[strangeboy]

Going from my film and rangefinder cameras, both full frame obviously, to my beloved K3 has always felt a bit weird. So, the one thing I've been chasing is the perfect 35mm lens for my K3. It's been interesting. I've also unloaded a number of lenses which were the result of my LBA, and also because I have no interest in autofocus anything.

To date I have owned the following 35s:
FA 35mm f/2 "Plastic Fantastic"
Good general purpose lens. Great resolution but I found it uninspiring. No magic. I also hate the feel of the plastic and the rubber focusing ring.

Samyang 35mm f/1.4
Absolutely beautiful photographs... randomly. This line of Samyang/Rokinon lenses has quality control issues with regard to focus. Attempting to make in camera focus adjustments never worked out, and I'm no rookie at this, I've made it work for a number of my fast 50s, but it was seemingly impossible for the Samyang. I was on a shoot for Menards with a videographer who was complaining about the very same thing. I sent it back to BH and didn't feel like playing the crap shoot with another one.

Takumar 35mm f/3.5
I genuinely liked this lens, Takumars have "a thing". Being an m42, it wasn't the most convenient when all you shoot is primes and you wanna make a switch, but there is a texture to Takumar photographs that I like a lot. Outstanding resolution, as well. Sadly, it fell victim to the following lens...

SMC K 35mm f/3.5
I really don't understand how this lens, which weighs almost nothing and can be had on the cheap, is so damn good. It's shocking, really, scenes simply pop into focus. The 3D effect, image resolution, contrast and color are nearly perfect, IMO. There is magic. It's perfectly sharp wide open, and nothing but razors from f/5.6 to f/8. I've never shot beyond f/8, so I really can't speak to diffraction, if any. Full disclosure: I'm also a "shallow depth of field whore", but I don't miss it with this lens.

Zeiss 2/35 ZK
I own a couple of Zeiss lenses for my other cameras. I found this ZK version on eBay for a price that wasn't outrageous... for Zeiss. It is a beautiful thing and built like a tank. Functionally, it required no focus adjustment and is perfectly center sharp at f/2. The focus ring is like sex, it's a wonderful piece of glass. I really wanted this lens to destroy my K35, or at least be better in every way. I mean damn - it's a ZEISS, right? Well, that's simply not the case.

Yes. I can shoot and nail photographs at f/2 with regularity, and the Zeiss feels absolutely fabulous on the camera. And of course - Aperture Priority, great. And, um... that is all. The K35 matches or exceeds the Zeiss in every other category that matters. I know there are those who believe that those words are akin to heresy, but I stand by them. Additionally, the simple economics of it all: $600 vs $160? At nearly four times the price and a name like Zeiss, you need to deliver more.

Or... maybe this 70s era Pentax lens is just that damn good.
my 2¢.

[gofour3]

Yes the K35/3.5 is a gem and so are most of the "K" series prime lenses. Unlike yourself, most people will buy a newer cheaply made AF lens as they believe a 40 year old lens can't be that good.

Pity but it's their loss.................

Phil.

[monochrome]

K35/3.5 is my 'desert island' lens.

20 years ago it was really hard to get people to part with one, and if you found one for sale you definitely paid up (IIRC more than $300 in the late 90's). I have some eBay records of prices between $225 - $275 in 2004 and they've gradually declined to the mid $100's now. This and the K28/3.5 are outright steals.

[sibyrnes]

Have you tried it on a K1 yet?

[Fenwoodian]

I have tried over a dozen 35mm lenses on my K1 - including all of those that you mentioned in your original post.

I too am a manual focus shooter.

I don't care to list every single 35mm I've tried, but they include most of the offerings from Pentax, and the Sigma Art 35mm, Fujinon 35mm, and lots of others.

If you are indeed searching for the "Perfect 35mm" I assume that price is not your primary consideration.

When shot at a wide aperture, from my experience, no 35mm lens quite measures up on my K1 to the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4. It's expensive, heavy, and needs to be Leitax adapted from Nikon F to Pentax K mount. But for "Perfect" shallow depth of field "real-world shots" it's tops in my book.

If you are shooting stopped down, then there are a number of very good 35mm lenses to choose from as most lenses are at their best at f/4, f/5.6, or f/8 - while only a precious few are "Perfect" at f/1.4 or f/2

[conniption]

Isn't the K35 essentially the same lens as the SMC Take 35? I seem to remember from the formula diagrams in the review section that they're one and the same (except the K is 52mm diameter and the Take is 49mm). Same can be said for a few other K lenses. Or maybe size really does matter...

[strangeboy]

K35/3.5 is my 'desert island' lens.

20 years ago it was really hard to get people to part with one, and if you found one for sale you definitely paid up (IIRC more than $300 in the late 90's). I have some eBay records of prices between $225 - $275 in 2004 and they've gradually declined to the mid $100's now. This and the K28/3.5 are outright steals.

Yes, love the K/28/3.5. When I traveled to Cuba last June, the K28/3.5 and the K50/1.4 were the only lenses in my bag.

[stevebrot]

Believe it on not, but I actually decided against the ZK 35/2 in favor of the FA 35/2. What's more, price (by itself) and AF had little to do with the decision. I simply could not see the value proposition in the example photographs and I was able to find on the Web and while I very much appreciate the build quality, the bulk and weight for what has traditionally been a fairly svelte focal length argued loudly against the purchase. I will agree that the pixies were not particularly generous with the FA 35/2, but OTOH, they sort of skipped the ZK too.

