M 35 2.0 vs. DA 35 2.4?

**clackers** · 06-07-2017, 05:33 AM

Yeah, there is a romance to them, no doubt. They were not in service long before decent roads were built after WW I meaning using trucks to take timber and vegetables into the city was easier. They do a good tourist trade now.

BTW, here are the DA35 and DA50 - the cheapest in the Pentax catalogue - in action on the K-1. They are a tribute to their direct ancestors, the FA35 f2 and F50 f1.7.

Autumn in the Dandenongs - PentaxForums.com

Last edited by clackers; 06-07-2017 at 05:39 AM.

cyberjunkie · 06-08-2017, 01:34 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clackers

BTW, here are the DA35 and DA50 - the cheapest in the Pentax catalogue - in action on the K-1. They are a tribute to their direct ancestors, the FA35 f2 and F50 f1.7.

Autumn in the Dandenongs - PentaxForums.com

Yes, it seems that the two DA "plastic fantastic" are optically identical to their FA ancestors (with slightly reduced max aperture to make them better wide open).
Btw, I believe that 35mm is one of the focals that didn't improve in a linear way over time.
There are many vintage lenses from the seventies that are competitive with AF lenses made about 30 years later.
At large apertures some lenses introduced in the last decade are way better, but at medium apertures the difference shows more in MTF tests than in the actual prints.
Of course optical technology improves over time, but camera lenses are consumer products, can't be state of the art, there are economic constraints.
Digital era extreme wides tend to be much better, but here we are discussing about 35mm's with FF coverage (but the DA Macro, if I remember correctly).
I checked the optical layout of Pentax K mount film-era 35mm's: the number of elements decreases with time, from K, to M/A, to FA. Cost, size and weight must have played a role...
If we value OOF rendition and we don't ask for top sharpness wide open, there are many 35mm vintage lenses that can actually be "better".
I love a few of them, and I've seen wonderful pictures taken with high megapixel, full frame sensors, using old 35mm lenses.
Unfortunately sample variation can make the difference, and despite my love for vintage optics, I wouldn't suggest to buy one for everyday use. I don't care very much about AF, but manual PK lenses have limitations, and M42 lenses are better fitted on camera and used as single lens for the rest of the session.
Nevertheless, if you find a good sample, there are optics that are really an eye opener, making you consider aspects of the image that go beyond simple sharpness, and sometimes making you consciously "shoot for bokeh".
It's more evident with longer focals, but if you go close enough to the subject, a 35mm is not too short.
Two examples I'd like to try soon on my K-1, and that can take great pictures in the right hands:
CZJ Flektogon f/2.4 and MIR f/2.

All in all, 35mm is a focal that offers plenty of choice and that can provide us with some serious fun, isn't it?

Jonathan Mac · 06-20-2017, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Tokyo

Judging by what others have said, I am leaning towards the DA.
Wide open the M 35mm may be a bit soft, but at 2.4 how does it perform in comparison to the DA 35mm wide open at f2.4?
Also, I have found yet another version of the 35mm f2.0, the S-M-C/Super Tak 35mm f2.0. Any idea how this performs compared to the other two?

Though you've now ordered the FA, I can comment on the Takumar with the 49mm filter thread. The construction is typical Tak and it's very pleasant to use but optically it's quite poor - not sharp even in the centre wide open and even stopped down to f/8 the corners aren't sharp on APS-C, so I imagine they must be terrible on FF/film. I sold my copy.

Originally posted by Tokyo

In the end, I decided to pull the trigger on a FA 35mm f2.0, even though I originally said that it was a bit out of my price range.
I realized that I wanted the best of both worlds; the build quality and pleasing MF of the old lenses, but the AF capabilities of the newer ones, and that would've only be possible with a lens such as this FA. Between the M and DA 35mm lenses, I was looking at two extremes that I feel would've left me wanting if I had either one.
From what I gathered comparing the FA to the DA 35mm f2.4, the FA has slightly faster and quieter AF, a metal mount (which I really liked), has a mechanical aperture ring unlike the DA, gets everything into focus at infinity whereas newer lenses such as the DA go slightly beyond infinity, and is a half stop faster (which will benefit me as I will be doing mostly low-light work).
I was debating on getting a Sigma 30mm f1.4, but realized that I would need an adapter and then I'd lose my AF, so that was ruled out.

Do you guys think I should buy a circular or petal lens hood for this lens? I've heard that the FA 35mm f2's controls flare exceptionally well, so do I need one at all?
For those wondering, I will mostly be doing handheld night street photography in low-light conditions (think Masashi Wakui).

