FA 35 F2 AL v D-FA 50 F2.8 Macro

**BarryE** · 01-31-2017, 01:28 AM

Does any have experience with these two lenses on a K-1 ?

I've been recently using the 50mm and have been impressed how evenly sharp it is across the frame, allowing me to choose a crop without the restrictions I was enduring with the weaker edge sharpness of the 24-70. So to complement the 50mm I would like to understand how might the 35mm compare for sharpness across the frame to the 50's evenness.

The reviews for the 35mm have mostly (all ?) been on a cropped sensor, so not that helpful.

I might consider the 31mm limited, but I get the impression that for all it's strengths it is not perhaps as uniformly sharp across the frame on FF as it might be. Maybe someone will have a view of the 35mm against the 31mm in this regard, though the 31 is considerably more expensive, which is a consideration.

Many thanks

elho_cid · 01-31-2017, 02:24 AM

I have both. And the DFA 24-70.
Seriously, if you are looking for another lens as sharp as DFA 50 macro, you may be disappointed. I don't think there is one.
The FA35 comes out very sharp on the K-1, I'm very happy with it. If you compare it with DFA 24-70, both on f2.8, it will come out sharper, no doubt. I even don't hesitate to use the FA 35 wide open.
Basically the main improvement of the FA 31 over FA 35 is that it fixes the hexagonal features in bokeh.

**clackers** · 01-31-2017, 02:28 AM

I have both, and they're very good.

The FA31 is excellent, of course.

**kiwi_jono** · 01-31-2017, 02:55 AM

I thought I would use my FA50 most of the time on the K-1 but as it turns out the FA35 f2 is a great all round scenery lens and I use it a lot.
I find the FA35 to be plenty sharp - even wide open the centre is sharp edges are not too bad. Stopping down to f2.8 improves sharpness and corners look pretty good. Peak sharpness f4 - f5.6 (f8 is pretty close though).

I am finding that on FF, I am liking the FA35 bokeh better I did on APS-C - probably due to closer focusing distances with the wider angle of view. I'm sure the FA31 would have creamier bokeh but I'm very happy with the FA35 at this point.

Na Horuk · 01-31-2017, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by BarryE

I've been recently using the 50mm and have been impressed how evenly sharp it is across the frame

Part of this is the macro design. (Most) macro primes have a flat field of focus (not curved), with a very good sharpness even in the edges, and a lot of optic corrections. DFA 100mm macro is similar to DFA 50mm macro in that regard. DA 35mm f2.8 macro, as well; but this one is mostly for APSC. Don't know about FA 35mm f2, though the DA 35mm f2.4 (which is based on the FA) is pretty sharp and has decent corners. The FA is probably just as good, if not better, than the DA 35mm f2.4.

**UncleVanya** · 01-31-2017, 05:29 AM

Film era reviews on full frame of the FA 35 and FA 31 suggest the 35 is sharper across the frame earlier (wide open) and the FA 31 is sharper in the center stopped down a little. I have only used these two on crop so I can't confirm this as gospel on full frame but I can confirm there isn't much to complain about on either lens on crop.

repaap · 01-31-2017, 07:15 AM

I like my FA 35 on K-1...it is not sharp WO from edge to edge as others said. But it is surprisingly good. If you stop it down little a bit it is really good, but what one might find disturbing is hexagonal bokeh. That would be my only complain now when I have got used to its FoV. Stopped down to f 8 or more, it is really sharp and detailed. Have to shoot WO to get rid of hexagons, is little compromising that I want to do, but then I sacrifice edges. If I'd have more money, I'd put it towards FA 31 to get my 3 amigos complete and get that smooth blurr...but that is quite a much money. Just my 2 cents.

stevebrot · 01-31-2017, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by repaap

I like my FA 35 on K-1...it is not sharp WO from edge to edge as others said. But it is surprisingly good. If you stop it down little a bit it is really good, but what one might find disturbing is hexagonal bokeh.

