[Na Horuk]

I am always surprised some people have such negative opinions on the DA 35mm f2.4. There are many who think its a great lens.
Anyway, there is also the FA 35mm which can sometimes be found for a good price. Its basically the same as DA 35mm, just older lens coatings, slightly bigger aperture, and different barrel.

[Des]

I am always surprised some people have such negative opinions on the DA 35mm f2.4. There are many who think its a great lens.

So true. For the price, the edge-to-edge sharpness (from near wide open) is amazing, and it is quite resistant to flare and CA (which is just as well since it doesn't come with a hood). And it's light weight and compact too. The plastic construction and plastic mount feel cheap, but it's still quite durable.

[ChristianRock]

I had DA35 f/2.4 before I aquired the 35macro. Basically, the DA35 f/2.4 is already a very good lens but the DA35 ltd is simply better. And as a side note between f/2.4 and f/2.8 there half a stop, you would need f/2 vs f/2.8 for a full stop. In term of low light capabilities and subject isolation, they are very similar.

The thing to understand, is you dont just measure a lens by it's max apperture but by the picture it produce in general. This include color rendering, flare resistance, bokeh quality, contrast, micro constrast. All kind of stuff that actually make or break a picture much more than small resolution difference that only show in 100% crops. What really matter is that if I take a given picture with the lens is if it will manage to make the picture pleasing to the eyes or not. The ltd are very good at that. The FA ltd are unique on that aspect. They make the subject pop like no other.

And well even if only sharpness was important, the DA35 f/2.8 limited is much sharper that the DA35 f/2.4. The f/2.4 version need f/8 to match on the center the sharpness that the ltd has wide open at f/2.8 and the border sharpness of the plastic fantastic 35 f/2.4 never match the border sharpness that the limited has at f/4 or f/5.6... If you add to that that the limited has macro and a much better build quality that would last much longer, the price difference is not that bad.

DA35 f/2.4:


DA35 ltd:


Oh the DA35 f/2.4 is really a great/cheap lens, likely one of the best bang for the buck of all primes but it isn't the best in town...

If you want truely marvelous, oustanding lens with rendering like no other, then that's the FA31 f/1.8. Maybe it is far too expensive when looking at the specs on paper, but if you care on the actual picture it produce, there very few lenses approach it. One of the best lenses of all time, all brands and system put together.

You know ephotozine completely butchered that DA 35 2.4 test, right? Look at the graph. They misfocused the center.

[Jonathan Mac]

In terms of sharpness, from my own observations I'd say the 2.4 is as sharp at 3.5 or 4 as the 2.8 is wide open. That's not too bad and I'd certainly consider the 2.4 useable wide open.

[Rondec]

The biggest things you get with the DA 35 macro over the DA 35 f2.4 are the significantly better build (metal versus plastic) and the macro capability. Being a macro lens usually brings certain things to the table. Usually slower auto focus due to a longer focus throw, the ability to focus really close to things, and of course, significantly less field curvature. This last item can really add to the perception of sharpness as you don't have to deal with the center of your image being sharp and the edges being out of focus nearly as much.

[Jonathan Mac]

On the K200D I occasionally had to deal with the 35 limited missing focus and racking through the whole focus range. On the K3 that's extremely rare and it focuses very quickly and accurately (so does the 355/2.4 of course).

[Nicolas06]

You know ephotozine completely butchered that DA 35 2.4 test, right? Look at the graph. They misfocused the center.

From experience on both lenses DA35 f/2.4 and HD DA35 f/2.8 limited macro, the DA35 f/2.4 is sharp even at f/2.4 and give great photos, still:
- It not as sharp in practice as the DA35 macro
- It good but not great for flare resistance. The HD version of the macro is truely great. I don't know the SMC.
- It can have outlining on the out of focus specular highlight that are also not rounded
- it doesn't support macro, of course.
- it doesn't come with a hood, and if you add one it will not be a colapsible one like the limited.
- the bokeh of the plastic wonder is more like the one of the FA35 f/2 (but with DA colors still), while the one of the limited is more like the DA20-40. On this aspect, I don't think this is necessarily a good thing for the limited.

The DA35 is a great lens overall but the ltd is a superior proprosition.

I never experienced focussing issues with the limited but I only had it with the K3.

