Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-29-2014, 04:43 PM   #1
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Da 40mm VS 35mm?

Hey,

I just got the 35mm/2.4 and it performs nicely but I see that the 40mm xs/limited offers similar optical quality if not better? Has anyone owned both and would be willing to chime in? I read some reviews including the in-depth review and they seem really identical in terms of IQ..

Thanks for reading!


Last edited by Zealex; 06-29-2014 at 05:57 PM.
06-29-2014, 05:05 PM   #2
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
I owned both. They are very similar in terms of AF speed. They are both small and light, though obviously the XS is smaller (so small in fact, some people complain it is too small).
DA 40mm XS is very sharp and has very low distortion. Very nice rendering, rounded aperture blades keep bokeh very fine. Purple fringing can be a problem wide open, but stop down even 1/3 of a stop and it improves. It is not as wide angle, so it appears to show some more details. Main problem is 27mm filter threads and lack of hood. Also, f2.8 is relatively slow for a prime, but it is super compact in return.
DA 35mm f2.4 wider angle can be useful for some scenes. Wide open, axial CA is apparent, but it goes away if you stop down. Some distortion, so its not very flattering for closeup portraits, but works well for group or full body photos. In my opinion the DA 35mm renders more naturally, not quite as "lovely" as the 40mm XS. The DA 35mm is probably more flare-resistant. The DA 35mm is based on the FA 35mm f2.0 btw, and the FA 35mm can still be bought as new (though, some say it is a little soft at 2.0 and needs to be stopped down to f2.4 anyway).

What they are both missing is Quickshift, aperture ring, distance scales, lens hood. The DA 40mm limited has lens hood, quickshift, and aperture ring, but the DA 40mm XS does not. The limited comes in SMC and HD versions, and also in silver. Oh and the DA 35mm can be bought in other colours, as well (yellow, blue, brown) - but from Japan. You can also easily buy a third party lens hood for the DA 35mm f2.4, but it is difficult to find a sensible hood (or filters) for the DA 40mm XS.
Another lens to consider is the DA 35mm f2.8 limited. Very well liked lens on these forums and it gives you true 1:1 macro, if you like that kind of thing.

I can recommend both the DA 35mm f2.4 and the DA 40mm XS. I think I prefer the DA 40mm XS, but I have been spending a lot of time with the DA 35mm recently and it is quite great. Both are very sharp, light, with fast AF. Great image quality for the price.

Last edited by Na Horuk; 06-30-2014 at 02:13 AM.
06-29-2014, 05:13 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,948
I have both and used them today.

Frankly they are optically identical in terms of sharpness, contracts, etc.

The 40 is tiny and focuses wicked fast. Hard to manual focus if that is your thing

The 35 is 3x larger and more versatile. If not preset to a focus distance its long throw as a macro means it takes quite a bit longer to focus. but this also means it has an amazing close focus capacity.

I'd take the 40 if you are likely to take more portraits and the DA 35 if you want a macro.

Other than that both have fantastic IQ.

Samples for you, cropped somewhat:


DA 40 Ltd



DA 35 Macro Ltd


Last edited by Aristophanes; 06-29-2014 at 05:29 PM.
06-29-2014, 06:13 PM   #4
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
I owned both. They are very similar in terms of AF speed. They are both small and light, though obviously the XS is smaller (so small in fact, some people complain it is too small).
DA 40mm XS is very sharp and has very low distortion. Very nice rendering, rounded aperture blades keep bokeh very fine. Purple fringing can be a problem wide open, but stop down even 1/3 of a stop and it improves. It is not as wide angle, so it appears to show some more details. Main problem is 27mm filter threads and lack of hood. Also, f2.8 is relatively slow for a prime, but it is super compact in return.
DA 35mm f2.4 wider angle can be useful for some scenes. Wide open, axial CA is apparent, but it goes away if you stop down. Some distortion, so its not very flattering for closeup portraits, but works well for group or full body photos. In my opinion the DA 35mm renders more naturally, not quite as "lovely" as the 40mm XS. The DA 35mm is probably more flare-resistant. The DA 35mm is based on the FA 35mm f2.0 btw, and the FA 35mm can still be bought as new (though, some say it is a little soft at 2.0 and needs to be stopped down to f2.4 anyway).

