[ScooterMaxi Jim]

My recent $100 purchases (+/- $15) have been the FA 28-70 f/4 (in excellent condition), the DA 50 f/1.8, and the DA 40xs.

The 28-70 renders a ton nicer than any 18-55 even if it might be a tad less sharp. The extra light gained on the long end is very nice, and the lens is very small for a constant aperture zoom. Crappy build (kit FA zoom), but the lens impresses me increasingly the more I use it. Nice colors.

The DA 50 has a nice build (don't care that the mount is plastic), and the center sharpness is superb. I'm yet to take a photo I like with it. It just looks false despite the sharpness. No 3D sense at all. Screams digital output. I want a look that grabs, and this looks very Canon to me (I have shot a lot of Canon prime in the past).

The DA 40xs hasn't gotten a good workout yet, but I've taken 1/10th as many shots with it compared to the DA 50 - and have several lovely renderings already not found with the DA 50. Yes, 3D much like the FA 35 (never to be confused with the much-inferior DA 35). Build feels much like the 21 Ltd. frankly, but the lens is almost too small. The bokeh is absolutely great, and border sharpness is nearly the same as center (good, but not quite excellent). I haven't found the fringing problem found in some reports, but I haven't shot extensively in high-contrast situations.

Of these three the ranking is pretty clear for my needs: 1) DA 40, 2) FA 28-70, 3) DA 50. None of these are bad lenses, but the DA 50 isn't the best of the 50mm lenses available for around $100 unless you absolutely need AF.

---

Last edited by ScooterMaxi Jim; 12-03-2015 at 08:45 PM.

[ChristianRock]

FA 35 (never to be confused with the much-inferior DA 35).

Have you had both?

[UncleVanya]

Have you had both?

ScooterMaxi will likely answer that question for you later, but in the meantime... I have had both the FA 35 and DA 35. I don't see a huge benefit to the FA 35, it is nicely made and has a bayonet hood but it flares very easily and sometimes requires an exposure adjustment on my K3 where my DA 35 never did either on my K50. I sold the DA 35 before I got to do a head to head comparison. However I did a month with the DA 35 and I'm doing a month with the FA 35 now. I don't find the FA 35 better or worse - just different.

[ChristianRock]

ScooterMaxi will likely answer that question for you later, but in the meantime... I have had both the FA 35 and DA 35. I don't see a huge benefit to the FA 35, it is nicely made and has a bayonet hood but it flares very easily and sometimes requires an exposure adjustment on my K3 where my DA 35 never did either on my K50. I sold the DA 35 before I got to do a head to head comparison. However I did a month with the DA 35 and I'm doing a month with the FA 35 now. I don't find the FA 35 better or worse - just different.

Yeah I'm asking because they have exactly the same optical formula (including the aspherical element) but the DA is limited to f/2.4 (like they used to have the 55/1.8 and a cheaper version 55/2 that was the same lens, just limited). The DA has newer coatings. So I was curious as to what could be so different between the two other than the aperture.
From the pictures I've seen the pictures of the FA are very similar to the ones I get from my DA.

I'm pretty happy with the DA and I know the DA Limited is a bit better. So I was wondering if I should consider the FA in the future.

Either that or the 30 1.4 Art from Sigma some day... but that's not going to happen anytime soon. I think the DA 35 2.4 is my normal for now.

[UncleVanya]

I have the FA 31 Limited and the FA 35 right now. I suspect the FA 35 will be sold. The extra f/stop bit is supposedly because they masked off the DA 35 a bit - possibly to improve some internal sensor reflection issues. Honestly I haven't seen anything that leads me to think that's accurate but...? The FA 35 f/2 setting is nice to have vs. 2.4 psychologically at least.

[ChristianRock]

I have the FA 31 Limited and the FA 35 right now. I suspect the FA 35 will be sold. The extra f/stop bit is supposedly because they masked off the DA 35 a bit - possibly to improve some internal sensor reflection issues. Honestly I haven't seen anything that leads me to think that's accurate but...? The FA 35 f/2 setting is nice to have vs. 2.4 psychologically at least.

I agree... but as it stands now, the FA 35/2 is about 3x the price of the DA... so I'll stay with the DA for now I think, unless the difference really is as huge as ScooterMaxi Jim says it is... I know sharpness wise they're pretty similar - both peaking at f4.

