DA35/2.8 at photozone.de

Blue · 08-24-2008, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by deejjjaaaa

ogl sold his DA35 some time ago... probably before you joined this forum.

Maybe. I still not new to Pentax. Pentax was around before this forum.

Edit: Oh wow, he joined way back in the Paleozoic area . . . Dec 2007. These things were only available in June 08. So he didn't have it for long if he had it.

Last edited by Blue; 08-24-2008 at 10:22 AM.

ogl · 08-24-2008, 10:35 AM

I think and I know that:
1. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 in terms of resolution.
2. DA35 is slower than FA31, FA35, FA43
3. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, DA40 and FA43 for portrait.
4. DA35 is not better than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes, but a bit worse.
5. DA35 has very good construction - better than FA77 IMO
6. DA35 is very good macro lens with resolution better than DFA100 macro.
7. DA35 has very standart bokeh, in some situations not good.
8. DA35 has no any art, mystic or outstanding in end picture. (to say honest FA35 and DA40 are not better

)
9. DA35 has very good contract and color

There are TWO types of LIMITED - FA (classical) and pancakes. What is the new move of Pentax - " MACRO LIMITED " with optical design from Tokina? I don't understand.
It's not enough to put simply good lens in metal to be LIMITED. IMO.

deejjjaaaa · 08-24-2008, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Blue

These things were only available in June 08. So he didn't have it for long if he had it.

well, some people start singing dithyrambs the same day when their new lens arrive to them... ogl at least played w/ it for some time.

benjikan · 08-24-2008, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by gnaztee

Regarding the DA 35, I have it, I love it, I think there IS something special about the way it renders. I love that I can use it for street photography and go right into an extreme closeup. I've even defended it recently in this forum. All that being said, I think it's a bit silly for us (yes, I include me) to be arguing about it.

First of all, everyone has different ideas of what they want their own photos to look like. If this wasn't true, there'd be no need for lightroom or photoshop, there would just be one program that had a "Make My Picture Perfect" option. For instance, I like what I've seen of the FA 31 and FA 43, but not as much as the DA ltds. I don't find that mystery quality others find in those photos. Check that, I SEE what they're talking about, but I don't particularly like it. No biggie, to each his or her own. I definitely like the DA 35 more than the FA 31, but I got no problem with others being opposite that.

Secondly, regarding the two reviews, one is clearly subjective and one is technical. As many others have stated, neither one should be taken as the final word on whether or the lens is great. I'm glad the first two guys liked it, but I liked it before their article. And I trust Klaus' technical review, and find it interesting, but couldn't care less if he recommends it or not, I like it.

Finally, Ogl, and I don't say this with any malice at all, but it seems a bit strange for you to cite the photozone review to back up your campaign against this lens, when your biggest complaints about the lens are that it's "dull" and has "no mystic," two categories that I couldn't find in Klaus' test.

Oh, one more thing in regards to my post title: check out the differing opinions on the DA 40 when it came out (a lens that has been cited as better than the DA 35 in this current round of lens disputes). Some of the arguments sound strangely similar:

Why so little lust for the DA 40mm ? [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Many lenses, many users, many needs, everyone can be happy with what they have!

Todd

I have the 40 Ltd and have used it almost exclusively in the studio. It is extremely sharp, has great contrast and renders colors wonderfully. I love the fact that it is sharp from wide open till f16 with no problem. I don't even consider it's size. For me it is just a 40 (60) mm lens that sits very nicely for full fashion images as well as portraits. I recently purchased the 43 Ltd and have yet to use it professionally. As I have the 31 Ltd, I doubt if I will purchase the 35 macro unless really needed for a Beauty gig.

Ben

Ben

Blue · 08-24-2008, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by deejjjaaaa

well, some people start singing dithyrambs the same day when their new lens arrive to them... ogl at least played w/ it for some time.

You mean like he did back in January before it was released?

Originally posted by ogl

It' really COOL lense with HIGHEST resolution, contract, interesting bokeh.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/19065-da-35mm-f2-8-macro-limited.html

Blue · 08-24-2008, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by ogl

. . .
There are TWO types of LIMITED - FA (classical) and pancakes. What is the new move of Pentax - " MACRO LIMITED " with optical design from Tokina? I don't understand.
It's not enough to put simply good lens in metal to be LIMITED. IMO.

