[Sagitta]

Echoing the autofocus + low light = UGH sentiments.

The lower the light, the harder a time the camera will have trying to focus on anything, and if you have a bright object outside your desired depth of field, good luck NOT locking onto that.

With that in mind, there is a ton of options out there in the world of manual focus.

[Marc Sabatella]

A50/1.7 (which is indeed manual focus, and not too sharp wide open)

Says who? Sharpness is a relative term, and DOF is shallow enough at f/1.7 that very little is in focus. But the part that is is as sharp as any other lens used wide open, more or less. And in case case, shooting in low light, I *guarantee* that differences in sharpness between lenses is of almost no significance. The biggest limiters to sharpness will camera shake, subject motion, high ISO noise, and focus issues (whether using MF or AF, getting focus *exactly* where you want it is difficult with fast lenses). You might as well forget anything you heaqr about such and such a lens being 7% softer wide open than some other lens - it just has no real world relevance.

[Belgarchi]

Hi everyone,

I have a K-30 and in desperate need for a fast lens. I mainly take pictures in low light conditions (in lit and not so lit rooms, in a club, in the evening etc.).
I am on a tight budget, so i checked DA35/2.4 and DA50/1.8.

50mm FL is less useful for me, but i could "swallow" it if the lens was sharp at 1.8. I understand it is not, and i would have to step it down to 2.8 to get a sharp picture.
If this is the case, this lens has no advantage over the 35/2.4, which i understand is sharp wide open.

1. Is the DA35/2.4, when wide open, really as sharp (edge-to-edge) as the DA50/1.8 stepped down to 2.8 ?
2. Is my best option really the DA35/2.4 over the DA50/1.8 ?
2. Is there an option for a faster (than f/2.4), not expensive (same price range), and preferably "normal" FL lens?

BTW, I decided not to go for lenses that would not allow me to AF (such as Manual lenses or old models).

Any answer will be much appriciated. Thanks.

I would look into used lenses. Pentax A 50/1.4 or 1.7 are excellent and better built than newer lenses. not autofocus, but personnally, I still prefer Manual Focus. If you really need autofocus, the FA 35/2.0 is markedly superior to the DA 35/2.4, and not too heavy.

[paranoia23]

Pentax A 50/1.4 or 1.7 are excellent and better built than newer lenses.

how can i verify this ?! ... i just read this comparison thread about the 35mm A vs FA vs DA ... and the A version was the worst with a big gap ... difference between DA and FA where minimal... so where does the superiocity come from?!

[Docrwm]

how can i verify this ?! ... i just read this comparison thread about the 35mm A vs FA vs DA ... and the A version was the worst with a big gap ... difference between DA and FA where minimal... so where does the superiocity come from?!

Optically it is not superior, the reviews and comparisons make that clear. The physical build quality of the lens, not the glass elements, is what is often referred to by fans of the older manual focus lenses as "superior". They had a very smooth focus action with a longer turn so they are easier to manually focus. They also had more metal parts (although the A models have a lot of plastic) and are heavier hence giving the impression that they are better made as a result.

[Belgarchi]

how can i verify this ?! ... i just read this comparison thread about the 35mm A vs FA vs DA ... and the A version was the worst with a big gap ... difference between DA and FA where minimal... so where does the superiocity come from?!

I used all three 35mm. The M and A 35/2 are bad at F2.0, and progress slowly, becoming very good at F5.6.
The FA 35/2.0 is good at full aperture, excellent at F4.0. I didn't test the DA 35/2.4, but was disappointed by photos taken with it during my vacation this year. Lack of contrast and resolution. I don't like ever the absence of bayonet for a hood, no distance scale, plastic bayonet, no aperture ring, and a loss of a half aperture.

[paranoia23]

i noticed that older manual have much more degrees for the focus, which is actually really nice if you shoot videos.

how much is the FA 35/2 ?! ... i think u can get the DA 35 and DA 50 for the money ... and IQ of the FA isnt that much better..

[beeldmark]

I just wanted to write something, and then noticed that Marc Sabatella already formulated it perfectly:

differences in sharpness between lenses is of almost no significance. The biggest limiters to sharpness will camera shake, subject motion, high ISO noise, and focus issues (whether using MF or AF, getting focus *exactly* where you want it is difficult with fast lenses)

So I think it's more important for you to make a decision about whether you need 35mm or 50mm, than trying to find the sharpest lens for your money .I can't advise on the 35 2.4 versus 2.0, because I've never used them, but I' ve used many lenses in poor light, and can't find a strong relation between lens resolving power and sharpness in those cases. Actually, the strongest relation I found is use of flash yes/no. So you might consider buying a cheaper lens plus a good flash.

(or: buy used, and sell again if you made the wrong choice. Sometimes you just have to try (and you'll have a lot of fun shooting while trying :-) )

[7samurai]

Hi everyone,

I have a K-30 and in desperate need for a fast lens. I mainly take pictures in low light conditions (in lit and not so lit rooms, in a club, in the evening etc.).
I am on a tight budget, so i checked DA35/2.4 and DA50/1.8.

50mm FL is less useful for me, but i could "swallow" it if the lens was sharp at 1.8. I understand it is not, and i would have to step it down to 2.8 to get a sharp picture.
If this is the case, this lens has no advantage over the 35/2.4, which i understand is sharp wide open.

1. Is the DA35/2.4, when wide open, really as sharp (edge-to-edge) as the DA50/1.8 stepped down to 2.8 ?
2. Is my best option really the DA35/2.4 over the DA50/1.8 ?
2. Is there an option for a faster (than f/2.4), not expensive (same price range), and preferably "normal" FL lens?

BTW, I decided not to go for lenses that would not allow me to AF (such as Manual lenses or old models).

Any answer will be much appriciated. Thanks.

I find the 35mm f/2.4 an amazing lens. It's actually my go to lens for a dark venue. However, if it's very dark, then your autofocus system is going to be the limiting factor. The 50mm may be to long for an indoor shot, unless it's an large venue.
I use tricks occasionally to get the auto-focus to work. I shot a Cosmic Bowling event recently and brought glow neckless so I could put it on all paticipants. Add to the fun and allowed me to have enough contrast when it was super dark.

For me, it's a balancing act, you need to consider depth of field, ISO, shutter speed, focusing and amount of light (ambient vs flash). Full manual is the only way to go for a dark venue. A flash will also give you another level of sharpness by freezing the subject more. I also take into account how much I can raise the image in post processing. I may shoot on the darker side because I can raise the shutter speed another stop and raise the light in post.

I like primes and constant f/stop lenses. I don't think you can go wrong with the DA 35/2.4. I have a A 50/1.7 and it's also an amazing lens. Waiting for my DA 50/1.8 which should be here in a week. I'm planning on using it in larger indoor venue where the 35mm would be to short.
Shoot raw, full manual, use a flash with some light modifiers if possible, post process.

[Chaim]

I just want to thank again all of you participating in this thread. It is very interesting and informative.