[UncleVanya]

I agree... but as it stands now, the FA 35/2 is about 3x the price of the DA... so I'll stay with the DA for now I think, unless the difference really is as huge as ScooterMaxi Jim says it is...

I can't say that I agree with him. However I will echo his love of the DA 40. I got rid of my DA 35 f/2.4 before acquiring the FA 31 - because I felt the DA 35 was less lovely than the DA 40. Mine is the SMC DA 40 Limited and I think his is the SMC DA 40 xs but both are stellar lenses.

[stevebrot]

Are the vintage cameras yours?

I am sort of embarrassed to say so, but yes they are.


Steve

[stevebrot]

it is nicely made and has a bayonet hood but it flares very easily and sometimes requires an exposure adjustment on my K3

I am surprised to read this. I have shot extensively* with the FA 35/2 over the last seven years and have never had a problem with flare or exposure. My only performance complaint is the somewhat busy bokeh that sometimes appears.


Steve

* It was the lens usually attached to my K10D and I have taken literally thousands of shots with it.

[stevebrot]

I'm pretty happy with the DA and I know the DA Limited is a bit better. So I was wondering if I should consider the FA in the future.

I wouldn't unless you are wanting to shoot it on your film cameras and need the aperture ring. The current price point for the FA 35/2 is a little on the high side, IMHO. At some point, I would be interested in comparing the two side-by-side on both FF and APS-C. While the optical formulas are similar I remain skeptical.


Steve

[osv]

I have the FA 31 Limited and the FA 35 right now. I suspect the FA 35 will be sold. The extra f/stop bit is supposedly because they masked off the DA 35 a bit - possibly to improve some internal sensor reflection issues. Honestly I haven't seen anything that leads me to think that's accurate but...? The FA 35 f/2 setting is nice to have vs. 2.4 psychologically at least.

the da35 f/2.4 appears to have some notable field curvature issues on the sides, it's clearly visible even with a crop sensor camera, view the dropbox link i posted at 100%: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/297506-f-28...5-2-4-a-3.html

compare that to the landscape photo, from the pentax-a 35/2.8 on the ff a7, last post in the thread... the old pentax lens blows the da35 f/2.4 away, and so does the fa35.

i've never seen a sensor reflection from any fa35 pic that i've shot, even on the a7r.

[Des]

No mention of Helios? (Never used one, just going on what I read.)

[KC0PET]

I am sort of embarrassed to say so, but yes they are.

Steve

No reason to be embarrassed. I have contemplated building a collection of vintage SLRs myself, still love those all metal mechanical beauties from the '60s and '70s. I plan to hang on to my best OM-1 body and I can see having some others, aka Pentax Spotmatic, Canon FTb, Minolta SRT101, Nikon FM and the like.

No mention of Helios? (Never used one, just going on what I read.)

stevebrot posted a link to some nice Helios photos above. Definitely something to consider.

[stevebrot]

I plan to hang on to my best OM-1 body and I can see having some others, aka Pentax Spotmatic, Canon FTb, Minolta SRT101, Nikon FM and the like.

Want an OM-1
Have two Spotmatic
Would consider Canon FTb
Have Minolta SRT 101 and 102
Want Nikon FM and/or FE2


There is no end to it.


Steve

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I admit that I do not own the DA 35, but I have always been intrigued with the claim that the lenses share the same optical design. We are comparing FF to crop, a half stop light gathering difference, and clearly different optical coatings. So, they are a far cry from the "same optical design" in execution. I am sure that - based on the images I've seen - the DA 35 in the center is both sharper and has considerably higher contrast, and has a modern high saturation profile. Reviews confirm a slightly higher center resolution. I suspect it has better flare resistance. However, the FA clearly has far less light fall off and is sharper in the corners. The tests tend to confirm that. In terms of CA, the DA has a good reputation - and the FA is excellent.

It has been said that the DA 35 and DA 50 tend to render very similarly, and in my book that isn't particularly favorable. Many of the older lenses seem to render to OOF highlights more smoothly - and that is what I notice as the big difference between the two 35s based on the images. It certainly can be seen in the difference I find between my MF 50/1.4 and the DA 50/1.8.