[Dewman]

I love my DA 50mm f:1.8, but there are times I'd really like to have a lens that's a little closer to a "true" 50mm. I've read the reviews of the DA 35mm f:2.4.... and I guess I could just be satisfied with the opinions there, but I'd rather hear some of your thoughts of the little 35.


Can I expect the vibrant, bright color rendition and sharpness I get from my DA 50mm f:1.8 ? If the answer is "yes," then that satisfies it. I realize that there are two other DA 35mm lenses to chose from, but they're not within my budget constraints.


Thanks for any personal accounts of your experience with this lens.

[ChristianRock]

I dont know if I just have a good copy but mine is every bit as good as my F 50 1.7. Or any other 50 I´ve ever had.
For 107 dollars, how can you go wrong?

[kp0c]

Do it, seriously, just do it.

[K57XR]

I had both lens at one point. Their color rendition (to my eyes) are slightly different with the 35 being cooler. Not a bad thing, just different. For sharpness I would say yes, these two plastic fantastics are neck-and-neck with each other. If it matters, the focus ring of the 35 is not as buttery as the 50.

[Dewman]

I dont know if I just have a good copy but mine is every bit as good as my F 50 1.7. Or any other 50 I´ve ever had.
For 107 dollars, how can you go wrong?

I have several different 50mm lenses (although not the F-50 you spoke of), but none of them equal the color rendition and brilliance of my DA 50mm f:1.8. The sharpness.... certainly, but the color rendition of MY copy is the most mind-blowing lens I own, bar NONE! Although, I once owned an A-50mm that was pretty close.


I realize the 35mm doesn't have the rounded aperture leaves of the 50mm, and one less, so the bokeh would "suffer" accordingly. But, other than that, the internals seem to be almost identical in construction..... same coating, same 6 elements in 5 groups, etc.


But, like you said, for $107, how can you go wrong.

[RGlasel]

Thanks for any personal accounts of your experience with this lens.

To be honest, I hardly use the lens, even though I've had it for a couple of years. As long as I have enough light to use the 18-135, I'll use it instead of the DA 35 AL. Nothing wrong with the DA 35 and the price is certainly right, but other than an extra stop and a half of light, no compelling reason to put it on my camera.

[Dewman]

To be honest, I hardly use the lens, even though I've had it for a couple of years. As long as I have enough light to use the 18-135, I'll use it instead of the DA 35 AL. Nothing wrong with the DA 35 and the price is certainly right, but other than an extra stop and a half of light, no compelling reason to put it on my camera.

Those two shots are certainly sharp! Were they taken with the DA 35mm?
Although the F-4 Phantom was something of a lead sled, it surely is mean looking, isn't it!

[redrockcoulee]

I dont know if I just have a good copy but mine is every bit as good as my F 50 1.7. Or any other 50 I´ve ever had.
For 107 dollars, how can you go wrong?

I have the same two lenses and totally agree with uou.

[RGlasel]

Were they taken with the DA 35mm?

They were, the first one at f6.3, 1/40 sec and ISO 1600, the second at f5.6, 1/40 and ISO 5000.

[luftfluss]

I don't know if Pentax makes a lens that has a higher center resolution than the 35/2.4.

I would still happily own mine, but my brother utterly surprised me with a SMC DA 35 Macro as a Christmas present. It's a lens that I wanted a couple years ago, but got back-burnered by the 35/2.4, it's that good... and a tremendous bargain at $107.

[Yos]

Had both DA50mm and DA35mm and they are both good lenses. But in the end I sold them since I didn't use them enough. (Got the FA50mm Macro and Fujinon XF 35mm)
But you can't beat the price and quality for the DA 50 and 35mm so if you have the extra cash I would go for it.
I do envy luftfluss who got the DA 35mm macro as a Christmas gift, always wanted to try out that lens

[Reed]

I have both the lenses And both needed a slight adjustment on both my k-30 and k-s2 for the widest apreture, frontfocusing quite a bit, smaller adjust on the newer body. Both are quite nice around full open,50 is little dreamy, in terms of IQ in whole apreture range, in my opinion 35 is the winner , they get head to head around F4. And well 35 is more all-around type of lens for aps-c camera. I find 35' a little cooler in color rendition still best value.

[RAART]

I have both lenses and in my opinion they have slightly different color rendering. DA50 has much better bokeh than DA35 which sometimes tends to be more or less nervous.
IMHO DA50 is better than DA35 but just for a bit. Sharpness on both lenses is good to excellent. Both copies I own having buttery manual focus and they do not need any adjustment on my K-3 but I went through few copies of the DA35 at local retailer store and they were not happy that I demanded to open few boxes but as I made commitment to buy they agreed that I can test the lenses on my body and choose one I like. Some copies were not as sharp and probably needed adjustment as they were also plagued with some CA (visible green fringing at 100%).

That's from me on those two lenses... :-)

[Hattifnatt]

I have sold my DA 35mm f2.4 because I also own the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art. Few lenses can compete with that. Still, I am sorry for selling that little wonder of a lens. I have never seen a lens with better quality/price ratio.

Few of my favorite shots with the plastic fantastic, some of them wide open:











All my pics with the plastic fantastic are here. Review by Heie is here.

[clackers]

The plastic fantastics are real bonuses of the Pentax system. Their Canikon equivalents lack stabilisation.