DA 35 - yes/no

ChristianRock · 12-02-2014, 01:46 PM

If you have the DA 15 and the DFA 100, then you should probably get the DA 35 2.8 Limited, and also the DA 50 1.8 (because everybody needs a fast lens). Both together will cost as much as one of your other lenses, just about. Not that the DA 35 2.4 isn't a good lens, it is, but the Limited is in a different level. It's been called the best lens ever created

though that's probably hard to prove

Last edited by ChristianRock; 12-02-2014 at 01:54 PM.

JimmyDranox · 12-02-2014, 01:49 PM

That name, ''plastic fantastic'', really mean something. DA 35mm 2.4 is a very good lens.

**Des** · 12-02-2014, 03:50 PM

I agree that DA 35 f2.4 is sharp, lightweight, compact and affordable. Also good for video. It's a huge leap from the kit lens. The worst that is said of the DA 35 is that it isn't super fast and it isn't wildly exciting. (To my mind the fast 50s are better in this regard.)

But I also agree with robjmitchell that if you aren't impressed with photos from the 35, consider a better zoom in the wide-normal range. A Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is almost as fast, more versatile and not expensive (especially second-hand).

If you shoot outdoors a lot, also consider the DA 18-135 WR. It's almost an ideal bridge between the 15 and 100, and likely better than the 50-200 in their common range. Normhead argues that the 18-135 is as good as any Pentax-mount zoom at the wide-mid end. (Apologies Norm if I've misstated this view.) After a while, if you settle on favourite focal lengths in that range, complement it with a prime or two that suits you best - there are plenty to choose from (21, 24, 28, 30, 31, 35, 40, 43, 50, 55, 70, 77, 85, 90 or 135, to mention just a few).

**luftfluss** · 12-02-2014, 04:25 PM

Concerning resolution, the DA 35/2.4 plays in the big leagues of the DA Ltd line. The DA35/2.4 is not as contrasty as the Ltd lenses. The bokeh is pretty nice - I found it to be smoother than the smc DA 35/2.8 Macro I briefly owned, as well as the 40 XS; both of those lenses are more contrasty and have more microcontrast than the DA 35/2.4, so I wonder if there is something inherent in those properties that causes the bokeh to be a bit rougher.

Jannis · 12-02-2014, 04:26 PM

I think, that if you have DFA100 and 15ltd you will be disapointed with DA 35 2.4.

I had plastic DA 35 for about year before I have sold it. I must say that I wasn't impressed by its IQ. Once I got my first ltd my DA35 was sitting on shelf. Then I made my personal comparison - DA35 2.4, 18-55, 18-135 and TAmron 17-50. All on 35mm.

And I must say, that DA35 was better than both pentax zooms (but not by miles in terms of center sharpness of 18-135). But Tamron 17-50 was on par with it in center and clearly better on edges! So, I decided to sell it. (BTW my friend has sold one too - due to AF problems).
Two months ago I got used DA SMC40ltd ($260) and it is in another league...
My friend bought 35ltd macro - and it is not just in another league, its from another world

If I was in your shoes, I would not bother with this lens and spare for better prime or buy a good standard zoom lens.

Just my 2 cents.

Docrwm · 12-02-2014, 07:59 PM

I own a variety of lenses, including several limiteds, and I still find myself using the "Plastic Fantastic". Someone said that the 35 Ltd was better bang for the buck, have to disagree. The Ltd is far more expensive but not equally better IMHO. I also find the 35ish length far more useful than any of my 50s in practical shooting. Is the 40ltd worth 2x? Probably IMHO. IF you can swing it you'll probably be happier with it long-term. I only sold mine once I had my 43ltd. Good luck.

PS Dont forget the less expensive 40XS.

NicoleC · 12-03-2014, 08:02 AM

Analysis paralysis has started to set in, but it does sound like the DA 35 is not for me. This review (Review: Pentax DA 35mm F2.4 vs 40mm XS vs 40mm Limited - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews) shows the 40XS spanks it in terms of sharpness for not much more money, and I do adore sharpness above all.

But I'm not sure I can handle a lens that small (hand problems) and I want something a little wider. The 31Ltd is probably the one I really want if I go prime, but the cash flow isn't there. So maybe it's time to put this on the back burner for a while.

All I really want is a 15-200mm/2.4 WR super light and small zoom that renders like my DFA100 Macro. That's not too much to ask, is it?

loco · 12-03-2014, 08:21 AM

I just checked the Sharpness section of that review and didn't come away with the impression the DA 40xs "spanked" the DA 35 at all. I didn't read the entire review, so maybe more was said elsewhere. Surely, if they are close and you can get the little bitty lens cheaper, it's worth considering.