I have never shot with either the Tak 35/3.5 or the K 35/3.5, mostly because I don't care for dim finders, though both produce excellent results as you nicely show. As for the Samyang...no temptation for me from that corner.

The FA 35/2 has been my go to walk-around prime since 2009 and shows little wear despite regular use. Here are a few shots trimmed to Web resolution just to show that it is not totally boring and does have some character:










Ricoh XR-2s, Fuji Neopan Acros 100, FA 35/2

That last was thrown in to show that it is no slouch on 35mm film either. The others were from my K10D. I have a couple of other 35s in non-Pentax mounts and like them too. If I come across a good example of the K 35/3.5 and a low price, I might pick it up based on reputation alone; ditto for the Tak 35/3.5.


Steve

BTW, the honor of the "plastic fantastic" title goes to the DA 35/2.4. The FA 35/2 is resin over metal.

[strangeboy]

Isn't the K35 essentially the same lens as the SMC Take 35? I seem to remember from the formula diagrams in the review section that they're one and the same (except the K is 52mm diameter and the Take is 49mm). Same can be said for a few other K lenses. Or maybe size really does matter...

I've heard they're basically the same formula. I liked the Tak 35/3.5, but the K35/3.5 felt different from the very first photograph.

[kiwi_jono]

Believe it on not, but I actually decided against the ZK 35/2 in favor of the FA 35/2. What's more, price (by itself) and AF had little to do with the decision. I simply could not see the value proposition in the example photographs and I was able to find on the Web and while I very much appreciate the build quality, the bulk and weight for what has traditionally been a fairly svelte focal length argued loudly against the purchase. I will agree that the pixies were not particularly generous with the FA 35/2, but OTOH, they sort of skipped the ZK too.

The FA 35/2 has been my go to walk-around prime since 2009 and shows little wear despite regular use.

Same experience for me. I was luke warm about the FA35 f2 on the K-5 but I have found its transformed on the K-1 and very much my main go to lens. Not sure exactly why but I'm surprised that the bokeh looks a lot better on the K-1 (possibly in part due to closer focusing distance for same same field of view).

I have a Auto Takumar 35 f3.5 but its not impressed me (compared to the FA35 for sharpness and even colour - not to mention performance shooting into the sun). However thats always going to be subjective.

[pathdoc]

My go-to 35 for APS-C would have to be the 35/2.8 Limited Macro, but only if your wallet is up to it and/or you have a definite need for a wide-FOV macro/very close focus lens. The downside of it is that unlike all of the film-era lenses mentioned above (and also the DA35/2.4 if reports are correct), it will not quite cover the full frame on a K-1 (ironically I have yet to test this myself).

My other 35 is the Super-Tak (not the S-M-C- Tak) 35/3.5; maybe I need to get that onto the K-1 over the weekend and see how it performs.

[Jonathan Mac]

The best 35mm lens optically that I've used is without a doubt the SMC DA limited 35mm f/2.8.

For manual focus, the M 35mm f/2 is very close indeed. It's not super sharp wide open but it's nice and sharp by f/2.8 and razor-sharp by f/4. More importantly, photos have the vibrancy that I get with the more modern DA lens but I get to enjoy the feeling of using a manual lens. I've heard the K version is even better but I've never seen one for sale at a reasonable price (and very few even at unreasonable prices). The FA version is a sharper design but by most accounts it loses the magic of the older Pentax 35/2 lenses.

I also have the K 35mm f/3.5 and in my opinion the M 35/2 is better is every respect.

[gofour3]

These resolution tests (on film cameras) of old Pentax 35mm lenses are always interesting to look at:

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html

The K35/3.5 and FA35/2AL seem to be the sharpest.

Phil.

[strangeboy]

I have tried over a dozen 35mm lenses on my K1 - including all of those that you mentioned in your original post.

I too am a manual focus shooter.

I don't care to list every single 35mm I've tried, but they include most of the offerings from Pentax, and the Sigma Art 35mm, Fujinon 35mm, and lots of others.

If you are indeed searching for the "Perfect 35mm" I assume that price is not your primary consideration.

When shot at a wide aperture, from my experience, no 35mm lens quite measures up on my K1 to the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4. It's expensive, heavy, and needs to be Leitax adapted from Nikon F to Pentax K mount. But for "Perfect" shallow depth of field "real-world shots" it's tops in my book.

If you are shooting stopped down, then there are a number of very good 35mm lenses to choose from as most lenses are at their best at f/4, f/5.6, or f/8 - while only a precious few are "Perfect" at f/1.4 or f/2

I posted a couple of replies yesterday, but they seem to have disappeared... I'll try again.
Shooting fast lenses wide open is one of my favorite things, and is easy to do with the Zeiss 35/2. I've seen the 35/1.4 on ebay, yes it's pricey + the Leitax cost. Still, I really don't mind paying for amazing glass, and getting rid of a bunch of stuff also helps. I guess I'm talking myself into trying out that Zeiss 35/1.4. And deeper into the rabbit hole I go.

[sibyrnes]

Any love for the old M 35 f2.8? I have on left over from my film days that I haven't yet put to the test on a digital camera.