[ogl]

Dude, you're completely nuts. There is no way.

Anyone reading should take whatever he's saying with a huge grain of salt.

Sharper than the 31 or 43? Laughable at best.

No problem. It's my own experience confirmed by Photozone's tests

Try to refute




DA35 has better resolution and very high contrast. The sharpness is the combination of resolution and contrast.

FA35/2 is not worse than FA31/1.8 in terms of resolution too.

FA Limited are not only resolution and sharpness. It's bokeh, nature, very special work in different conditions, mechanical quality of lens, lens speed and compactness combination, special grade of glass.

There are lenses of various brands which sharper than FA Limited. But it means nothing.

---

Last edited by ogl; 06-13-2015 at 08:02 AM.

[UncleVanya]

There are two different DA 35's it gets very confusing when people post DA 35 without clarification. The graphic above says f/2.5 which isn't an option that I am aware of. I assume it is referring to the DA 35 f/2.4?

[ogl]

It's just misprint
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/598-pentax_35_24

[savoche]

I think my DA35/2.4 is "better" than my FA28 in technical image quality, but I would pick the 28 if I had to choose. I suppose the focal length suits me better, but I also like the look of the images better - a better fit with the FA43.

As for sharpness I can well believe the 35 to be one of the sharpest out there. I haven't made any attempts at really comparing it to the 31 or 43, but it's plenty sharp and contrasty wide open for my use. The FAs I like to stop down a bit.

[UncleVanya]

It's just misprint
Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.4 AL - Review / Lens Test

I was thinking it was but I wanted to be sure. I have that lens and I like it a lot. I am surprised it outperformed the 31 on overall sharpness but as you pointed out the characteristics of a lens are not just based on sharpness. One more thing to recall is that Photozone (like most sites) does not get a randomized group of lenses - they get a single copy and unless something is significantly wrong they don't ever validate the measurements are consistent from lens to lens.

[pathdoc]

One more thing to recall is that Photozone (like most sites) does not get a randomized group of lenses - they get a single copy

While I agree this has its downside for systematic, reproducible testing, the upside is that it simulates what the customer gets - one random lens out of the whole population.

[audiobomber]

I owned an F 28mm f2.8 and currently own an FA 28mm and FA 35mm. I prefer the FA 28mm over the F 28 due to lower CA. Other differences didn't matter to me. I don't consider either 28mm to be competitive with the FA 35mm as a general purpose lens, because the 28mm's are not sufficiently sharp at f2.8, whereas the FA 35 is sharp enough at f2.0.

My conclusions: If you're a landscape shooter, get the FA 28mm for it's FOV. low CA and lovely colours. If you want a sharp normal for general use, get the FA 35mm or DA 35mm f2.4. I strongly recommend the older FA for the wider aperture.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 06-16-2015 at 07:27 AM.

[UncleVanya]

While I agree this has its downside for systematic, reproducible testing, the upside is that it simulates what the customer gets - one random lens out of the whole population.

That's really misleading if the population is 99 perfect lenses and one dog. The point I'm making is that the luck of the draw shouldn't be used to over analyze the performance of lenses. This is particularly true when people compare lenses and use specific metrics to make their point. Unless multiple lenses have been tested these results are highly dubious. As an example look how the SMC DA 40 Limited did on Pentax Forums own testing vs. the real world results others have generated and look how the Photozone results differ from the Pentax Forums results. If you took these two sets of results and compared them and they were labeled as different lenses you would think one blew the other away - but they are the same lens design - just a different copy. Personally I rely much more on the user reviews since both good and bad copies make their way out there and you can see by consensus what the overall trends are and the expected performance.