What they are both missing is Quickshift, aperture ring, distance scales, lens hood. The DA 40mm limited has lens hood, quickshift, and aperture ring, but the DA 40mm XS does not. The limited comes in SMC and HD versions, and also in silver. Oh and the DA 35mm can be bought in other colours, as well (yellow, blue, brown) - but from Japan. You can also easily buy a third party lens hood for the DA 35mm f2.4, but it is difficult to find a sensible hood (or filters) for the DA 40mm XS.
Another lens to consider is the DA 35mm f2.8 limited. Very well liked lens on these forums and it gives you true 1:1 macro, if you like that kind of thing.

I can recommend both the DA 35mm f2.4 and the DA 40mm XS. I think I prefer the DA 40mm XS, but I have been spending a lot of time with the DA 35mm recently and it is quite great. Both are very sharp, light, with fast AF. Great image quality for the price.
So basically, get both :P? I notice the 35mm doesn't blur the background much as my A 50mm/1.7 and kind of bothers me....kind of disappointed but at the same time happy because I learned something new! Thought that blur was totally aperture related, but now I know it also depends on the lens. Perhaps I should keep the plastic fantastic and learn how to use it? So basically the 35mm/2.4 gives something natural like as if you looked with your eyes, and the 40mm might include some more "dreamy" blur? The xs/limited 40mm do not differ in terms of optics though, only features?

I look at the sample photos of the 35mm/2.4 and the backgrounds are blurred. I shoot wide open and everything seems to be too detailed...am I doing something wrong or is my lens defective?

06-29-2014, 06:27 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
The amount-of-blurryness depends on the aperture, focal length, distance to subject, and sensor size.

I suspect your 'distance to subject' is further away than the pictures you're looking at online.

FYI, I wouldn't think of either lens as a nice bokeh / melt background away type of lens. If you want wider than your 50 but with great bokeh you're unfortunately stuck with the expensive 31mm, or for a little less great bokeh, the equally expensive Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8.
06-29-2014, 06:40 PM   #6
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
The DA 40mm limited has lens hood, quickshift, and aperture ring, but the DA 40mm XS does not.
The DA 40mm limited does *not* have an aperture ring. It is an excellent lens though.
If you already have the DA35/2.4 and a fast fifty, you might be better served looking for primes in the >70mm range, or <30.
06-29-2014, 06:53 PM   #7
Veteran Member
fgaudet's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ontario
Posts: 726
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
I notice the 35mm doesn't blur the background much as my A 50mm/1.7 and kind of bothers me.
A few things, first the longer the focal length, the easier it'll be to get background blur. So right off the bat, the 50 has an edge. Secondly, 1.7 will give you a very shallow depth of field, more so than 2.4. so again more blur on the 50.

QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
I shoot wide open and everything seems to be too detailed...am I doing something wrong or is my lens defective?
Regarding your shots wide open, the distance between your camera and your subject vs the distance between the subject and the background will affect blur... If your subject is close enough and the background far enough, you can get very blurred and creamy bokeh, even at f/8, with a longer lens, even at f/11.

QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
So basically the 35mm/2.4 gives something natural like as if you looked with your eyes, and the 40mm might include some more "dreamy" blur?
It's debated a bit but natural human eye field of view is around 35mm. 40mm isn't to far off so it'll also look very natural. The quality of the blur will depend on the optics and the aperture blades number and shapes. For example, at f/4 the bokeh from my DA*50-135 at 50mm is nicer than the one from my Sigma 17-70 at 50mm.

06-29-2014, 08:14 PM   #8
Veteran Member
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,310
Bokeh of DA40 (HD) and a typical landscape shot


DA 40 F 2.8
by Noelpolar, on Flickr


DA 40 F3.5
by Noelpolar, on Flickr


HD DA 40 - Serial Number 9501025
by Noelpolar, on Flickr
06-30-2014, 04:52 AM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 428
.

I own da 40ltd, tried 35/2,4. I wanted something slightly more wide than 40mm, and maybe faster ... I tried also 35ltd and FA 35/2 ...