Yep, the FA 35/2 is not a "bokeh lens". I don't know that the bokeh is truly smooth at any aperture regardless of the shape of the iris opening...acceptable, but not sterling. Strangely enough, that is not really a flaw for the focal length on 35mm FF. Intended use is as a moderate wide angle and it truly excels for street and club photography.

Steve

stevebrot · 01-31-2017, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Film era reviews on full frame of the FA 35 and FA 31 suggest the 35 is sharper across the frame earlier (wide open) and the FA 31 is sharper in the center stopped down a little. I have only used these two on crop so I can't confirm this as gospel on full frame but I can confirm there isn't much to complain about on either lens on crop.

I can provide a recent "film era" review of the FA 35/2. The lens is a little soft in the corners wide open on 35mm film, but not so much so as the "fast 50s" on my shelf. It was priced and marketed as a premium offering when it was released and the performance confirms that placement. After several years of ownership, my only complaints are the eventual loose fit of the dedicated hood (due to wear of the plastic bayonet) and the design of the rubber focus grip that makes manual focus a little difficult when the hood is mounted.

Steve

npc · 01-31-2017, 10:42 AM

The FA35 is OK, but not as uniformly sharp across the frame as the FA50 macro. The sigma art 35 1.4 and even Samyang/Rokinon 35 1.4 are closer to FA50 macro as far as sharpness is concerned, but both are quite huge.

repaap · 01-31-2017, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Strangely enough, that is not really a flaw for the focal length on 35mm FF. Intended use is as a moderate wide angle and it truly excels for street and club photography.

Steve

Here I do agree. It really is great for streets, has quite fast and reliable focus on K-1. And IF you need to you can have it WO too. I like mine for not so wide landscapes. Have to see how it fares at street shots.

**BarryE** · 01-31-2017, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by elho_cid

Basically the main improvement of the FA 31 over FA 35 is that it fixes the hexagonal features in bokeh.

Thanks I didn't know this, but probably not so relevant for my usage.

---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 08:54 PM ----------

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Part of this is the macro design. (Most) macro primes have a flat field of focus (not curved), with a very good sharpness even in the edges, and a lot of optic corrections. DFA 100mm macro is similar to DFA 50mm macro in that regard. DA 35mm f2.8 macro, as well; but this one is mostly for APSC. Don't know about FA 35mm f2, though the DA 35mm f2.4 (which is based on the FA) is pretty sharp and has decent corners. The FA is probably just as good, if not better, than the DA 35mm f2.4.

Thanks. I have the 100, so with the 50 and possibly the 35, this is/might be my prime set. Take your point about the macro design. I was wondering if the FA 35 was a similar design to the DA version, and thus a macro in disguise.

---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 08:55 PM ----------

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Film era reviews on full frame of the FA 35 and FA 31 suggest the 35 is sharper across the frame earlier (wide open) and the FA 31 is sharper in the center stopped down a little. I have only used these two on crop so I can't confirm this as gospel on full frame but I can confirm there isn't much to complain about on either lens on crop.

Thanks I'll take a look ...

---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 08:59 PM ----------

Originally posted by repaap

I like my FA 35 on K-1...it is not sharp WO from edge to edge as others said. But it is surprisingly good. If you stop it down little a bit it is really good, but what one might find disturbing is hexagonal bokeh. That would be my only complain now when I have got used to its FoV. Stopped down to f 8 or more, it is really sharp and detailed. Have to shoot WO to get rid of hexagons, is little compromising that I want to do, but then I sacrifice edges. If I'd have more money, I'd put it towards FA 31 to get my 3 amigos complete and get that smooth blurr...but that is quite a much money. Just my 2 cents.

Another note about the bokeh ... noted. As a landscaper I rarely find I notce the bokeh anyway. I sometimes use wide apertures if I'm doing intimate landscape styles, but don't really fret about the bokeh quality. Maybe I should look more closely ...Thanks.

---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 09:00 PM ----------

Originally posted by npc

The FA35 is OK, but not as uniformly sharp across the frame as the FA50 macro. The sigma art 35 1.4 and even Samyang/Rokinon 35 1.4 are closer to FA50 macro as far as sharpness is concerned, but both are quite huge.

