[ripper2860]

It's $144 on Amazon, I think it's what the price has been for the last few weeks.

Just bought it for $141.96 from Amazon. Going rate seems to be about $179.00 at most Internet camera shops, so I was pleasantly surprised to find it this low at Amazon.

[Driline]

I just picked up a used one in excellent condition at my local camera shop for $120. My first impressions are wow what a sharp lens with good color. I do find however it's weakness's are close up shot's like flowers and the bokeh it produces therein. Not so good. But for outside landscape shots, it really excels there.Great color and sharpness. I'm glad I purchased it though. It has confirmed my suspicions that although both the DA 35 and FA 35 are fine lenses, they cannot compete with the pixie dust filled FA 31. I'm hoping to purchase that lens sometime this year.

[starbase218]

Make it f/2 or faster. But they won't do that, because then the 31 Ltd won't sell as well. Meanwhile Nikon has the 35 1.8 for a cheap price, and the 35 1.4 if you want better.

[Kayaker-J]

Agreed, a cheap wide prime would be nice! Though it's easier said than done on APS-C.

Even nicer, and more needed in the scheme of things, Adam, would be a fully modern, border-to-border sharp, comfortably field totable, APS-C format ~28mm FF-equivalent prime... not IQ-compromised for a pancake profile... or to realize a "budget lens" price point. Once considered the go-to user-friendly, versatile wide angle focal length -- an obvious sweet spot, in this regard -- it is now "unobtainium", as specified above, from all the usual players among APS-C camera makers. And the independent lens makers haven't stepped up to meet this spec either. What gives, I'm led to ask in frustration? Let me point to the Fujifilm X-mount 14mm and 23mm primes to stand as examples. An f.2.4 lens could be just fine, if sharp from wide open, from my perspective. Or to put it another way -- Ricoh GR goodness in a (retrofocus) lens for our K-3s! Make it fully compatible with the GR's existing wide angle (21mm FF-equivalent) converter, and I am opening up the wallet in short order, Ricoh.

[clackers]

I do find however it's weakness's are close up shot's like flowers and the bokeh it produces therein.

Keep it at 2.4 for those shots, Driline!

Such a great little cheap lens, and it'll do FF as well.

[aurele]

Make it f/2 or faster. But they won't do that, because then the 31 Ltd won't sell as well. Meanwhile Nikon has the 35 1.8 for a cheap price, and the 35 1.4 if you want better.

the difference between f2 and f1.8 is like inexistent for the vast majority of users. If you want a 35/1.4 the new Sigma seems very good.

Pentax stated that they won't produce f1.4 lenses in a close future.

However, i agree that the 35/2 is overpriced when you see the 35/2.4.

[starbase218]

the difference between f2 and f1.8 is like inexistent for the vast majority of users. If you want a 35/1.4 the new Sigma seems very good.

Pentax stated that they won't produce f1.4 lenses in a close future.

However, i agree that the 35/2 is overpriced when you see the 35/2.4.

I actually just got a 35/2.8 macro Ltd beside my 35/2.4, so I'm actually going slower, but I just wanted to try out that lens. I know about the new Sigma and I may very well buy it. But the thing is, Pentax should have their own high-quality fast primes. But the only one seems to be the DA* 55/1.4. I am curious though; where did they state they aren't going to make new f/1.4 lenses anytime soon? I assume you are talking about new lenses, given that the aforementioned 55/1.4 has been around for quite a while now.

I know the difference between f/2 and f/1.8 is very small. That's my point: Pentax won't produce a cheap 35/2 because it would hurt sales of the 31/1.8 Ltd. There is the old FA 35/2, but that's in an old package, only half a stop faster and more expensive. Pentax wants to keep the 31/1.8 in production because that's a legendary lens. And maybe it is, but it still isn't terribly fast. Which makes it difficult for them to position other 35-ish primes. They can't be too slow because people will get zooms instead, and they can't be too fast because the 31/1.8 is the star of the show. So you have options every half stop between 2.0 and 2.8. This is all my perception, but that perception keeps me from being really excited about Pentax's primes. Which is why the Sigma appeals to me. But that's Pentax's fault. I'd rather see something like this:
- DA* 35mm f/1.4, emphasis on speed and image quality;
- DA-L 35mm f/2, cheap 'n cheerful, compact, still good IQ;
- DA 35 f/2.8 macro, because people like it so much.

