not for any real reasons. It fits tight on my camera and it works well. Beautiful pictures.

Could there be a concern if I drop the camera and the lens hits first, breaking the mount? Maybe, but, then, I don't intend to do that... Might also be able to consider it a safety feature for the camera... cars have crumple zones, consider the mount a crumple zone for your camera

.

In all seriousness, the DA AL 35 F2.4 is nothing to sniff at unless you're A) REALLY needing quickshift, B) really needing a distance scale, or C) have an irrational fear of plastic.

fotogaffer · 07-29-2012, 08:04 AM

I have the 35 mm f2.8 macro, so I'm not in the market to replace it with the 35 mm f2.4. However, I note you already have macro covered with the DA 100, so you probably don't need to pay the premium for the macro capabilities. I believe the 2.4 is much smaller and lighter and if I didn't already have the 35 macro I wouldn't hesitate to buy it to cover that focal length. I wouldn't be put off by the "beginner" label or the plastic mount. I have the new 50 mm f1.8 and at 4.3 oz it is a treat to carry on the camera and produces superb images. All the reviews support the same for the 35 mm f2.4.

Docrwm · 07-29-2012, 08:33 AM

There are other threads on this topic but the bottom line is that there are a lot of misconceptions out there and pure prejudice about the 35/2.4.

Modern plastics are amazing and often are better for many applications than is equivalent metal. One person even offered that the mounts break more often, no evidence to support that just a bold assertion. Another offered that the plastic mounts resell for a lower % of their initial price. False. The 35/2.4 sells for only 10-20 dollars less used than the real street price new.

Bottom line - its an amazingly sharp little lens for very little money. If you need Macro or MUST have the quick shift then the much more expensive 35 Macro is your lens.

sheld · 07-29-2012, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Danny Delcambre

Yesterday I got my new DA 35mm f2.4 and 49mm len hood for my birthday. 2.4 is awesome pictures!! I like it so much! Smile

Which 49mm lens hood did you get?
- Sheldon

Danny Delcambre · 07-29-2012, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by sheld

Which 49mm lens hood did you get?
- Sheldon

Seperate order at Amazon.com. 49mm shaped wide-angel len hood for about $9.00. It fit my DA 35mm f2.4. It looks cool!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000H2EE62/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/179-3355589-7869358

pezmaker · 07-29-2012, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Docrwm

One person even offered that the mounts break more often, no evidence to support that just a bold assertion.

If that was the impression my post gave, that wasn't the intent. I make no assertion of the sort. I sense that mount is quite sturdy. I know that is the belief some have though, and wanted to provide a counterpoint/benefit to it even if it were the case. I should try to be clearer in my posts

lytrytyr · 07-29-2012, 10:49 AM

I bought my DA 35 Macro Limited long before the DA 35/2.4 appeared,
so the choice I faced was between the Limited and the FA 35/2.
Although the FA 35/2 was technically sharper,
the rendering of the Limited was the deciding factor in my choice.
That rendering, slightly "ominous," is not to everybody's taste,
but for me it is one of the most distinctive features of the lens,
quite apart from the macro, the Quick-Shift, and the other advantages.

Docrwm · 07-29-2012, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by pezmaker

If that was the impression my post gave, that wasn't the intent. I make no assertion of the sort. I sense that mount is quite sturdy. I know that is the belief some have though, and wanted to provide a counterpoint/benefit to it even if it were the case. I should try to be clearer in my posts

No, it wasn't you and the person I referred to did not imply it but said it outright.

**Just1MoreDave** · 07-29-2012, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

I bought my DA 35 Macro Limited long before the DA 35/2.4 appeared,
so the choice I faced was between the Limited and the FA 35/2.
Although the FA 35/2 was technically sharper,
the rendering of the Limited was the deciding factor in my choice.
That rendering, slightly "ominous," is not to everybody's taste,
but for me it is one of the most distinctive features of the lens,
quite apart from the macro, the Quick-Shift, and the other advantages.

