Thank you all for your replies. I read each one and appreciate the contributions.
The consensus seems to be that the DA 35 is in fact sharp from wide open. What I had hoped for was a COMPARISON from owners who had both the M 35 2.8 and DA 35 2.4. I'm sorry. I guess I was not being very clear. I apologize.
When I said that the M 35 2.8 was a little soft, I was comparing it to lenses like my FA 50mm 1.7 and M 50mm 1.7. The M 35 IS quite sharp, just not AS SHARP as the FA 50 s is wide open. The reason I ask this is because having read that the DA 35 2.4 is basically a stopped down FA 35 f2 in a plastic body, I hoped it would be THAT lens that is very, very sharp from wide open AND faster than 2.8.
Now in writing this I realize that sharpness isn't everything. As some of you have helpfully pointed out, bokeh and rendering are different and preferences in these areas are subjective. And I UNDERSTAND that sample selection may cause the variation between samples to be greater than the ones between different lens designs. So maybe this IS a dumb question.
Maybe all I want is a reason to justify buying the DA 35 2.4 SMH
.
However, I would like to hear from owners of both like ChristianRock below.
Originally posted by ChristianRock Mine is VERY sharp at f2.8. I keep thinking about getting a 2nd one to have on my K10D that I keep at work and in my work car... The one I have stays in our bag that is used on family outings and by my wife.
ChristianRock, thanks for the reply. Looking at your equipment list I see you have both lenses. Do you think both are comparable wide open? Can you elaborate on the differences if that's not too much to ask? Maybe you're the one who can finally put me out of my misery.
---------- Post added 06-13-17 at 04:41 AM ----------
Originally posted by Na Horuk That shot with the Alps is beautiful!
Thanks for sharing it.