You could say you don't need as much speed with the high ISO capabilities of e.g. the K-5. First of all, it's not all about speed, but also about subject isolation. With APS-C, you already lose a stop of that compared to fullframe. Pentax doesn't offer a fullframe solution, but they also don't offer many fast primes. Yet people continuously say (perhaps too optimisticly) that Pentax offers an alternative for fullframe. Secondly, lower ISO's are always better. Color rendition will improve as well as detail retention.

---

Last edited by starbase218; 04-20-2014 at 03:38 PM.

[wed7]

@starbase,
Couldn't agree more.

[aurele]

I actually just got a 35/2.8 macro Ltd beside my 35/2.4, so I'm actually going slower, but I just wanted to try out that lens. I know about the new Sigma and I may very well buy it. But the thing is, Pentax should have their own high-quality fast primes. But the only one seems to be the DA* 55/1.4. I am curious though; where did they state they aren't going to make new f/1.4 lenses anytime soon? I assume you are talking about new lenses, given that the aforementioned 55/1.4 has been around for quite a while now.

I know the difference between f/2 and f/1.8 is very small. That's my point: Pentax won't produce a cheap 35/2 because it would hurt sales of the 31/1.8 Ltd. There is the old FA 35/2, but that's in an old package, only half a stop faster and more expensive. Pentax wants to keep the 31/1.8 in production because that's a legendary lens. And maybe it is, but it still isn't terribly fast. Which makes it difficult for them to position other 35-ish primes. They can't be too slow because people will get zooms instead, and they can't be too fast because the 31/1.8 is the star of the show. So you have options every half stop between 2.0 and 2.8. This is all my perception, but that perception keeps me from being really excited about Pentax's primes. Which is why the Sigma appeals to me. But that's Pentax's fault. I'd rather see something like this:
- DA* 35mm f/1.4, emphasis on speed and image quality;
- DA-L 35mm f/2, cheap 'n cheerful, compact, still good IQ;
- DA 35 f/2.8 macro, because people like it so much.

You could say you don't need as much speed with the high ISO capabilities of e.g. the K-5. First of all, it's not all about speed, but also about subject isolation. With APS-C, you already lose a stop of that compared to fullframe. Pentax doesn't offer a fullframe solution, but they also don't offer many fast primes. Yet people continuously say (perhaps too optimisticly) that Pentax offers an alternative for fullframe. Secondly, lower ISO's are always better. Color rendition will improve as well as detail retention.

They stated about no more f1,4 in an interview made by adam two years ago i think. As you said because there is no need of speed thanks to good high iso.

That said, i think your analyse is pretty right : the 31/1,8 is the star, and not lenses should put it in shadows.

For me there is a possibility : remake the FA limited to reduce purple fringing, and flaws They can have. that will increase the perceive value by customers, and is more likely to justify the price.
Lower the price of the FA 35 to push people to get it instead of the 35/2,4.

For what it's worth, i thanks that the 18 to 35mm is the really weak part of their lens line-Up. Yes there is the 21, but it's not appealing to me. a fast 24, and a good 18 is suite necessary, i think

[Kayaker-J]

@aurele... Ditto your ~24mm (smaller, up-to-date, ~flat field, more affordable than FA*) and ~18mm (border-to-border sharp, low distortion, ~flat field) wish list.

[Waratah]

@aurele... Ditto your ~24mm (smaller, up-to-date, ~flat field, more affordable than FA*) and ~18mm (border-to-border sharp, low distortion, ~flat field) wish list.

And a 28 - redux an older recipie would be fine.

[starbase218]

As you said because there is no need of speed thanks to good high iso.

Err... that's not what I said.

[Parallax]

They stated about no more f1,4 in an interview made by adam two years ago i think. As you said because there is no need of speed thanks to good high iso.

But, but, but how then can you do a portrait with only the nose or one eye in focus?

[aurele]

Err... that's not what I said.

You said : with high iso capability you could say ...

Pentax says it.

[clackers]

But, but, but how then can you do a portrait with only the nose or one eye in focus?

You go FF.

(Ducks).