[baro-nite]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

People often claim this, which is also in dispute.

Lens diagrams from Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page:





And despite what that site says about the two lenses having different MFDs, according to PF's lens review section, they have the same MFD.

[Driline]

Here is the first one I found on eBay. My guess is that it will go for less than $100.

Pentax Asahi Super Macro Takumar 1 4 50mm Lens 3127320 Very Nice 894948000402 | eBay

But that's a screw mount right?

[Driline]

I think the OP was asking which one of the 35's to get. That Tak might be a spectacular lens and I dig your enthusiasm, but the OP didn't mention any interest in macro, yet. The Tak might have scored a 10 in the sharpness category, but in my eyes this can't really be used to compare an M42 MF lens to a modern AF lens, but rather as an indicator of how much people who reviewed it appreciate it. Which is totally understandable and justified!

I am just saying that both lenses have got their purposes. Talking about sharpness, vs. affordability.. Now that we entered the topic other focal length lenses, anyway, I might add a thought that popped up in my head when I read this and thought of my own personal dilemma (Macro version doesn't fit in my budget, I can't persuade myself to like the DA 2.4 AL). I held this back to not derail this thread, as the OP was asking about the DA and FA 35, but whatever:

If you are going for "cheap plastic" (as in DA 2.4 AL) anyway, why not consider a DA 40 2.8 mm xs instead of the DA 2.4? It is only a few bucks more expensive and offers as little features as the 35 (no aperture ring, no scales on the lens itself, no macro), is alsmost identical in focal length, but on the plus side offers a metal mount (which we learned is neglectible), reportedly good AF, turns every camera into pocket format, and has rounded aperture blades, which give it a nicer bokeh throughout all aperture values. To top that off, it even scores a 9.5 in sharpness in the lens review section (see where I am coming from?). All that at the price of half a stop less aperture and a little more money than the 2.4 AL. Now please convince me that the 2.4 35 AL has got its own magic! I read people coplaining about the 40 to be a bit flat.... Or should we start a new thread?

If you're telling me the DA 40 limited or xs ( not quite sure which one) is a better sharper lens than the DA 35 plastic lens then I'm all over it. I will buy that one instead. Is the sharpness and IQ the same for both the 40 limited and xs lenses? The xs is quite a bit cheaper.

[baro-nite]

If you want cheap, sharp, and good, and can live with manual focus and green-button metering, buy an SMC Pentax-M 1:1.7 50mm (aka M50/1.7). Easily found for US$50 or so if you have a bit of patience. Or the A version, still under US$100 and now you have all the auto exposure modes available.

[lmd91343]

But that's a screw mount right?

Yes..

[rparmar]

So what you are saying is that you found out the LE Macro can do macro shots? Just kidding. Nice lens and picture that you've got there, if that's what you want to hear

I haven't "just discovered" anything about this lens. But if the intended purpose is model train photography, then being able to get arbitrarily close is a benefit. Don't consider the 35 Limited as a macro lens, just consider you can get as close as you like.

I do not have a "nice lens" here, since I sold the DA35 Limited. It didn't suit me and I couldn't justify keeping it around when I love the FA43 Limited so much. So, no, I am not promoting it here because it's something I happen to own, if that is what you were implying.

But I do think that if "sharpness" is the goal, this is the answer. It has micro contrast out the wazoo.

As for "nice picture", I can only say that get tired of photography threads with no photography. Not fishing for compliments, just trying to add some visual stimuli that might also help the OP.

[Driline]

Can I get an HO size locomotive to fill the viewfinder with the 40mm? The engine is about 10" long and about 3" high.

[Arvid]

I haven't "just discovered" anything about this lens. But if the intended purpose is model train photography, then being able to get arbitrarily close is a benefit. Don't consider the 35 Limited as a macro lens, just consider you can get as close as you like.

I do not have a "nice lens" here, since I sold the DA35 Limited. It didn't suit me and I couldn't justify keeping it around when I love the FA43 Limited so much. So, no, I am not promoting it here because it's something I happen to own, if that is what you were implying.

But I do think that if "sharpness" is the goal, this is the answer. It has micro contrast out the wazoo.

As for "nice picture", I can only say that get tired of photography threads with no photography. Not fishing for compliments, just trying to add some visual stimuli that might also help the OP.

hey there, I am very sorry if I offended you. I realized that I and you both can't really tell where we are coming from by just looking at one post, so sorry again. I wanted that comment to be taken with a grain of salt, but a lot of information is lost when you try to push your thoughts (which were shaped in your head in another language, to make it even more complicated) into an internet forum post. Not even a "" can save you from that. To be honest I had also totally forgotten the miniature photography that was mentioned, so blame that on me, again.

I really dig the colours of that shot and how crystal clear the reflections in that drop are. I aggree that there is too much talking and not enough photographies, which might speak for themselves here. I guess that's partly due to the images we have got in our heads and then we think about equipment (which we maybe don't need) and share our thoughts on here instead of going out and taking that picture. Oh, and when I said "nice", I meant "nice". Not "nice" as in "mediocre" or even "shitty", but as in "nice".

