[W.j.christy]

I have had my 35mm for some time, and in fact occasionally (and i do mean occasionally) i get a good picture from it. Is it the field of view i don't like? No when i used my zoom i do stick around the 35mm length a lot.

Is it the bokeh? No that is relatively nice.

I just don't like how it renders pictures, especially on the K-3. Perhaps the camera out resolves the lens, or maybe I don't have the focus correction just right (though i have spent many hours trying to get it where it needs to be) In the end, I just don't know that its for me.....

On the other hand, when i do get a good picture its pretty nice, but it seems to require a heck of alot more work to get it right than my other lenses. still though that one good picture makes me want to keep trying.

Am i alone in this or are there others like me out there who have this realationship with their DA L 35MM?

[Na Horuk]

Perhaps the camera out resolves the lens,

Doubt it. DA 35mm is very sharp in image centre. You'd notice resolution problems, as photos would be way soft.

Am i alone in this or are there others like me out there who have this realationship with their DA L 35MM?

Id say I had this kind of relationship with every new lens. After a while, I would learn their kinks and start getting decent photos. Be it Samyang 14mm, Pentax DA 40mm XS, Pentax DA 35mm f2.4... I still get a bad shot, but less frequently than when I just started with those lenses. It has to do with lens weight, focusing style, DoF, sharpness, flare resistance, etc.
Only DFA 100mm macro is the kind of lens that pretty much never gave me a bad photo, aside from motion blur or missing focus (my fault, not lens'). But its also a lens that I got when I was already fairly skilled. Macro lenses in general are pretty great, even for non-macro purposes.

Maybe you can post a photo that shows what you don't like about it? I quite like mine. There is a thread called Plastic fantastic, and you can also look at user Lens reviews and Sample photo gallery, just to see what the DA 35mm is capable of.

Only complaints about the DA 35mm f2.4 that I have are.. well, its not the FA 35mm f2.0. Same optical design, but the FA has aperture ring, DoF scales, things the DA 35mm is missing. But the FA was way too expensive for me, so I went with DA, and I don't regret it.

Tl;dr: Possibilities: a) You got a bad copy or b) You have to grow your skill with this lens or c) The lens just isn't for you. Get a 35mm with different optical recipe
Anyway, you can sell the lens and buy a DA 35mm f2.8 macro. That lens should be slightly better in every respect, plus you get full macro. And its price, especially the older SMC version, is quite reasonable. Or Sigma 35mm, or Samyang 35mm if you don't mind MF. Or even DA 40mm (XS is super affordable, HD ltd is top notch). Tamron might release some primes close to 35mm within the year.

[pepperberry farm]

some sample shots would definitely help....

[robthebloke]

I must admit, I gave my copy of the lens away. It's not a bad lens (actually, I prefer it to the FA28), but it's just that at the time I already owned the DA35 and FA31 ltd's, and it can't really compete against those. It's a very sharp lens, and at times it can produce a very good looking bokeh, and it's worth remembering that this lens is essentially a full frame lens. At times it can produce good bokeh, but it can also produce some fairly uninspiring backgrounds (I will stress that my limiteds were spoiling me somewhat!)

I'd echo Na Horuk's comments above - the DA35 macro is much better, and second hand prices are fairly reasonable. So long as you don't have FF on the horizon anytime soon, it's by far the most versatile, and high quality, of all the Pentax 35mm's. Both the FA43 and FA31 are better at what they do, but neither are as versatile. Unlike the f2.4 DA35, it's almost impossible to get a bad shot with it.

[ChristianRock]

I learned to love mine. I think it's a great people lens. It probably lacks the rich and deep colors that make a great landscape lens, but for people and flowers I think it's perfect. I find it to be a great street photography lens as well.
But I've never had its more expensive sisters, so I guess I just don't know what I don't know?

[Driline]

Am i alone in this or are there others like me out there who have this realationship with their DA L 35MM?

You are definitely not alone. I had the ubiquitous DA L 35 plastic fantastic for several months and just could never warm up to it. I felt the photo's it took were too clinical looking and lacked that special "je ne sais quoi" . Once I purchased the FA 31 all things were made right again. I ended up giving my lens away to my brother. He loves it. It's just not for me and apparently you as well.

[disord3r]

For some reason, I'm only satisfied with this and the 50/1.8 on longer exposures. Past about 1.5s, the sharpness is amazing closed down a few stops. But even just handheld sub-100th f/8 shots on bright sunny days are never especially outstanding on my camera.

[house]

My experience is the opposite. I frequently end up picking my da 35 images as favourites from a shooting session. The colours are a bit to warm/muddy for some situations but other that that it's amazing. My other lenses are ltd's 15, 21, 70

[thazooo]

Have to agree with you on this lens. I wanted to play with a 35mm again since I sold my ST 35/3.5. For a $100 lens it's just OK. If I had to pick what I don't like I'd say Micro Contrast. The lens just doesn't have much PoP. It shoots well on my ist D, so that's where I keep it.

[MPrince]

I rather like mine.

Warty Goblins


American Bison


Texas Longhorn


Rusty Chain

[W.j.christy]

I rather like mine.

Nice photo's, I rather like the "Rusty Chain".


It looks like, this lens is really not a low light type of lens despite the large aperture. Perhaps that is where I am going wrong as most of the photo's I take are in lower lighting type of situations. Gives me some food for thought. I will take it back out and try it again in a day or so.

[ChristianRock]

It looks like, this lens is really not a low light type of lens despite the large aperture

I use mine in low light... granted I'm not a good photographer but I like the results I get from it. Last one very heavily cropped...

[Na Horuk]

Great photos posted in this thread already!

My advice is to use Av mode or Tv (or TAv, if your camera has it). If you shoot jpeg, choose the jpeg mode "film reversal" and enable the CA correction (but not the distortion correction, unless you really need it, as it slows down the camera a bit). When you take photos, hold the shutter button for half a second until the SR button lights up, showing that SR is active, then slowly full press the button while breathing out.
If you shoot raw, some PP can go a long way. Don't be afraid to fix WB, add contrast and saturation. Everyone does it.

Here is a photo I took with DA 35mm. Of course it did not look like this out of the camera, but I shot raw and did a good amount of PP to emphasize the photo and make the image look like what I saw when I was there, rather than just what the camera recorded. So I did a lot of PP - but remember, no PP can fix a bad lens. This lens gives you the detail, the flare resistance, the colours and the contrasts that you need. The rest is up to you. Unless the lens is somehow damaged - which is a possibility! Do some controlled tripod tests, 2 sec timer, close up subjects like newspapers, so you can clearly see how the IQ is across the frame. Take photo wide open, at f4, and at f8.
But if you really use the lens only in low light, and if you don't use much AF, think about Samyang 35mm. Fast, sharp,.. has its weaknesses, but it has its strengths, too.



Wine road

[schnitzer79]

i felt that way with my k-50.with the k-3 ii its so much better and really sharp wide open

[The Squirrel Mafia]

I personally love this lens. It's glued to my K-50 almost all the time. I get a lot of good pictures out of it.