Hoya owns both Tokina and Pentax. Tokina has used Hoya glass for decades. Even when Pentax uses Hoya/Tokina glass, it gets the SMC coating.

gnaztee · 08-24-2008, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by ogl

I think and I know that:
1. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 in terms of resolution.
2. DA35 is slower than FA31, FA35, FA43
3. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, DA40 and FA43 for portrait.
4. DA35 is not better than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes, but a bit worse.
5. DA35 has very good construction - better than FA77 IMO
6. DA35 is very good macro lens with resolution better than DFA100 macro.
7. DA35 has very standart bokeh, in some situations not good.
8. DA35 has no any art, mystic or outstanding in end picture.
9. DA35 has very good contract and color

1. According to Klaus' test, sure, you've got some testable data to back you up. So I won't argue this (although my copy is as sharp as my DA 70).

2. Without a doubt, but this doesn't make it any worse of a lens. I rarely even go wider than f/4, so it's a matter of what pictures different individuals want to take. Faster doesn't equal better for everyone.

3. This assertion has no measurable value. So, you say it's worse, I say it isn't. There's no way to prove either of us right.

4. I can't argue it's better or worse for this, and neither can you. It's damn good in my experience. Again, what look does each individual photog want? What applications does he/she use it for?

5. I can't argue this as I have not held or used any other LTDs. besides the DA 70. I'll take your word for it here.

6. Again, I can't compare here as I've not had the DFA 100mm. I have had the Cosina 105, and the DA 35 seems clearly better to me.

7. Examples have shown this, I won't argue. But, one of "Pentax's Greatest Lenses," the FA 43 has been shown to have standard or even rough bokeh at times too. This isn't a deal breaker for me, for some (you, obviously) it is.

8. This is where your argument throws me a bit. This may be the most subjective aspect of a lens. I feel it renders beautifully, better than examples I've seen of the DA 40, FA 43 and FA 31. It's what I like. It's not what you like. Certainly, you can't presume that "art" and "mystic" are aspects seen in the same way by everybody (or even the same way by any two people).

9. I believe this too, but I don't believe that everyone will. Some feel it is too dark and saturated, I feel it nails colors right on. Again, it's all a quite subjective.

Ultimately, I guess the reason I keep responding to you is not so much to defend this lens as to push for more logic in the lens debates that occasionally occur here. I don't care so much if people don't like this lens, but when clear opinion is stated as fact, I get a little flustered.

Anyway, enjoy whatever lenses you (as in everybody) like best.

Todd

**rparmar** · 08-24-2008, 04:07 PM

Green Blade World

Bee Home

These shots suck. I mean they are totally crap compared to any other Pentax lens. There's no way a 35mm can be good for macros. You will never ever catch an insect with one. And the resolution is so rubbish that subtle detail like flower petals will be all washed out. The bokeh is nowhere near as good as lenses that cost three times as much and the DA35 is simply not fast enough (at the same speed as almost any other lens) to catch the glimmerings of morning light reflecting blades of grass through dewdrops.

OK, sure I grant the build is amazing, the size perfect and the colour rendering so subtle it's like looking at the world itself. Oh, and maybe the local contrast might be some of the best I've ever seen.

But I wouldn't use this on my next fashion shoot.

Unless you paid me.

P.S. Don't try using this lens on your K100D like I did and certainly don't up the ISO. The poor thing just cannot handle it. Especially when hand-held.

jsherman999 · 08-24-2008, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by ogl

I think and I know that:
1. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 in terms of resolution.
2. DA35 is slower than FA31, FA35, FA43
3. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, DA40 and FA43 for portrait.
4. DA35 is not better than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes, but a bit worse.
5. DA35 has very good construction - better than FA77 IMO
6. DA35 is very good macro lens with resolution better than DFA100 macro.
7. DA35 has very standart bokeh, in some situations not good.
8. DA35 has no any art, mystic or outstanding in end picture.
9. DA35 has very good contract and color

There are TWO types of LIMITED - FA (classical) and pancakes. What is the new move of Pentax - " MACRO LIMITED " with optical design from Tokina? I don't understand.
It's not enough to put simply good lens in metal to be LIMITED. IMO.