I prefer rubber lens hoods as a rule - they work fine and will absorb any impact better than plastic petal hoods.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs.......	Steelski	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Lens opinion: 18-35 vs 12-24 vs 20-40 vs 16-50	Greinerstudio	Pentax DSLR Discussion	38	06-25-2016 11:05 PM
Enthusiast vs Prosumer vs Semi Pro vs Pro vs APSC vs Full Frame	mickyd	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	11-12-2013 07:14 PM
Ned tests FA 31 vs. DA 35 Macro vs. DA 35 AL	DAKS	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	30	01-07-2011 11:05 AM
77ltd vs Cosina 55 1.2 vs Helios 58 vs Vivitar 28 CF vs DA 35	jsherman999	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	04-26-2009 12:32 PM

06-07-2017, 05:33 AM	#31
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Yeah, there is a romance to them, no doubt. They were not in service long before decent roads were built after WW I meaning using trucks to take timber and vegetables into the city was easier. They do a good tourist trade now. BTW, here are the DA35 and DA50 - the cheapest in the Pentax catalogue - in action on the K-1. They are a tribute to their direct ancestors, the FA35 f2 and F50 f1.7. Autumn in the Dandenongs - PentaxForums.com Last edited by clackers; 06-07-2017 at 05:39 AM.

06-08-2017, 01:34 AM - 1 Like	#32
cyberjunkie Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Chiang Mai, Bologna, Amsterdam Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,198	Originally posted by clackers BTW, here are the DA35 and DA50 - the cheapest in the Pentax catalogue - in action on the K-1. They are a tribute to their direct ancestors, the FA35 f2 and F50 f1.7. Autumn in the Dandenongs - PentaxForums.com Yes, it seems that the two DA "plastic fantastic" are optically identical to their FA ancestors (with slightly reduced max aperture to make them better wide open). Btw, I believe that 35mm is one of the focals that didn't improve in a linear way over time. There are many vintage lenses from the seventies that are competitive with AF lenses made about 30 years later. At large apertures some lenses introduced in the last decade are way better, but at medium apertures the difference shows more in MTF tests than in the actual prints. Of course optical technology improves over time, but camera lenses are consumer products, can't be state of the art, there are economic constraints. Digital era extreme wides tend to be much better, but here we are discussing about 35mm's with FF coverage (but the DA Macro, if I remember correctly). I checked the optical layout of Pentax K mount film-era 35mm's: the number of elements decreases with time, from K, to M/A, to FA. Cost, size and weight must have played a role... If we value OOF rendition and we don't ask for top sharpness wide open, there are many 35mm vintage lenses that can actually be "better". I love a few of them, and I've seen wonderful pictures taken with high megapixel, full frame sensors, using old 35mm lenses. Unfortunately sample variation can make the difference, and despite my love for vintage optics, I wouldn't suggest to buy one for everyday use. I don't care very much about AF, but manual PK lenses have limitations, and M42 lenses are better fitted on camera and used as single lens for the rest of the session. Nevertheless, if you find a good sample, there are optics that are really an eye opener, making you consider aspects of the image that go beyond simple sharpness, and sometimes making you consciously "shoot for bokeh". It's more evident with longer focals, but if you go close enough to the subject, a 35mm is not too short. Two examples I'd like to try soon on my K-1, and that can take great pictures in the right hands: CZJ Flektogon f/2.4 and MIR f/2. All in all, 35mm is a focal that offers plenty of choice and that can provide us with some serious fun, isn't it?

06-20-2017, 07:45 AM	#33
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897	Originally posted by Tokyo Judging by what others have said, I am leaning towards the DA. Wide open the M 35mm may be a bit soft, but at 2.4 how does it perform in comparison to the DA 35mm wide open at f2.4? Also, I have found yet another version of the 35mm f2.0, the S-M-C/Super Tak 35mm f2.0. Any idea how this performs compared to the other two? Though you've now ordered the FA, I can comment on the Takumar with the 49mm filter thread. The construction is typical Tak and it's very pleasant to use but optically it's quite poor - not sharp even in the centre wide open and even stopped down to f/8 the corners aren't sharp on APS-C, so I imagine they must be terrible on FF/film. I sold my copy. Originally posted by Tokyo In the end, I decided to pull the trigger on a FA 35mm f2.0, even though I originally said that it was a bit out of my price range. I realized that I wanted the best of both worlds; the build quality and pleasing MF of the old lenses, but the AF capabilities of the newer ones, and that would've only be possible with a lens such as this FA. Between the M and DA 35mm lenses, I was looking at two extremes that I feel would've left me wanting if I had either one. From what I gathered comparing the FA to the DA 35mm f2.4, the FA has slightly faster and quieter AF, a metal mount (which I really liked), has a mechanical aperture ring unlike the DA, gets everything into focus at infinity whereas newer lenses such as the DA go slightly beyond infinity, and is a half stop faster (which will benefit me as I will be doing mostly low-light work). I was debating on getting a Sigma 30mm f1.4, but realized that I would need an adapter and then I'd lose my AF, so that was ruled out. Do you guys think I should buy a circular or petal lens hood for this lens? I've heard that the FA 35mm f2's controls flare exceptionally well, so do I need one at all? For those wondering, I will mostly be doing handheld night street photography in low-light conditions (think Masashi Wakui). I prefer rubber lens hoods as a rule - they work fine and will absorb any impact better than plastic petal hoods.