[Tokyo]

Hey everyone, I just signed up to this forum as I recently purchased a K3ii and am now looking for a lens. I will mainly be doing street photography at night in low-light conditions (think Masashi Wakui, he's my idol and is the reason I got into photography at all). After much debate and research, I have settled on either the Pentax-M 35mm f2.0 (not to be confused with the newer FA 35mm, which is a bit out of my budget) or the Pentax-DA 35mm f2.4.

In your guys' opinions, which do you think will generally perform better under low-light conditions? From what I have gathered, the M35 is a half stop faster but is prone to PF wide open (which is why I heard Pentax began limiting it at f2.4 in newer 35mm lenses to prevent this); however,
1. Will this still be a big advantage over the 2.4 of the DA35mm?
2. How would you compare the sharpness and IQ of the two lenses wide open/ stopped down?

I also understand that the M35 is quite old, but build quality is a lot better as the DA35 is plastic. This isn't that much of an issue though as I would be taking very good care of either. Thanks everyone, and sorry if I misused any photography terms, totally new to all of this .

[Jonathan Mac]

I have both but I have used the M 35/2 much more extensively as I regard it as a better lens for my use.

Build quality - The M series is much, much better built and is a real pleasure to use while the DA is very light & plasticky.
Optical quality - I prefer the M but I rarely use it wide open (as it's a bit soft there). Stopped down to f/2.8 there's little difference in sharpness but I find the M produces very nice images, often with a three-dimensional quality that many lenses simply cannot achieve. Stopped down to f/4 or beyond I don't think you'll find any differences in sharpness at all. I don't think I've ever seen purple fringing from the M but I rarely use it wide open because it's a bit soft.
Price - A used M 35/2 in good condition should cost around the same as a new DA 35/2.4, or a little more, but the M could be hard to find.
Focusing - AF can be a blessing or a curse. On a K3 II the DA will likely be able to auto-focus accurately even at night, but it can be advantageous to be able to set the lens at infinity and know the image will be in focus there (for landscapes/cityscapes), which you can do with the M but not the DA (auto-focus lenses go a bit beyond infinity).
Coverage - I also shoot film so I appreciate the FF coverage and aperture ring of the 35mm. The DA can only be used on the later film cameras and even then with some restrictions.

In summary, it will depend what you want and how you plan on using the lens. Neither is very expensive and if you buy used for a sensible price you will be able to sell them on without making a loss, so the best plan could be to try both and sell one if you decide you'll only use the other.

Of course, the DA 35mm f/2.8 limited macro is a better lens than either of these

[LowVoltage]

I can't directly compare the M and DA lenses as I never owned the M 35mm 2.0, however I do own the DA 35mm 2.4. The DA lens certainly earns its reputation as a "plastic fantastic". Shot wide open it is more than reasonably sharp, has only moderate vignetting, and well controlled chromatic aberrations. Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-mount site has some design stats for many Pentax lenses and I've long held the suspicion the DA 35mm 2.4 is a slightly altered FA 35mm 2.0 AL, the latter being much pricier bought used versus a new DA. That may be totally wrong or maybe common knowledge, I'd be happy to be enlightened, but I digress...

The DA lens is probably only let down by its plastic construction and dentist drill auto focus (but then again, it does have auto focus, unlike the manual M lens, which you might want). It would be nice if they gave the DA curved aperture blades. Bokeh balls become hexagonal to one degree or another when the lens is stopped down, but then again so does the M.

The M 35mm 2.0 would certainly have the fantastic construction of the M lenses I have owned. I honestly don't think any other brand has ever gotten a focus ring as perfectly damped as Pentax when it comes to the K/M/A lenses. If you're expecting to be photographing as stealthily as possible and using manual focus (even if the lens has AF) then M lenses will probably serve you best. If you're rough on your equipment the M 35mm 2.0 will work very well. For all its good points, the DA lens' manual focus ring is rather lifeless.