[ChristianRock]

From experience on both lenses DA35 f/2.4 and HD DA35 f/2.8 limited macro, the DA35 f/2.4 is sharp even at f/2.4 and give great photos, still:
- It not as sharp in practice as the DA35 macro
- It good but not great for flare resistance. The HD version of the macro is truely great. I don't know the SMC.
- It can have outlining on the out of focus specular highlight that are also not rounded
- it doesn't support macro, of course.
- it doesn't come with a hood, and if you add one it will not be a colapsible one like the limited.
- the bokeh of the plastic wonder is more like the one of the FA35 f/2 (but with DA colors still), while the one of the limited is more like the DA20-40. On this aspect, I don't think this is necessarily a good thing for the limited.

The DA35 is a great lens overall but the ltd is a superior proprosition.

I never experienced focussing issues with the limited but I only had it with the K3.

The DA35 Limited should be better - it costs 4x as much!!! (420 vs 107 dollars right now)

But that wasn't the point, the point was that the linked tests were completely flawed. Or do you not acknowledge that?

[Nicolas06]

The DA35 Limited should be better - it costs 4x as much!!! (420 vs 107 dollars right now)

But that wasn't the point, the point was that the linked tests were completely flawed. Or do you not acknowledge that?

Nono, the initial point of the OP was to understand why the DA35 f/2.8 is more expensive, not if some test flawed or not.. I agree theses review sites are not the best, but we have unfortunately no better.

Other than that I can confirm my sample of DA35 f/2.4 is not as good (flare resistance, sharpness, constrast in contra light; bokeh highlights) as my sample of DA35 f/2.8 and the features (macro, colapsible hood, rounded blades, quickshift) as also rather different. That's why to me it is 4 time expensive. And the build quality, of course.

As if it worth the money that another question for 230€, one can get a 17-50 f/2.8 from tamron and the sigma for 350€that are as sharp starting f/4. That's maybe 2-3 time more expensive than the plastic wonder, but you get a whole range of focal length. if you count you'll need to complement your prime with a zoom anyway or 1-2 other prime to get some framing variety, the DA35 is not that cheap neither. You miss a 100€/$ DA18 or something to match but that doesn't exist.

The question always what you are after and why you choose a ford, an audi or a ferari. All are able to get you from one place to another.

[Des]

Lenstip is hard to please but in reviewing the DA 35 f2.4 they didn't really have anything bad to say about the resolution, control of coma and astigmatism, susceptiblilty to ghosting or flare, or autofocus performance.
Pentax smc DA 35 mm f/2.4 AL review - Introduction - LensTip.com

Lenstip's criticisms were about the price, build (particularly plastic construction), relative slowness, noisy AF, vignetting and lack of a hood. As for these criticisisms:
- price is no longer relevant as it has fallen so much
- f1.8 would have been nice, but as the Lenstip test shows edge resolution is good and centre resolution very good at f2.4, so it is very usable from wide open. A wider aperture would probably also have made it bigger.
- plastic construction, plastic mount, noisy AF(and lack of QS) and generally cheap feel are the trade-off for cheap price and low weight
- vignetting was only an issue wide open, and even then it wasn't terrible.
- lack of a hood (you need a screw-in one) is disappointing but at least flare control is good.
I would add that taking 49mm filters is a bonus.

Photozone also rated the optical quality of the lens highly: Pentax SMC DA 35mm f/2.4 AL - Review / Lens Test

Nicholas rightly pointed out that the bokeh highlights are not round (straight blades), and there can be fringing. The same is true of quite a lot of good lenses. Photozone observed that while the foreground bokeh is "a little nervous" the background blur is smooth, and that although bokeh fringing can also be an issue at f2.4 (a characteristic "typical for fast lenses"), it was largely gone by f4.

For many users the plastic fantastics (DA 35 and 50) provide a bargain, lightweight entry to the world of prime lenses. They are excellent examples, and outstanding value for money - which surely is as much a part of the Pentax story as are the Limited and star lenses.

Also if 50/1.8 can be sold for close to $90, it should be possible to make other focal lenses at similar cost and fstops < 2.0.

Personally I would like to see more of the plastic fantastics. I suspect that Pentax haven't done so because outside the "normal" range (say 28-50mm) the optics get more difficult (even if the maximum aperture is kept within modest bounds) - particularly at wider focal lengths.

[Nicolas06]

- lack of a hood (you need a screw-in one) is disappointing but at least flare control is good.

I was convinced when I brought it 2-3 years agos by the 35 f/2.4. I brought it in compliment of a 17-70 f/4 at the time. The idea was the f/2.4 was supposed to provide more light and more flare resistance than the zoom on critical occasions. Now I changed a bit my kit with mostly primes and more high end proposition.