Noted. The size is an issue. I came from the DA limiteds and have struggled with the big 24-70, so a big prime is not to my taste. Again a reference to how good the 50 is. Thanks.

---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 09:02 PM ----------

Originally posted by stevebrot

I can provide a recent "film era" review of the FA 35/2. The lens is a little soft in the corners wide open on 35mm film, but not so much so as the "fast 50s" on my shelf. It was priced and marketed as a premium offering when it was released and the performance confirms that placement. After several years of ownership, my only complaints are the eventual loose fit of the dedicated hood (due to wear of the plastic bayonet) and the design of the rubber focus grip that makes manual focus a little difficult when the hood is mounted.

Steve

It's getting some good, poitive comments. Thanks Steve all input helps

fehknt · 01-31-2017, 02:41 PM

FWIW I actually (sometimes, depends on the shot) like the hexagons and wouldn't shy away from trying it to see if you like it.

**UncleVanya** · 01-31-2017, 04:36 PM

DA 35 design:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/showfull.php?product=394&bigimage=H...ack_optics.jpg

FA 35 design:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/showfull.php?product=196&bigimage=s..._AL_optics.jpg

**clackers** · 01-31-2017, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by BarryE

Take your point about the macro design. I was wondering if the FA 35 was a similar design to the DA version, and thus a macro in disguise

Think you're getting a bit mixed up here, Barry.

The FA35 is similar to the later DA35 f2.4, not the DA 35 f2.8 Macro.

The DA35 has FF coverage, the Macro hasn't.

01-31-2017, 01:28 AM	#1
BarryE Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 1,653	FA 35 F2 AL v D-FA 50 F2.8 Macro Does any have experience with these two lenses on a K-1 ? I've been recently using the 50mm and have been impressed how evenly sharp it is across the frame, allowing me to choose a crop without the restrictions I was enduring with the weaker edge sharpness of the 24-70. So to complement the 50mm I would like to understand how might the 35mm compare for sharpness across the frame to the 50's evenness. The reviews for the 35mm have mostly (all ?) been on a cropped sensor, so not that helpful. I might consider the 31mm limited, but I get the impression that for all it's strengths it is not perhaps as uniformly sharp across the frame on FF as it might be. Maybe someone will have a view of the 35mm against the 31mm in this regard, though the 31 is considerably more expensive, which is a consideration. Many thanks

01-31-2017, 02:28 AM	#3
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	I have both, and they're very good. The FA31 is excellent, of course. Last edited by clackers; 01-31-2017 at 02:38 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax FA 135 f2.8 v. DFA 100mm F/2.8 Macro	HGMerrill	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	04-11-2015 12:07 PM
For Sale - Sold: FA 50mm f1.4 / D FA 100mm f2.8 Macro / FA 77mm 1.8 Ltd / TAMRON 28-75mm f2.8	trustkor	Sold Items	7	07-13-2012 10:43 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA*50-135, FA 50 f1.4, Viv. 28 f2.8 CF for D-FA Macro 100mm, DA 35ltd m	EdMaximus	Sold Items	2	10-30-2009 05:20 AM
Pentax FA 35mm f2 v DA 25mm f2.8 Ltd Macro	Murphy2004	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-20-2008 04:39 PM

01-31-2017, 02:24 AM	#2
elho_cid Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Prague Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	I have both. And the DFA 24-70. Seriously, if you are looking for another lens as sharp as DFA 50 macro, you may be disappointed. I don't think there is one. The FA35 comes out very sharp on the K-1, I'm very happy with it. If you compare it with DFA 24-70, both on f2.8, it will come out sharper, no doubt. I even don't hesitate to use the FA 35 wide open. Basically the main improvement of the FA 31 over FA 35 is that it fixes the hexagonal features in bokeh.