Now I kind of want a lens that renders "ominous".

The macro lens has a longer focus travel, so AF might take longer under some conditions. And it has 9 aperture blades vs. 6, so you could get cool 18 point stars on bright highlights.

07-29-2012, 07:01 AM	#1
smack1019 New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: New Milford, CT Posts: 18	Pentax DA 35mm f2.4 vs Pentax 35mm 2.8 macro I'm in the market for a 35mm lens and have been going back and forth between buying the 35 f2.4 or the 35 f2.8 macro. I know there is a big difference in price and while that is a concern it is not my primary. I can afford the f2.8. My concern is the quality of the pictures. Is there a big difference between the pictures that are taken with the lenses. I know the limited is a better build that the f2.4 but both have gotten good user reviews on this site. I would mainly be using the lens as a walk around/portrait lens. I am not too interested in the macro capabilities since I already have a DA 100mm. What concerns me most about the f2.4 is that it says it is for beginners and I consider myself past that stage so I want the best 35mm there is but don't want to break the bank unless I have too. So if you had the choice, which would you get? Last edited by smack1019; 07-29-2012 at 07:32 AM.

07-29-2012, 07:45 AM	#6
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,799	In my mind, the reason to choose the macro over the 2.4 would be for the macro... I am not a beginner and just recently purchased the 2.4 about a month ago and for the price am very happy with it. That's why I bought it - it's a lot of bang for buck, for a new lens. The only thing I can say is that it's doesn't have a distance scale and that is a nice feature for manual focusing, so if you prefer manual focus, that might be a factor. Last edited by todd; 07-29-2012 at 07:54 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Walkaround question + Pentax 35mm f2.4 vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8@35mm	Snajder	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	11-03-2011 02:54 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax *ist 35mm Camera with Grip and FA-J 18-35mm (CONUS)	sunny16	Sold Items	2	02-27-2011 08:39 PM

07-29-2012, 07:12 AM	#2
Kona Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Victoria Photos: Albums Posts: 201	There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 2.4; it is an excellent lens. My second favourite of the ones I have, by a good margin. Don't worry about the naysayers complaining about the plastic mount, or claiming it's a newbie/beginner lens. The optics are superb. If you don't need the close focusing of the macro, save yourself a few hundred bucks and get the 2.4.

07-29-2012, 07:32 AM	#3
Danny Delcambre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 550	Yesterday I got my new DA 35mm f2.4 and 49mm len hood for my birthday. 2.4 is awesome pictures!! I like it so much! Smile

07-29-2012, 07:35 AM - 1 Like	#4
loco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,846	I have never tried the 35 macro and I know it has a huge following (best lens ever and all that). But the 35/2.4 is amazing value. Every time I use it I'm surprised by how sharp and contrasty and just plain good it really is. I know the macro is a better lens, but I really have no interest in it because I feel I have that FL covered with the "plastic fantastic".

07-29-2012, 07:35 AM	#5
ofer4 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Utah Posts: 428	Do you frequently use quick shift or a distance scale? These two bells-and-whistles are a distinction between the two lenses. (FWIW, I have a 35mm f2.4 on the way right now. )

07-29-2012, 07:46 AM	#7
pezmaker Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 276	Originally posted by loco "plastic fantastic" hahaha, I love it... I've not heard this before. It certainly is just this. I had some reservations before I got it, but once I did, they all went right out the window. Some people really do absolutely hate on this lens because of the plastic mount, but I think it's out of spite and not for any real reasons. It fits tight on my camera and it works well. Beautiful pictures. Could there be a concern if I drop the camera and the lens hits first, breaking the mount? Maybe, but, then, I don't intend to do that... Might also be able to consider it a safety feature for the camera... cars have crumple zones, consider the mount a crumple zone for your camera . In all seriousness, the DA AL 35 F2.4 is nothing to sniff at unless you're A) REALLY needing quickshift, B) really needing a distance scale, or C) have an irrational fear of plastic.