Optically I slightly prefer da40 in terms of image quality (colors, bokeh etc.), the view was very similar. I really appreciated a slightly smaller minimal focusing distance, however I would really miss lens hood, quick shift. And definitely, noisy and slower focusing convinced me to keep my da 40.
06-30-2014, 09:07 AM   #10
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
Thanks for the replies guy! I like the 35mm but the 40mm seems great too...seems counterproductive to have multiple lens with a similar focal length...the FA 43mm has my eye too...so is this how LBA starts?
06-30-2014, 09:31 AM   #11
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
.the FA 43mm has my eye too...so is this how LBA starts?
yep
I had the DA 35mm before, and then got the 40mm XS with the K-01. I'm glad I did. But yes, its hard to justify when you already have 35mm and 50mm covered.
One thing I like about the 40mm XS is that it is so tiny, it looks like a toy. So you can take your camera to places where DSLRs (concerts, museums,..) are prohibited and still get much much better quality than point and shoot cameras
06-30-2014, 11:21 AM   #12
Master of the obvious
Loyal Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 18,309
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
Thanks for the replies guy! I like the 35mm but the 40mm seems great too...seems counterproductive to have multiple lens with a similar focal length...the FA 43mm has my eye too...so is this how LBA starts?
That's definitely how it starts

But I agree with what Sandy said; already having a 35 and a 50 it might be more useful looking at primes shorter than 30 or longer than 70. If you like small lenses you should look at the DA21 and DA70 (or FA77, then we are talking creamy bokeh).

Yes, the FA43 is wonderful, but it will also pretty much replace both the 35 and 50. Better to widen your range first, I think
06-30-2014, 11:47 AM   #13
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
So maybe rid the DA35/2.4 and A50/1.7 and get the FA43 :P? Or maybe the da21 as a 35mm replacement? I feel 21mm offers a similar PoV to a human eye than a 35mm does.
06-30-2014, 12:29 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
So maybe rid the DA35/2.4 and A50/1.7 and get the FA43 :P? Or maybe the da21 as a 35mm replacement? I feel 21mm offers a similar PoV to a human eye than a 35mm does.
hello depend of you feel, what you want and what is your budget.

FA43 is very expensive. As are FA31 & FA77...

DA25 f/2.4 is very inexpensive and sharper on the corners and has fantastic flare resistance.


If you like primes, going for a set of prime may be interesting. This allow you to have a better quality and maybe even smaller/lighter set. If you have the money, I would choose AF lenses, far easier to live with and I would try to have at least 2 very different, better 3 lenses.

Except if you don't like the DA35 f/2.4, if I was you I would keep it at least for some time untill you have 2-3 more prime covering a wider range of focals and situations. I would not mind replacing the A50 as it lack AF and this can be a problem on some occasion.

For a small budget the obvious choice would be to go for a DA21 and maybe after a FA50 f/1.7, all used. This should be quite affordable. And I would stay here keeping thoses 3 for a very long time.

With more budget, maybe DA21 and after FA77 that would be a good start... You could then see if you want to go for more first (DA15, DFA100 macro, FA50...) or replace that 35mm with an FA31, DA40 ltd, FA43 or DA35ltd...
06-30-2014, 04:11 PM   #15
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
So maybe rid the DA35/2.4 and A50/1.7 and get the FA43 :P? Or maybe the da21 as a 35mm replacement? I feel 21mm offers a similar PoV to a human eye than a 35mm does.
The DA21 is *much* wider than the 35. It is similar to the difference between a 28 and a 50 in the old money: a genuine wide angle vs a more or less normal.

Although I have the FA43 and love it, it is quite expensive and you already have that focal range well covered. The DA21 is cheaper and will open up a new view on the world for you. It also has some neat tricks, like great flare resistance, very close focussing and awesome 14 point starbursts (at least with the older SMC version).
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!
40mm, da 40mm vs, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax DA 35mm 2.4 vs Takumar 28mm 3.5 vs Zeiss Flektogon 35mm 2.4 vs 18-55 AL -kb- Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 07-01-2013 04:25 PM
35mm 2.4 vs 40mm 2.8 LTD vs 40mm 2.8 XS SenorBeef Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 93 07-26-2012 02:00 PM
DA LTD: 35mm vs. 40mm RE flare resistance paperbag846 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 07-03-2011 08:43 AM
DA 40mm 2.8 Ltd vs DA (L) 35mm 2.4 Metalwizards Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 02-14-2011 09:36 AM
DA 40mm vs DA 35mm vs FA 35mm snaaark Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 98 09-24-2009 05:11 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:19 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