NicoleC · 12-03-2014, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by loco

I just checked the Sharpness section of that review and didn't come away with the impression the DA 40xs "spanked" the DA 35 at all. I didn't read the entire review, so maybe more was said elsewhere. Surely, if they are close and you can get the little bitty lens cheaper, it's worth considering.

I was using the pixel peeping windows in the review. IMO, the 40XS was much sharper.

Jonathan Mac · 12-03-2014, 08:37 AM

Get the DA 35mm limited - it will blow your kit lens (and the DAL 35/2.4) out of the water as far as IQ is concerned.

Na Horuk · 12-03-2014, 08:45 AM - **1 Like**

I have both DA 35mm f2.4 and DA 40mm XS. They are different, though it would be hard to say which is "better." My opinions: Wide open, the DA 35mm is better (less fringing). Bokeh, the 40mm XS is better. 40mm renders more detail, as it is a telephoto. DA 35mm is at around the same sharpness, but it is a wider angle, so it doesn't "appear" as sharp (a telephoto lens seems sharper, because it shows a lot of detail that we don't see with the naked eye, while a wider angle captures more of the frame, so detail is minimized and even lost, thus "appearing" less sharp, because sharpness is not just about resolution). DA 35mm has some distortion and is not great for face portraits. Flare and fringing resistance, DA 35mm is better.
Which lens do I like more? I usually prefer the DA 35mm for wider angle and for natural scenes; while I prefer the DA 40mm XS for man-made objects, artificial things, and flowers that are very saturated, colourful. DA 40mm XS can be used for some portraits, but it can be unflatteringly sharp.
Another thing to consider is the DA 40mm XS has a very odd filter thread size (27mm), which means you can only use camcorder filters and will have a hard time finding a lens hood. One more lens is the FA 35mm f2.0, still in stock as new, which has a more robust build, an aperture ring, and comes with a lens hood. Some say the FA 35mm is slightly better than the DA 35mm, others say its essentially the same lens. Over here in Europe, the FA 35mm is much more expensive than the DA 35mm, so its not as beloved

ChristianRock · 12-03-2014, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by NicoleC

Analysis paralysis has started to set in, but it does sound like the DA 35 is not for me. This review (Review: Pentax DA 35mm F2.4 vs 40mm XS vs 40mm Limited - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews) shows the 40XS spanks it in terms of sharpness for not much more money, and I do adore sharpness above all.

Well, according to tests, the DA 35 2.4 hangs in there with the DA 40 Limited in terms of sharpness... and actually beats it in the center, while slightly losing in the corners... it's contrast and microcontrast that the Limited would offer in spades over the DA 35.

Now the 35 Limited will spank the plastic 35 in every area except bokeh. It is after all a macro lens...

Originally posted by NicoleC

I was using the pixel peeping windows in the review. IMO, the 40XS was much sharper.

You were probably seeing contrast and microcontrast, which can make a lens look much sharper, but it's not sharpness per se.

Either way, yes the DA 40 has superior IQ. But it's also longer than I would like for a "normal" lens. If you can live with that, it's a great option...

Quote:

But I'm not sure I can handle a lens that small (hand problems) and I want something a little wider. The 31Ltd is probably the one I really want if I go prime, but the cash flow isn't there. So maybe it's time to put this on the back burner for a while.

As an alternative, look into the new Sigma Art 30mm 1.4. Some have reported AF issues with it but depending on what you do, you might not come across that issue. If you do you can always return it...

Originally posted by luftfluss

Concerning resolution, the DA 35/2.4 plays in the big leagues of the DA Ltd line. The DA35/2.4 is not as contrasty as the Ltd lenses. The bokeh is pretty nice - I found it to be smoother than the smc DA 35/2.8 Macro I briefly owned, as well as the 40 XS; both of those lenses are more contrasty and have more microcontrast than the DA 35/2.4, so I wonder if there is something inherent in those properties that causes the bokeh to be a bit rougher.

Macro lenses usually don't have creamy bokeh because they go for all-out sharpness across the range. That might be why the Limited's bokeh isn't as good. But if you watch what you put in the background, I think it could still be perfectly useful. The rendering of the 35 Limited just might forgive all other sins it might have

Seriously, if the OP is looking for the best IQ in the 30-40mm range, other than the 31 Limited and the Sigma 35 1.4 Art which are probably out of the price range, the DA 35 Limited is the one to have.

Or just save for that 31 which she will probably want at some point anyway...