07-29-2012, 08:04 AM	#8
fotogaffer Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 716	I have the 35 mm f2.8 macro, so I'm not in the market to replace it with the 35 mm f2.4. However, I note you already have macro covered with the DA 100, so you probably don't need to pay the premium for the macro capabilities. I believe the 2.4 is much smaller and lighter and if I didn't already have the 35 macro I wouldn't hesitate to buy it to cover that focal length. I wouldn't be put off by the "beginner" label or the plastic mount. I have the new 50 mm f1.8 and at 4.3 oz it is a treat to carry on the camera and produces superb images. All the reviews support the same for the 35 mm f2.4.

07-29-2012, 08:33 AM	#9
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	There are other threads on this topic but the bottom line is that there are a lot of misconceptions out there and pure prejudice about the 35/2.4. Modern plastics are amazing and often are better for many applications than is equivalent metal. One person even offered that the mounts break more often, no evidence to support that just a bold assertion. Another offered that the plastic mounts resell for a lower % of their initial price. False. The 35/2.4 sells for only 10-20 dollars less used than the real street price new. Bottom line - its an amazingly sharp little lens for very little money. If you need Macro or MUST have the quick shift then the much more expensive 35 Macro is your lens.

07-29-2012, 09:02 AM	#10
sheld Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Austin, TX Photos: Albums Posts: 164	Originally posted by Danny Delcambre Yesterday I got my new DA 35mm f2.4 and 49mm len hood for my birthday. 2.4 is awesome pictures!! I like it so much! Smile Which 49mm lens hood did you get? - Sheldon

07-29-2012, 10:09 AM	#11
Danny Delcambre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 550	Originally posted by sheld Which 49mm lens hood did you get? - Sheldon Seperate order at Amazon.com. 49mm shaped wide-angel len hood for about $9.00. It fit my DA 35mm f2.4. It looks cool! http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000H2EE62/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/179-3355589-7869358

07-29-2012, 10:19 AM	#12
pezmaker Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 276	Originally posted by Docrwm One person even offered that the mounts break more often, no evidence to support that just a bold assertion. If that was the impression my post gave, that wasn't the intent. I make no assertion of the sort. I sense that mount is quite sturdy. I know that is the belief some have though, and wanted to provide a counterpoint/benefit to it even if it were the case. I should try to be clearer in my posts

07-29-2012, 10:49 AM	#13
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	I bought my DA 35 Macro Limited long before the DA 35/2.4 appeared, so the choice I faced was between the Limited and the FA 35/2. Although the FA 35/2 was technically sharper, the rendering of the Limited was the deciding factor in my choice. That rendering, slightly "ominous," is not to everybody's taste, but for me it is one of the most distinctive features of the lens, quite apart from the macro, the Quick-Shift, and the other advantages.

07-29-2012, 03:49 PM	#14
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by pezmaker If that was the impression my post gave, that wasn't the intent. I make no assertion of the sort. I sense that mount is quite sturdy. I know that is the belief some have though, and wanted to provide a counterpoint/benefit to it even if it were the case. I should try to be clearer in my posts No, it wasn't you and the person I referred to did not imply it but said it outright.

07-29-2012, 05:00 PM	#15
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by lytrytyr I bought my DA 35 Macro Limited long before the DA 35/2.4 appeared, so the choice I faced was between the Limited and the FA 35/2. Although the FA 35/2 was technically sharper, the rendering of the Limited was the deciding factor in my choice. That rendering, slightly "ominous," is not to everybody's taste, but for me it is one of the most distinctive features of the lens, quite apart from the macro, the Quick-Shift, and the other advantages. Now I kind of want a lens that renders "ominous". The macro lens has a longer focus travel, so AF might take longer under some conditions. And it has 9 aperture blades vs. 6, so you could get cool 18 point stars on bright highlights.