Finally, in this day and age the half stop of light you lose with the newer lens is pretty much negated by improvements in sensor technology when using higher ISO settings. It looks like the M lens might actually be the more expensive of the two based on the forum user reviews. I don't know how common or rare the M 35mm 2.0 is, but I expect owners really like the lens and won't let go unless it's worth their while!

[Cabessius]

My opinion would be biased as I am a huge fan of manual glass.
How comfortable do you feel manual-focusing?.
Also consider, AFAIK the M 35mm f2 shares a construction problem with the M 35mm f2.8, where the lubricant can leak on the blades in hot conditions.

[pakinjapan]

May I recommence you the DA21? I do night photo / long expose in Tokyo too but my shooting style and post process are difference than Masash san.
I am depending a lot more on a tripod to get light trails and starbursts. I find DA21 (green ring) is very good at that. It is sharp at f3.2, of cause it is better stop down.
Masash san seems to do a lot more of handheld (by the look of his works). If you are doing night handheld shooting too, you want every bit of light you can get, so I would say the f2 lens (if you can find one). anyway, I still think DA21 at 3.2 can do the job with satisfy result too. DA21 secondhand in Tokyo is not that expensive.

-edit-
I just check at FA35 f2 second hand price in japan, it is not that much difference than M35 f2.
http://j-camera.net/itemp.php?id=59521247&1496394023

[schnitzer79]

You might have some difficulty focusing manually in low light conditions.I have the DA 35 f2.4 and my copy is super sharp wide open. Stopped using it since I purchased the Sigma 35mm f1.4 which is a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive. For instance, in low light I always tend to grab my Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35/2.4. I find that it renders beautifully in low light conditions. I say go for an AF lens.Have you considered also the FA 35/f2?

[niceshot]

I have the Auto-Takumar 35mm.2.3 which is considered better than the 35mm f-2. And is bokehdelicious, that is the beauty of it. As far as sharpness goes the 35mm2.4 wins hands down. Don't care what anyone says it is no contest,but maybe it is too perfect..But if you going to only shoot in low light then the 35mm 2.4 is the winner. By the way I have put the Auto-Takumar on my camera and it hasn;t come off

[D1N0]

The DA 35mm 2.4 can be focussed manually but it is not a nice experience. You should treat it as an AF only lens. But it is cheap and a fine lens. Same optical formula as the FA 35mm F2 which has better build quality but looks a bit dated because of it's nineties design. The M lenses can only be used in Manual mode with stop down metering using the green button (or if you just shoot wide open in any other mode ). Also have a look at the Pentax K version. It is better rated (but that may just be the K-magic).

[Kozlok]

Honestly, I would save up and buy the FA43. It's 4x the price of the lenses you mention, but I love it at night. Wonderful rendering, and it's half the price of the FA31.

[Tokyo]

My opinion would be biased as I am a huge fan of manual glass.
How comfortable do you feel manual-focusing?.
Also consider, AFAIK the M 35mm f2 shares a construction problem with the M 35mm f2.8, where the lubricant can leak on the blades in hot conditions.

I feel pretty comfortable focusing as I tried out my dad's old Canon A1 and loved the feeling of MF. Would manually focusing in low light be difficult?
That construction problem won't be good for me as I am going to Japan this summer and it's supposedly going to be extremely hot there, might settle for the DA 35 f2.4.

---------- Post added 06-02-17 at 07:48 AM ----------

May I recommence you the DA21? I do night photo / long expose in Tokyo too but my shooting style and post process are difference than Masash san.
I am depending a lot more on a tripod to get light trails and starbursts. I find DA21 (green ring) is very good at that. It is sharp at f3.2, of cause it is better stop down.
Masash san seems to do a lot more of handheld (by the look of his works). If you are doing night handheld shooting too, you want every bit of light you can get, so I would say the f2 lens (if you can find one). anyway, I still think DA21 at 3.2 can do the job with satisfy result too. DA21 secondhand in Tokyo is not that expensive.

-edit-
I just check at FA35 f2 second hand price in japan, it is not that much difference than M35 f2.
?????? FA35/2AL?J-???