From experience:
- f/2.4 helped compared to f/4 that's for sure and I got some interresting night shoots with it.
- the rendering overall is great with lot of clarity.
- the flare resistance while better than the 17-70 is not at the level I wanted. When you want a critical shoot in difficult condition, either the lens does it or it doesn't. In my case it didn't. This is no HD DA15 or HD DA35 ltd
- the DA35 f/2.4 is more than sharp enough at f/2.4, even if you keep the apperture large for a landscape it will be ok, but it doesn't improve much from it in my experience.
- the hood issue is annoying as I like small lenses... You don't get small, great looking hood when you need to buy one separately.

I decided to change the 35 after something like 2 years for something better. I was thinking FA43, FA31 or DA35 ltd. I hesitated for quite a long time, finally brought the HD DA35 ltd:
- It is really sharper, in particular on borders.
- Even more constrasty, more vivid colors.
- Rounded blades
- macro/proxy support with great bokeh
- Colapsible hood.

Really this is a matter of budget/performance; The DA35 is already great and really, it is difficult to find any lens struggle prime or zoom at 35mm anyway. There no bad lens here. But if you want lenses that do more, one of the high end version in the range (so 31, 35 ltd, 43...) have all their strength and interrest.



A few DA35 f/2.4 shoots I got:

DA35 plastic wonder, 1/500s, f/11, iso 80, reframed



DA35 plastic wonder, 1/4000, f/3.2 (an error obviously !), iso 100



DA35 plastic wonder, 1/50, f/2.4, iso 1250






And a few HD DA35 ltds shoots:

HD DA35 ltd: f/5.6 1/800s, iso 100



HD DA35 ltd: f/2.8 1/3200, iso 100



HD DA35 ltd: f/8 1/160, iso 100



HD DA35 ltd: f/9 1/400, iso 200

[Des]

Really this is a matter of budget/performance; The DA35 is already great and really, it is difficult to find any lens struggle prime or zoom at 35mm anyway. There no bad lens here. But if you want lenses that do more, one of the high end version in the range (so 31, 35 ltd, 43...) have all their strength and interrest.

I agree with this. I don't use my DA 35 f2.4 so much since I got the FA 43 Ltd. The 43 is something special, but more quirky; for example, I would use the DA 35 in preference for a conventional landscape-type shot (e.g. Nicholas's shot of ?Mont St-Michel?), because I can be confident it will produce a good shot.

My point - and I think we agree on this - is that for users on a tight budget (and that is many Pentax users), the DA 35 f2.4 can do all you need and more. Look at Nicholas's examples, and the plastic fantastic lens thread - most of us would be more than happy with shots like those, without needing to pay 4x as much.

[Nicolas06]

I would use the DA 35 in preference for a conventional landscape-type shot (e.g. Nicholas's shot of ?Mont St-Michel?), because I can be confident it will produce a good shot.

Indeed Mont St Michel ! That why i choosed the 35ltd in the range, my feeling was that for that focal length I was more interrested in landscapes than subject isolation (portraits etc). I use the FA77 for that. FA43 is maybe also a bit tight for my liking and the FA31 was a tad bigger and out of reach price wise, in particular in europe.

[abhaskare]

To simulate a 50/1.8 FF picture on an APS-C, we will need a 35/1.4 as the aperture also gets reduced by 1.5.
Thus the 35/2.4 on apsc behaves like a 50/3.6 on FF which is almost like a zoom. One prime reason why I am also looking to switch to FF.

[Nicolas06]

To simulate a 50/1.8 FF picture on an APS-C, we will need a 35/1.4 as the aperture also gets reduced by 1.5.
Thus the 35/2.4 on apsc behaves like a 50/3.6 on FF which is almost like a zoom. One prime reason why I am also looking to switch to FF.

If large apperture your priority and you want 50mm FF equivalent on your APSC, get a sigma 30mm f/1.4, this would do the trick just fine

Personnally through I'am not that interrested, there no many cases where I would put it to great work... If that was a priority I would'nt decided for the DA35 f/2.8... For large apperture related work, I have the FA77 and it does the job just fine, I don't need wider apperture and know a zoom wouldn't match what I get with it anyway in term of pop and constrast and pleasing images. It also allow me to keep a small set... a corresponding 135mm f/2.8 on an FF would be already much bigger and no better.

Of course that depend enterely of you need and priorities but there the laws of dinimushing return. Me with my DA35 ltd or you with your FF, me with ultimate flare resistance and macro and high constrast picture, you with shallow deph of field from the FF, we only get marginally better shoots than what a guy with a K30 and an a DA35 f/2.4 is going to get. But we are likely to spend 4X-8X more to get it.