01-31-2017, 02:55 AM	#4
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	I thought I would use my FA50 most of the time on the K-1 but as it turns out the FA35 f2 is a great all round scenery lens and I use it a lot. I find the FA35 to be plenty sharp - even wide open the centre is sharp edges are not too bad. Stopping down to f2.8 improves sharpness and corners look pretty good. Peak sharpness f4 - f5.6 (f8 is pretty close though). I am finding that on FF, I am liking the FA35 bokeh better I did on APS-C - probably due to closer focusing distances with the wider angle of view. I'm sure the FA31 would have creamier bokeh but I'm very happy with the FA35 at this point.

01-31-2017, 04:52 AM	#5
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by BarryE I've been recently using the 50mm and have been impressed how evenly sharp it is across the frame Part of this is the macro design. (Most) macro primes have a flat field of focus (not curved), with a very good sharpness even in the edges, and a lot of optic corrections. DFA 100mm macro is similar to DFA 50mm macro in that regard. DA 35mm f2.8 macro, as well; but this one is mostly for APSC. Don't know about FA 35mm f2, though the DA 35mm f2.4 (which is based on the FA) is pretty sharp and has decent corners. The FA is probably just as good, if not better, than the DA 35mm f2.4.

01-31-2017, 05:29 AM	#6
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	Film era reviews on full frame of the FA 35 and FA 31 suggest the 35 is sharper across the frame earlier (wide open) and the FA 31 is sharper in the center stopped down a little. I have only used these two on crop so I can't confirm this as gospel on full frame but I can confirm there isn't much to complain about on either lens on crop.

01-31-2017, 07:15 AM	#7
repaap Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,242	I like my FA 35 on K-1...it is not sharp WO from edge to edge as others said. But it is surprisingly good. If you stop it down little a bit it is really good, but what one might find disturbing is hexagonal bokeh. That would be my only complain now when I have got used to its FoV. Stopped down to f 8 or more, it is really sharp and detailed. Have to shoot WO to get rid of hexagons, is little compromising that I want to do, but then I sacrifice edges. If I'd have more money, I'd put it towards FA 31 to get my 3 amigos complete and get that smooth blurr...but that is quite a much money. Just my 2 cents.

01-31-2017, 09:36 AM	#8
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by repaap I like my FA 35 on K-1...it is not sharp WO from edge to edge as others said. But it is surprisingly good. If you stop it down little a bit it is really good, but what one might find disturbing is hexagonal bokeh. Yep, the FA 35/2 is not a "bokeh lens". I don't know that the bokeh is truly smooth at any aperture regardless of the shape of the iris opening...acceptable, but not sterling. Strangely enough, that is not really a flaw for the focal length on 35mm FF. Intended use is as a moderate wide angle and it truly excels for street and club photography. Steve

01-31-2017, 09:44 AM	#9
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by UncleVanya Film era reviews on full frame of the FA 35 and FA 31 suggest the 35 is sharper across the frame earlier (wide open) and the FA 31 is sharper in the center stopped down a little. I have only used these two on crop so I can't confirm this as gospel on full frame but I can confirm there isn't much to complain about on either lens on crop. I can provide a recent "film era" review of the FA 35/2. The lens is a little soft in the corners wide open on 35mm film, but not so much so as the "fast 50s" on my shelf. It was priced and marketed as a premium offering when it was released and the performance confirms that placement. After several years of ownership, my only complaints are the eventual loose fit of the dedicated hood (due to wear of the plastic bayonet) and the design of the rubber focus grip that makes manual focus a little difficult when the hood is mounted. Steve

01-31-2017, 10:42 AM	#10
npc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 313	The FA35 is OK, but not as uniformly sharp across the frame as the FA50 macro. The sigma art 35 1.4 and even Samyang/Rokinon 35 1.4 are closer to FA50 macro as far as sharpness is concerned, but both are quite huge.

01-31-2017, 11:10 AM	#11
repaap Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,242	Originally posted by stevebrot Strangely enough, that is not really a flaw for the focal length on 35mm FF. Intended use is as a moderate wide angle and it truly excels for street and club photography. Steve Here I do agree. It really is great for streets, has quite fast and reliable focus on K-1. And IF you need to you can have it WO too. I like mine for not so wide landscapes. Have to see how it fares at street shots.