I think I prefer a 35mm, the 21mm you mentioned looks like a great lens but it's a bit too wide for me. You have some great photos with that though!
I would get the f2 lens, however someone else here said that it has a construction problem where it could begin leaking lubricant onto the blades in hot conditions, which won't be good as I will be going to Japan this summer and it looks like it will be getting very hot there.

---------- Post added 06-02-17 at 07:50 AM ----------

Honestly, I would save up and buy the FA43. It's 4x the price of the lenses you mention, but I love it at night. Wonderful rendering, and it's half the price of the FA31.

I wish my budget allowed for that, that's one nice piece of glass and definitely on my list for the future.

---------- Post added 06-02-17 at 07:52 AM ----------

I have the Auto-Takumar 35mm.2.3 which is considered better than the 35mm f-2. And is bokehdelicious, that is the beauty of it. As far as sharpness goes the 35mm2.4 wins hands down. Don't care what anyone says it is no contest,but maybe it is too perfect..But if you going to only shoot in low light then the 35mm 2.4 is the winner. By the way I have put the Auto-Takumar on my camera and it hasn;t come off

That 35mm 2.3 makes some beautiful pictures, I would definitely get that if I had a little more money. Really leaning towards the 35mm 2.4 now, thank you!

---------- Post added 06-02-17 at 07:56 AM ----------

The DA 35mm 2.4 can be focussed manually but it is not a nice experience. You should treat it as an AF only lens. But it is cheap and a fine lens. Same optical formula as the FA 35mm F2 which has better build quality but looks a bit dated because of it's nineties design. The M lenses can only be used in Manual mode with stop down metering using the green button (or if you just shoot wide open in any other mode ). Also have a look at the Pentax K version. It is better rated (but that may just be the K-magic).

I love MF after trying it on my dad's old Canon A1, however am I right to think that in low-light, AF would be more advantageous?
I'd rather have AF with the ability to MF even if it's not that fun, rather than having solely MF, just so I have both options.

---------- Post added 06-02-17 at 07:58 AM ----------

You might have some difficulty focusing manually in low light conditions.I have the DA 35 f2.4 and my copy is super sharp wide open. Stopped using it since I purchased the Sigma 35mm f1.4 which is a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive. For instance, in low light I always tend to grab my Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35/2.4. I find that it renders beautifully in low light conditions. I say go for an AF lens.Have you considered also the FA 35/f2?

Yes I've considered the FA lens however it's a bit out of my budget, I too think AF would help a lot in low-light, will probably have to go with the DA 35 f2.4. Thanks!

[D1N0]

I love MF after trying it on my dad's old Canon A1, however am I right to think that in low-light, AF would be more advantageous?

Certainly for focussing further away AF is more accurate because it is hard too see what is in focus and what not when focussing by hand. Manual focus with an old film SLR is easier because they have bigger brighter viewfinders than a dslr and aps-c has a even smaller viewfinder. Not as bad as the Pentamirror viewfinder in cheaper Canon en Nikon DSLR's but still a big difference with old film. Then again, you can use live view for focussing accurately with a dslr.

[pepperberry farm]

there's always the K30/2.8 (just to throw another option in the hopper for you)....

[KDD]

Af is better.

[pres589]

Sigma 30 1.4 EX is also worth thinking about (and the attendant AF issues with that lens). I've got a DA35 2.4 and it's quite useful for the price but the out of focus rendering isn't exactly gorgeous. I might have to go find a good copy of the Sigma at some point...

[Tokyo]

The DA 35mm 2.4 can be focussed manually but it is not a nice experience. You should treat it as an AF only lens. But it is cheap and a fine lens. Same optical formula as the FA 35mm F2 which has better build quality but looks a bit dated because of it's nineties design. The M lenses can only be used in Manual mode with stop down metering using the green button (or if you just shoot wide open in any other mode ). Also have a look at the Pentax K version. It is better rated (but that may just be the K-magic).

What's your opinion on the S-M-C/ Super Tak 35mm f2.0 vs the other 2?