Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-19-2014, 07:02 AM   #1
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,973
DA*16-50 at 35mm VS FA 35 2.0

I recently acquired a DA*16-50 at a great price from Henry's of Canada. My question is for those of you who have both this lens and the FA 35 2.0.

1) All things being equal (don't care about lens size) is the FA 35 going to be that much better in low light indoor pictures at F 2.0 VS the DA*16-50 at F2.8?)

These will be family photo's taken inside for party's low light etc.

Is it worth the added expense of $300 for one stop? In previous threads I was considering the FA 31 VS both the DA*16-50 AND FA 35 2.0 for the same price, but now that I've used the DA*16-50 in low light I think it's fantastic and takes great contrasty pictures both inside and out. So I'm wondering do I really need the FA 35 2.0?

02-19-2014, 08:19 AM   #2
Veteran Member
oxidized's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: USA - Delaware
Photos: Albums
Posts: 434
If you are really happy w the output of the 16-50 You should just stick with it. If there is any improvement in sharpness it will be only marginal. The main reason one would go for 35 f2 is for the extra stop of light giving faster shutter speeds/lower iso indoors or shallower depth of field
02-19-2014, 09:06 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lyngby, Copenhagen
Photos: Albums
Posts: 742
QuoteOriginally posted by Driline Quote
... but now that I've used the DA*16-50 in low light I think it's fantastic and takes great contrasty pictures both inside and out. So I'm wondering do I really need the FA 35 2.0?
I have both lenses. I only break out the FA35 when I reach ISO 6400. If I can manage at ISO 3200 or below, I prefer the 16-50 for the versatility and, oddly enough, the sharpness. But that's because I think my copy of the FA35 is bad in some way, I find it really soft at f/2, significantly soft even at ISO 3200 on my K-5.

Regards,
--Anders.
02-19-2014, 10:15 AM   #4
Pentaxian
Gray's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Cape Town
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
QuoteOriginally posted by asp1880 Quote
significantly soft even at ISO 3200 on my K-5
I will bet anything that it's your K-5 auto focus, not your FA 35. I have the FA 35 and had a K-5. In my experience the K-5 phase-detect auto focus (PDAF) struggles with lenses faster than about f/2.4.

Have you tried focusing with your K-5 using LV (CDAF)? I always found it much more accurate than AF through the viewfinder (PDAF).

I sold both my K-5's and replaced them with K-5II's. Autofocus with both PDAF and CDAF on the K-5II is 100% accurate, even in very low light.

So, don't be tempted to blame your FA 35 lens.

02-19-2014, 01:38 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lyngby, Copenhagen
Photos: Albums
Posts: 742
QuoteOriginally posted by Gray Quote
Have you tried focusing with your K-5 using LV (CDAF)? I always found it much more accurate than AF through the viewfinder (PDAF).
Yes, I tried that. I know about the K-5 dodgy AF in low light.

I vascillate a lot in my opinion of my FA35. Sometimes I think it's just fine and it's all in my head and then it goes and disappoints me massively. My latest sensation is that it's best in close focus and pretty lousy at far focus.

I honestly don't know.

Regards,
--Anders.
04-23-2014, 07:34 PM   #6
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,973
Original Poster
I picked up a used excellent copy of a DA 35 2.4 at my local camera shop for $120. I just couldn't pass this deal up. This lens is everything I thought it was and more. I'm glad I saved the extra $200 I would have spent on an FA 35 2.0. Looking forward now to purchasing the FA 31 next time it's offered on sale at B&H.
04-24-2014, 11:25 AM - 1 Like   #7
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,347
QuoteOriginally posted by Driline Quote
I picked up a used excellent copy of a DA 35 2.4 at my local camera shop for $120. I just couldn't pass this deal up. This lens is everything I thought it was and more. I'm glad I saved the extra $200 I would have spent on an FA 35 2.0. Looking forward now to purchasing the FA 31 next time it's offered on sale at B&H.
Interesting that you bought this lens when you already have the 43mm LTD.
I had the 35mm f2.4 for a while, and it was a good lens, but its focal length is so close to 43mm that it just seems redundant.

Then again, I have a 70-200mm and a 100-300mm, so who am I to talk, lol
04-24-2014, 11:39 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,664
QuoteOriginally posted by oxidized Quote
The main reason one would go for 35 f2 is for the extra stop of light giving faster shutter speeds/lower iso indoors or shallower depth of field
...and the lighter weight and more compact size. I love mine and even though I just purchased the new Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C), I don't see it replacing the FA 35 as my walkaround lens.


Steve

04-24-2014, 11:49 AM   #9
Pentaxian
seventysixersfan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,711
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I love mine and even though I just purchased the new Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C), I don't see it replacing the FA 35 as my walkaround lens.
Very much agreed with you!
04-24-2014, 12:43 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,973
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
Interesting that you bought this lens when you already have the 43mm LTD.
I had the 35mm f2.4 for a while, and it was a good lens, but its focal length is so close to 43mm that it just seems redundant.

Then again, I have a 70-200mm and a 100-300mm, so who am I to talk, lol
It was $120 how could I refuse.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm vs fa, da*16-50, da*16-50 at 35mm, fa, k-mount, lens, light, pentax lens, pictures, price, slr lens, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA 31 or DA*16-50 AND FA 35/2 Driline Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 08-17-2014 05:19 PM
For Sale - Sold: All prime lenses (FA 43 f1.9, FA 35mm F2.0, DA 15 f4, DA70 f2.4,K 50.2 ) ljay1129 Sold Items 10 11-28-2013 02:06 AM
DA 35mm f/2.4 vs FA-35mm f/2.0 pentaz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 10-29-2012 01:04 PM
Pentax FA 35 2.0 vs Nikkor 35 1.8DX many samples simbon4o Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 08-01-2012 04:11 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:49 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top