If you're telling me the DA 40 limited or xs ( not quite sure which one) is a better sharper lens than the DA 35 plastic lens then I'm all over it. I will buy that one instead. Is the sharpness and IQ the same for both the 40 limited and xs lenses? The xs is quite a bit cheaper.

I'm not telling you that. I am wondering myself. I just was going to throw in a somewhat controversial thought here. It seems as if the XS and the LE of the 40 mm pancakes are pretty comparable when it comes to IQ. There is a test on this page, that compares just what we are talking about:

Pentax DA 35mm F2.4 vs 40mm XS vs 40mm Limited - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

If you want cheap, sharp, and good, and can live with manual focus and green-button metering, buy an SMC Pentax-M 1:1.7 50mm (aka M50/1.7). Easily found for US$50 or so if you have a bit of patience. Or the A version, still under US$100 and now you have all the auto exposure modes available.

Talking about the cheap, fast and sharp M 50 1.7; I can call that lens my own and yes, it is very sharp, if you get the focus right. I highly recommend buying on of these, as they are rather cheap and usually come with an MX or ME attached this gives you a great opportunity to go back to the basics, but it can lead to some frustration, when you just can't nail the focus fast enough when you need THAT shot. While it really is great fun to use the M lenses on my digital, that's why I am also looking at the 35 mm and 40 mm AF lenses, as it would be such a relief for me to finally have a compact, yet sharp and still affordable lens that is not as much hit and miss as the MF on the M lens, as much as I love it. And no, I don't want a Katzeye on my dSLR. I can be a purist with my MX and the few nice M lenses I have, but when I take out my dSLR, I want to take advantage of the technology it is capable of.

Can I get an HO size locomotive to fill the viewfinder with the 40mm? The engine is about 10" long and about 3" high.

The minumum focusing distance of the 40 mm (XS and LE) is 40 cm. That of the DA 35 mm 2.4 is 30 cm. I can't tell you if that would be close enough for your locomotive, but you could easily check that yourself, assuming you own a zoom kit lens, which also covers the 40 mm range. Sett that one to 40 mm, try to fill the frame with your loco and then see if you are closer than 40 cm to it. If you are, it is too close for the prime lenses. I guess it should work out.

I really recommend reading that in depth-review of the three lenses, which i posted above.

[baro-nite]

Can I get an HO size locomotive to fill the viewfinder with the 40mm? The engine is about 10" long and about 3" high.

To fill the frame with a 10" subject on a Pentax DSLR you only need 0.1x magnification (magnification for photography purposes being defined as the scale of the subject on the sensor itself), because the Pentax sensor is about an inch in the long dimension (just under). Any of the lenses under consideration will get you at least that much magnification.

[Driline]

To fill the frame with a 10" subject on a Pentax DSLR you only need 0.1x magnification (magnification for photography purposes being defined as the scale of the subject on the sensor itself), because the Pentax sensor is about an inch in the long dimension (just under). Any of the lenses under consideration will get you at least that much magnification.

Thanks. Good to know I can buy the 40mm and not have to worry about it.

[Driline]

Try the Pentax Tak 50mm macro. It can be had for a song, less than $50 if you are lucky.

You will need to focus by hand for close-ups. No autofocus is not a detriment.

This site's lens review pages rate this a perfect 10! That is hIgher than the DA35 or the FA35. It also rates higher on aberrations than either.

Having a larger focal length, it will give you greater working distance at the same magnification ratio as a 35mm lens. That greater distance gives more room for lighting and setup. The camera and lens will block less of the light. As I recall, 1:1 reproduction is at a working distance of as a bit OVER six inches.

Some versions can go to 1:1. The SMC version only goes 2:1 because it contains the special linkages that are used only by the Spotmatic F. It costs a couple of dollars more than the non-SMC version. By a couple of dollars, I mean a couple of dollars Either version can be used on your camera. Reproduction scales are engraved on the metal body.

It is sharper, has less aberrations, and is very inexpensive. If you don't like it not much money is lost if you put it on a shelf. With resale, the "new to used" depreciation has already passed. You can sell it for the price you bought it at, maybe higher. I like it so much I bought two. The SMC for my Spotmatic F and the 1:1 model for all my other cameras. This lens is probably the best bargin of ANY lens made by Pentax.

p.s. I have the FA35 also. I don't use it for close-up photography.

This looks interesting as well. I'd have to buy a screw mount adapter though but they're only about $30 at B&H.

[baro-nite]

This looks interesting as well. I'd have to buy a screw mount adapter though but they're only about $30 at B&H.

Or just buy the K-mount version of this lens, typically about the same cost as the M42 version plus an adapter, or maybe even a bit less.

[Driline]

Or just buy the K-mount version of this lens, typically about the same cost as the M42 version plus an adapter, or maybe even a bit less.

I'll keep my eye out.....

[rparmar]

No worries Arvid. Sorry if I over-reacted.