Docrwm · 12-03-2014, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by NicoleC

Analysis paralysis has started to set in, but it does sound like the DA 35 is not for me. This review (Review: Pentax DA 35mm F2.4 vs 40mm XS vs 40mm Limited - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews) shows the 40XS spanks it in terms of sharpness for not much more money, and I do adore sharpness above all.

But I'm not sure I can handle a lens that small (hand problems) and I want something a little wider. The 31Ltd is probably the one I really want if I go prime, but the cash flow isn't there. So maybe it's time to put this on the back burner for a while.

All I really want is a 15-200mm/2.4 WR super light and small zoom that renders like my DFA100 Macro. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Just not my experience. The 40Ltd is better but it certainly isn't dramatically better. I agree that 40 is getting a bit long for walk around on our cropped cameras. I wish they would redo a really nice 28. I bet that they see the 31 as their answer to the 28 but its just way too expensive and a nice $400ish 28 would be a great addition IMHO.

ChristianRock · 12-03-2014, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Just not my experience. The 40Ltd is better but it certainly isn't dramatically better. I agree that 40 is getting a bit long for walk around on our cropped cameras. I wish they would redo a really nice 28. I bet that they see the 31 as their answer to the 28 but its just way too expensive and a nice $400ish 28 would be a great addition IMHO.

+1.

Also a plastic wide angle in the 19-21 range. Maybe the 21XS?

And, good to see you back, Doc

I remember your advice was one of the things that led me to get the DA 35 2.4 to use for taking pics of my kids. It's worked out great. Perfect FL, and very good inside when the light is low.

Docrwm · 12-03-2014, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

+1.

Also a plastic wide angle in the 19-21 range. Maybe the 21XS?

And, good to see you back, Doc

I remember your advice was one of the things that led me to get the DA 35 2.4 to use for taking pics of my kids. It's worked out great. Perfect FL, and very good inside when the light is low.

Thanks. Glad my thoughts were useful and proved to be helpful. A 21XS would be way cool.

12-03-2014, 08:45 AM - 1 Like	#26
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	I have both DA 35mm f2.4 and DA 40mm XS. They are different, though it would be hard to say which is "better." My opinions: Wide open, the DA 35mm is better (less fringing). Bokeh, the 40mm XS is better. 40mm renders more detail, as it is a telephoto. DA 35mm is at around the same sharpness, but it is a wider angle, so it doesn't "appear" as sharp (a telephoto lens seems sharper, because it shows a lot of detail that we don't see with the naked eye, while a wider angle captures more of the frame, so detail is minimized and even lost, thus "appearing" less sharp, because sharpness is not just about resolution). DA 35mm has some distortion and is not great for face portraits. Flare and fringing resistance, DA 35mm is better. Which lens do I like more? I usually prefer the DA 35mm for wider angle and for natural scenes; while I prefer the DA 40mm XS for man-made objects, artificial things, and flowers that are very saturated, colourful. DA 40mm XS can be used for some portraits, but it can be unflatteringly sharp. Another thing to consider is the DA 40mm XS has a very odd filter thread size (27mm), which means you can only use camcorder filters and will have a hard time finding a lens hood. One more lens is the FA 35mm f2.0, still in stock as new, which has a more robust build, an aperture ring, and comes with a lens hood. Some say the FA 35mm is slightly better than the DA 35mm, others say its essentially the same lens. Over here in Europe, the FA 35mm is much more expensive than the DA 35mm, so its not as beloved Last edited by Na Horuk; 12-03-2014 at 08:52 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA 50/1.8 yes or no	iamwhoiam	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	12-01-2014 10:59 PM
Focus adjustments - yes or no?	Undot	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	20	10-01-2014 08:56 AM
DA 16-45 Yes or No	CP140	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	04-12-2013 10:49 PM
Hypothetical: yes or no	pentee	Pentax DSLR Discussion	62	03-16-2013 12:42 PM
UV filters - yes or no - which ones?	JayX2A	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	13	03-10-2013 10:41 PM

12-02-2014, 01:46 PM	#16
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	If you have the DA 15 and the DFA 100, then you should probably get the DA 35 2.8 Limited, and also the DA 50 1.8 (because everybody needs a fast lens). Both together will cost as much as one of your other lenses, just about. Not that the DA 35 2.4 isn't a good lens, it is, but the Limited is in a different level. It's been called the best lens ever created though that's probably hard to prove Last edited by ChristianRock; 12-02-2014 at 01:54 PM.

12-02-2014, 01:49 PM	#17
JimmyDranox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Ploiesti, Romania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,632	That name, ''plastic fantastic'', really mean something. DA 35mm 2.4 is a very good lens.