01-31-2017, 01:50 PM	#12
BarryE Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 1,653 Original Poster	Originally posted by elho_cid Basically the main improvement of the FA 31 over FA 35 is that it fixes the hexagonal features in bokeh. Thanks I didn't know this, but probably not so relevant for my usage. ---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 08:54 PM ---------- Originally posted by Na Horuk Part of this is the macro design. (Most) macro primes have a flat field of focus (not curved), with a very good sharpness even in the edges, and a lot of optic corrections. DFA 100mm macro is similar to DFA 50mm macro in that regard. DA 35mm f2.8 macro, as well; but this one is mostly for APSC. Don't know about FA 35mm f2, though the DA 35mm f2.4 (which is based on the FA) is pretty sharp and has decent corners. The FA is probably just as good, if not better, than the DA 35mm f2.4. Thanks. I have the 100, so with the 50 and possibly the 35, this is/might be my prime set. Take your point about the macro design. I was wondering if the FA 35 was a similar design to the DA version, and thus a macro in disguise. ---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 08:55 PM ---------- Originally posted by UncleVanya Film era reviews on full frame of the FA 35 and FA 31 suggest the 35 is sharper across the frame earlier (wide open) and the FA 31 is sharper in the center stopped down a little. I have only used these two on crop so I can't confirm this as gospel on full frame but I can confirm there isn't much to complain about on either lens on crop. Thanks I'll take a look ... ---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 08:59 PM ---------- Originally posted by repaap I like my FA 35 on K-1...it is not sharp WO from edge to edge as others said. But it is surprisingly good. If you stop it down little a bit it is really good, but what one might find disturbing is hexagonal bokeh. That would be my only complain now when I have got used to its FoV. Stopped down to f 8 or more, it is really sharp and detailed. Have to shoot WO to get rid of hexagons, is little compromising that I want to do, but then I sacrifice edges. If I'd have more money, I'd put it towards FA 31 to get my 3 amigos complete and get that smooth blurr...but that is quite a much money. Just my 2 cents. Another note about the bokeh ... noted. As a landscaper I rarely find I notce the bokeh anyway. I sometimes use wide apertures if I'm doing intimate landscape styles, but don't really fret about the bokeh quality. Maybe I should look more closely ...Thanks. ---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 09:00 PM ---------- Originally posted by npc The FA35 is OK, but not as uniformly sharp across the frame as the FA50 macro. The sigma art 35 1.4 and even Samyang/Rokinon 35 1.4 are closer to FA50 macro as far as sharpness is concerned, but both are quite huge. Noted. The size is an issue. I came from the DA limiteds and have struggled with the big 24-70, so a big prime is not to my taste. Again a reference to how good the 50 is. Thanks. ---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 09:02 PM ---------- Originally posted by stevebrot I can provide a recent "film era" review of the FA 35/2. The lens is a little soft in the corners wide open on 35mm film, but not so much so as the "fast 50s" on my shelf. It was priced and marketed as a premium offering when it was released and the performance confirms that placement. After several years of ownership, my only complaints are the eventual loose fit of the dedicated hood (due to wear of the plastic bayonet) and the design of the rubber focus grip that makes manual focus a little difficult when the hood is mounted. Steve It's getting some good, poitive comments. Thanks Steve all input helps

01-31-2017, 02:41 PM	#13
fehknt Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 142	FWIW I actually (sometimes, depends on the shot) like the hexagons and wouldn't shy away from trying it to see if you like it.

01-31-2017, 04:36 PM	#14
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	DA 35 design: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/showfull.php?product=394&bigimage=H...ack_optics.jpg FA 35 design: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/showfull.php?product=196&bigimage=s..._AL_optics.jpg

01-31-2017, 04:54 PM	#15
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by BarryE Take your point about the macro design. I was wondering if the FA 35 was a similar design to the DA version, and thus a macro in disguise Think you're getting a bit mixed up here, Barry. The FA35 is similar to the later DA35 f2.4, not the DA 35 f2.8 Macro. The DA35 has FF coverage, the Macro hasn't.