[ismaelg]

Hi,

I'm here daydreaming about my next lens.... I don't have any Limiteds yet. My favorite lens is the F50 f1.7 Unfortunately, it is a bit tight sometimes, especially indoors. So I got the DA 35 f2.4 as a companion and I like it. But the 50 is still king. So I'd like the performance and magic of the 50 in a 35ish focal length.
I suppose both the FA35 f2 and the DA35 2.8 macro (both SMC and HD) would fill my need. How do those compare to the DA35 f2.4 I already have? How would those 3 compare at f2.8? (My favorite and most used aperture in the 50)
Would the 40 Limited be too close to the 50? or could it be an option? If so, is it sharp enough wide open?
It seems my ultimate lens wish would be the FA31 but even in my dreams it is far away....
Any comments on this?

Thanks,

[luftfluss]

From what I understand, the DA 35/2.4 is simply a slightly reworked FA 35/2.

The DA 35/2.8 Ltd. Macro has a sterling reputation... Mike Johnston (The Online Photographer and noted photography journalist) has said, "It will be the best lens you own".

[jimr-pdx]

My shopping order would be 35ltd, 40ltd, then 35/2.4 or a fast 50, depending on your budget and other primes in the bag. My da40 and A50 macro don't share camera time well at all, and the 28/2 in my bag lowers my need for a 35. All good lenses in the range though!

DA40, f/3.2 I think..

[RobG]

I don't have any of the lenses mentioned other than the 35 limited macro, but it's a great lens and gives you the option of exploring macro photography...

[sterretje]

The disadvantage of the macro is that has a long throw, so it can take some time before it has achieved focus (compared to non-macro lenses). Depends on your style if it will pose an issue or not.

I think that 40 is too close to 50. I would never have a need to have both in my bag at the same time. Lastly I personally prefer a tad wider (28-31) for a 'standard' prime; but again, depends on your needs.

[mike.hiran]

If I were in your shoes and I wanted a lens that would capture indoor shots well and you're willing to spend as much as the DA35 limited, I might consider the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. You will get speed that none of your choices have, you will get range, and you'll get silent focusing. Of course you'll take a hit in weight and size... Color wise and sharpness, I'd prefer the limited, but focosing in low light with a long throw would not be something I would consider ideal.

[AtitG]

The DA 35mm is already a very capable lens optically. Whats lacking in your 35mm 2.4 compared to the 50mm 1.7? Do you want a sexier build with macro (Da 35mm limited macro)? Is the depth of field not shallow enough (sigma 30mm 1.4 art)? Or maybe its the focal length itself that is not appealing to you.ü

[kharry2012]

I think you and I have almost the same issue. I have and love the FA 43 but find it too tight for indoor use sometimes. And I also thought the DA 35 "plastic fantastic" was too big a drop in performance.

The 35 macro is a lens I am considering but so is the fast zoom 17-50 (either the Sigma or Tamron). The FA 31 and the Sigma 35 art lenses are just too expensive for me.

[cali92rs]

FYI, I did a comparison of the DA 35mm f2.4 and DA 35mm macro.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/225856-da-3...ni-review.html

I really wish the DA 35mm macro was WR. It wouldve never left my camera because of it's versatility.

[Conqueror]

Sigma 18-35 f1.8

Don't know about OP - But I just can't get past how big it is... not disputing its imaging qualities though

But one of the best parts of the pentax system is the smaller/lighter lenses IMO

[Stavri]

If pentax re-introduced the DA 35mm f2.4, put a metal mount and sold it in the $300-400 range people would start to really appreciate and respect it more. The lens has great sharpness, same coating as the Fa 43mm and fast AF, which is all a person really needs.

[cali92rs]

If pentax re-introduced the DA 35mm f2.4, put a metal mount and sold it in the $300-400 range people would start to really appreciate and respect it more. The lens has great sharpness, same coating as the Fa 43mm and fast AF, which is all a person really needs.

I had no issue with this lens having a plastic mount. It is so short that it has almost no moment arm.
A longer lens like the DA-L 55-300mm i would be more skeptical about (however i had that lens too lol)

[ismaelg]

Thanks all for the replies. I have no issues with the lens having a plastic mount. In fact it handles and performs quite well. When I say the 50 still trumps it I'm referring to overall sharpness (particularly corner sharpness) and contrast. But I admit I'm pixel peeping. Contrast I can tweak in post. I don't want to make the impression I don't like it. I do. Just that I prefer the 50...

Thanks!

[Sandy Hancock]

I never warmed to the DA40. There is nothing wrong with it, just nothing special.
The DA35 macro limited on the other hand has pixie dust in spades and is pretty much the *only* 35mm 1:1 macro out there. SO sharp, so pretty, so versatile.
FA35? Meh.

[ismaelg]

***UPDATE***
First of all, Thanks all for the replies.
I just did a wedding anniversary event shooting indoors. I used the 35 f2.4 on my K5II and the 50 f1.7 on my Kx. ( BTW, No problem carrying both around my neck for several hours). As expected, the 50 f1.7 delivers even if mounted on a potato body.
I am pleased with the results of the 35 f2.4 on the K5II. I think I'm beginning to understand it a bit better. The raw files from both are not that different, and that is a great sign......
I concentrated the 50 on very thin DOF and close or small details, the 35 for group shots and more general shots.
I like how this is going but by no means LBA has been cured........

Thanks,