12-02-2014, 03:50 PM	#18
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	I agree that DA 35 f2.4 is sharp, lightweight, compact and affordable. Also good for video. It's a huge leap from the kit lens. The worst that is said of the DA 35 is that it isn't super fast and it isn't wildly exciting. (To my mind the fast 50s are better in this regard.) But I also agree with robjmitchell that if you aren't impressed with photos from the 35, consider a better zoom in the wide-normal range. A Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is almost as fast, more versatile and not expensive (especially second-hand). If you shoot outdoors a lot, also consider the DA 18-135 WR. It's almost an ideal bridge between the 15 and 100, and likely better than the 50-200 in their common range. Normhead argues that the 18-135 is as good as any Pentax-mount zoom at the wide-mid end. (Apologies Norm if I've misstated this view.) After a while, if you settle on favourite focal lengths in that range, complement it with a prime or two that suits you best - there are plenty to choose from (21, 24, 28, 30, 31, 35, 40, 43, 50, 55, 70, 77, 85, 90 or 135, to mention just a few).

12-02-2014, 04:25 PM	#19
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Concerning resolution, the DA 35/2.4 plays in the big leagues of the DA Ltd line. The DA35/2.4 is not as contrasty as the Ltd lenses. The bokeh is pretty nice - I found it to be smoother than the smc DA 35/2.8 Macro I briefly owned, as well as the 40 XS; both of those lenses are more contrasty and have more microcontrast than the DA 35/2.4, so I wonder if there is something inherent in those properties that causes the bokeh to be a bit rougher.

12-02-2014, 04:26 PM	#20
Jannis Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 76	I think, that if you have DFA100 and 15ltd you will be disapointed with DA 35 2.4. I had plastic DA 35 for about year before I have sold it. I must say that I wasn't impressed by its IQ. Once I got my first ltd my DA35 was sitting on shelf. Then I made my personal comparison - DA35 2.4, 18-55, 18-135 and TAmron 17-50. All on 35mm. And I must say, that DA35 was better than both pentax zooms (but not by miles in terms of center sharpness of 18-135). But Tamron 17-50 was on par with it in center and clearly better on edges! So, I decided to sell it. (BTW my friend has sold one too - due to AF problems). Two months ago I got used DA SMC40ltd ($260) and it is in another league... My friend bought 35ltd macro - and it is not just in another league, its from another world If I was in your shoes, I would not bother with this lens and spare for better prime or buy a good standard zoom lens. Just my 2 cents.

12-02-2014, 07:59 PM	#21
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	I own a variety of lenses, including several limiteds, and I still find myself using the "Plastic Fantastic". Someone said that the 35 Ltd was better bang for the buck, have to disagree. The Ltd is far more expensive but not equally better IMHO. I also find the 35ish length far more useful than any of my 50s in practical shooting. Is the 40ltd worth 2x? Probably IMHO. IF you can swing it you'll probably be happier with it long-term. I only sold mine once I had my 43ltd. Good luck. PS Dont forget the less expensive 40XS.

12-03-2014, 08:02 AM	#22
NicoleC Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Madison, AL Posts: 448 Original Poster	Analysis paralysis has started to set in, but it does sound like the DA 35 is not for me. This review (Review: Pentax DA 35mm F2.4 vs 40mm XS vs 40mm Limited - Introduction \| PentaxForums.com Reviews) shows the 40XS spanks it in terms of sharpness for not much more money, and I do adore sharpness above all. But I'm not sure I can handle a lens that small (hand problems) and I want something a little wider. The 31Ltd is probably the one I really want if I go prime, but the cash flow isn't there. So maybe it's time to put this on the back burner for a while. All I really want is a 15-200mm/2.4 WR super light and small zoom that renders like my DFA100 Macro. That's not too much to ask, is it?

12-03-2014, 08:21 AM	#23
loco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,846	I just checked the Sharpness section of that review and didn't come away with the impression the DA 40xs "spanked" the DA 35 at all. I didn't read the entire review, so maybe more was said elsewhere. Surely, if they are close and you can get the little bitty lens cheaper, it's worth considering.

12-03-2014, 08:23 AM	#24
NicoleC Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Madison, AL Posts: 448 Original Poster	Originally posted by loco I just checked the Sharpness section of that review and didn't come away with the impression the DA 40xs "spanked" the DA 35 at all. I didn't read the entire review, so maybe more was said elsewhere. Surely, if they are close and you can get the little bitty lens cheaper, it's worth considering. I was using the pixel peeping windows in the review. IMO, the 40XS was much sharper.