[osv]

F28 is not bad, but DA35 is VERY sharp. It's sharper than FA31 and FA43, for example.

not true, your photozone post proves that the fa31 is sharper across most of the frame, which is what really matters in a lens.

the da35 p.q. falls off from the center because of what appears to be field curvature, see the lakehouse shot in the heie review: Pentax-DA 35mm F2.4 AL Review - Sample Photos | PentaxForums.com Reviews

when i see blurry sides like that, at f/8, in a crop sensor landscape shot, it's a bad sign for ff use.

heie should have made that shot at f/10 as well, to see if it cleaned up any on the sides.

point is, notice how your photozone numbers directly translated into the weak performance seen in the heie lake shot.

most people are like you and heie, they only see sharpness in the center, but lenses are much more complicated than that.

[Na Horuk]

I don't think you can actually compare lens tests unless the lenses were tested on the same camera. This is why you can't compare MTF charts for lenses for different systems, like Nikon vs. Canon vs. Pentax.

[ChristianRock]

not true, your photozone post proves that the fa31 is sharper across most of the frame, which is what really matters in a lens.

the da35 p.q. falls off from the center because of what appears to be field curvature, see the lakehouse shot in the heie review: Pentax-DA 35mm F2.4 AL Review - Sample Photos | PentaxForums.com Reviews

when i see blurry sides like that, at f/8, in a crop sensor landscape shot, it's a bad sign for ff use.

heie should have made that shot at f/10 as well, to see if it cleaned up any on the sides.

point is, notice how your photozone numbers directly translated into the weak performance seen in the heie lake shot.

most people are like you and heie, they only see sharpness in the center, but lenses are much more complicated than that.

What? The DA 35 2.4 has blurry corners? osv pls.



Photozone's review isn't quite as good but even in it, the corners are never less than "very good".

I question your test made in an APS-C Sony via an adapter instead of a real Pentax camera. And I question that lake picture from Alex Heie having blurry corners. It doesn't... the extreme corners only have water or skies anyway, so how do you figure?

[osv]

What? The DA 35 2.4 has blurry corners? osv pls.

i never used the word "corners" anywhere in my post.

stop misrepresenting what people say.

Photozone's review isn't quite as good but even in it, the corners are never less than "very good".

"very good" is a subjective term, not a measurement.

I question your test made in an APS-C Sony via an adapter instead of a real Pentax camera.

i never claimed to have put either of those lenses on my camera

so what "test" are you referring to?

And I question that lake picture from Alex Heie having blurry corners. It doesn't... the extreme corners only have water or skies anyway, so how do you figure?

again... i never used the word "corners" anywhere in my post.

the fact that you can't see the problem in that lake shot proves my point.

---------- Post added 06-16-15 at 06:32 PM ----------

I don't think you can actually compare lens tests unless the lenses were tested on the same camera. This is why you can't compare MTF charts for lenses for different systems, like Nikon vs. Canon vs. Pentax.

that's exactly right, the best you can hope for with the same lens on different bodies is to match the resolution trends.

now think about trends, and look at the graphic that christianrock posted... he didn't tell us where he got it, but it has major problems, that prove that it's not a valid test of the da35.

who out here can tell us what is wrong there?

[ChristianRock]

Corners, edges... There's no problem either way. The corners are very good so you know the edges are too.

And I thought people recognized ephotozine's graphics by now, so sorry if it wasn't clear that that was the source.

I have yet to see ONE test that proves the lens has blurry sides as you claim. Show us just one.

[osv]

Corners, edges... There's no problem either way. The corners are very good so you know the edges are too.

the problem is that you were completely wrong, multiple times, and you refuse to admit it.

And I thought people recognized ephotozine's graphics by now, so sorry if it wasn't clear that that was the source.

so far you've totally misrepresented what i posted, and you've posted a graphic with no link to any source.

I have yet to see ONE test that proves the lens has blurry sides as you claim. Show us just one.

and you don't have a clue what is wrong with the "test" that you posted.

hilarious!

[wkraus]

the problem is that you were completely wrong, multiple times, and you refuse to admit it.

Come on boys, play nice!

and you don't have a clue what is wrong with the "test" that you posted.

A result that we know can't be correct--out-of-focus test shots? That would confirm your suspected field curvature.