12-03-2014, 08:37 AM	#25
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,894	Get the DA 35mm limited - it will blow your kit lens (and the DAL 35/2.4) out of the water as far as IQ is concerned.

12-03-2014, 08:47 AM	#27
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by NicoleC Analysis paralysis has started to set in, but it does sound like the DA 35 is not for me. This review (Review: Pentax DA 35mm F2.4 vs 40mm XS vs 40mm Limited - Introduction \| PentaxForums.com Reviews) shows the 40XS spanks it in terms of sharpness for not much more money, and I do adore sharpness above all. Well, according to tests, the DA 35 2.4 hangs in there with the DA 40 Limited in terms of sharpness... and actually beats it in the center, while slightly losing in the corners... it's contrast and microcontrast that the Limited would offer in spades over the DA 35. Now the 35 Limited will spank the plastic 35 in every area except bokeh. It is after all a macro lens... Originally posted by NicoleC I was using the pixel peeping windows in the review. IMO, the 40XS was much sharper. You were probably seeing contrast and microcontrast, which can make a lens look much sharper, but it's not sharpness per se. Either way, yes the DA 40 has superior IQ. But it's also longer than I would like for a "normal" lens. If you can live with that, it's a great option... Quote: But I'm not sure I can handle a lens that small (hand problems) and I want something a little wider. The 31Ltd is probably the one I really want if I go prime, but the cash flow isn't there. So maybe it's time to put this on the back burner for a while. As an alternative, look into the new Sigma Art 30mm 1.4. Some have reported AF issues with it but depending on what you do, you might not come across that issue. If you do you can always return it... Originally posted by luftfluss Concerning resolution, the DA 35/2.4 plays in the big leagues of the DA Ltd line. The DA35/2.4 is not as contrasty as the Ltd lenses. The bokeh is pretty nice - I found it to be smoother than the smc DA 35/2.8 Macro I briefly owned, as well as the 40 XS; both of those lenses are more contrasty and have more microcontrast than the DA 35/2.4, so I wonder if there is something inherent in those properties that causes the bokeh to be a bit rougher. Macro lenses usually don't have creamy bokeh because they go for all-out sharpness across the range. That might be why the Limited's bokeh isn't as good. But if you watch what you put in the background, I think it could still be perfectly useful. The rendering of the 35 Limited just might forgive all other sins it might have Seriously, if the OP is looking for the best IQ in the 30-40mm range, other than the 31 Limited and the Sigma 35 1.4 Art which are probably out of the price range, the DA 35 Limited is the one to have. Or just save for that 31 which she will probably want at some point anyway...

12-03-2014, 09:32 AM	#28
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by NicoleC Analysis paralysis has started to set in, but it does sound like the DA 35 is not for me. This review (Review: Pentax DA 35mm F2.4 vs 40mm XS vs 40mm Limited - Introduction \| PentaxForums.com Reviews) shows the 40XS spanks it in terms of sharpness for not much more money, and I do adore sharpness above all. But I'm not sure I can handle a lens that small (hand problems) and I want something a little wider. The 31Ltd is probably the one I really want if I go prime, but the cash flow isn't there. So maybe it's time to put this on the back burner for a while. All I really want is a 15-200mm/2.4 WR super light and small zoom that renders like my DFA100 Macro. That's not too much to ask, is it? Just not my experience. The 40Ltd is better but it certainly isn't dramatically better. I agree that 40 is getting a bit long for walk around on our cropped cameras. I wish they would redo a really nice 28. I bet that they see the 31 as their answer to the 28 but its just way too expensive and a nice $400ish 28 would be a great addition IMHO.

12-03-2014, 09:57 AM	#29
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by Docrwm Just not my experience. The 40Ltd is better but it certainly isn't dramatically better. I agree that 40 is getting a bit long for walk around on our cropped cameras. I wish they would redo a really nice 28. I bet that they see the 31 as their answer to the 28 but its just way too expensive and a nice $400ish 28 would be a great addition IMHO. +1. Also a plastic wide angle in the 19-21 range. Maybe the 21XS? And, good to see you back, Doc I remember your advice was one of the things that led me to get the DA 35 2.4 to use for taking pics of my kids. It's worked out great. Perfect FL, and very good inside when the light is low.

12-03-2014, 10:06 AM	#30
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by ChristianRock +1. Also a plastic wide angle in the 19-21 range. Maybe the 21XS? And, good to see you back, Doc I remember your advice was one of the things that led me to get the DA 35 2.4 to use for taking pics of my kids. It's worked out great. Perfect FL, and very good inside when the light is low. Thanks. Glad my thoughts were useful and proved to be helpful. A 21XS would be way cool.