Originally posted by gnaztee

1. According to Klaus' test, sure, you've got some testable data to back you up. So I won't argue this (although my copy is as sharp as my DA 70).

2. Without a doubt, but this doesn't make it any worse of a lens. I rarely even go wider than f/4, so it's a matter of what pictures different individuals want to take. Faster doesn't equal better for everyone.

3. This assertion has no measurable value. So, you say it's worse, I say it isn't. There's no way to prove either of us right.

4. I can't argue it's better or worse for this, and neither can you. It's damn good in my experience. Again, what look does each individual photog want? What applications does he/she use it for?

5. I can't argue this as I have not held or used any other LTDs. besides the DA 70. I'll take your word for it here.

6. Again, I can't compare here as I've not had the DFA 100mm. I have had the Cosina 105, and the DA 35 seems clearly better to me.

7. Examples have shown this, I won't argue. But, one of "Pentax's Greatest Lenses," the FA 43 has been shown to have standard or even rough bokeh at times too. This isn't a deal breaker for me, for some (you, obviously) it is.

8. This is where your argument throws me a bit. This may be the most subjective aspect of a lens. I feel it renders beautifully, better than examples I've seen of the DA 40, FA 43 and FA 31. It's what I like. It's not what you like. Certainly, you can't presume that "art" and "mystic" are aspects seen in the same way by everybody (or even the same way by any two people).

9. I believe this too, but I don't believe that everyone will. Some feel it is too dark and saturated, I feel it nails colors right on. Again, it's all a quite subjective.

Ultimately, I guess the reason I keep responding to you is not so much to defend this lens as to push for more logic in the lens debates that occasionally occur here. I don't care so much if people don't like this lens, but when clear opinion is stated as fact, I get a little flustered.

Anyway, enjoy whatever lenses you (as in everybody) like best.

Todd

I have to say, I'm enjoying the 'controversy' over this - add to this Mike
& Carl's overwhelmingly positive review of this lens (& K20D combo,) and this
becomes quite dramatic - a drama - with ogl playing the part of scorned lover.

So, here's my brief response to your list, ogl:

1. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 in terms of resolution.

Possibly true, but 1) sample variation may account for some disparity, and 2) who
cares - all of those are so sharp that the very minor difference is just academic,
and probably not even visible t pixel-peepers - only MTF testers.

2. DA35 is slower than FA31, FA35, FA43

Yup.

3. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, DA40 and FA43 for portrait.

I'd disagree - to me, the FA 35 images I've seen have been sharp, but have
no 'wow' factor, and the DA 40 I owned was clinically perfect and very sharp,
but again, not so much 'wow'. I'd rate these lenses this way for portraiture:
1) 31ltd 2) 43ltd 3) 35ltd 4) 40ltd 5) FA 35.

4. DA35 is not better than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes, but a bit worse.

Absolutely disagree. The more I use it, the more I see it shine in this area.

5. DA35 has very good construction - better than FA77 IMO

Yup.

6. DA35 is very good macro lens with resolution better than DFA100 macro.

Yes.

7. DA35 has very standart bokeh, in some situations not good.

Yes, but still very good in most situations.

8. DA35 has no any art, mystic or outstanding in end picture.

Absolutely disagree. It has more 'art' than the FA 35 or DA 40, for example.

9. DA35 has very good contract and color

Yes.

.

ogl · 08-24-2008, 08:23 PM

Tastes differ. DA35/2.8 macro - I can understand.
DA35/2.8 MACRO LIMITED - I don't.

Blue · 08-24-2008, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by ogl

Tastes differ. DA35/2.8 macro - I can understand.
DA35/2.8 MACRO LIMITED - I don't.

It is all metal construction and it is decent to manual focus as well. Not even the D FA 50mm and 100mm are all metal construction. The all metal construction is one of the criteria for a lens being designated as a "Limited."

deejjjaaaa · 08-24-2008, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Hoya owns both Tokina and Pentax. Tokina has used Hoya glass for decades. Even when Pentax uses Hoya/Tokina glass, it gets the SMC coating.

Hoya does not own Tokina.

deejjjaaaa · 08-24-2008, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

4. DA35 is not better than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes, but a bit worse.

Absolutely disagree. The more I use it, the more I see it shine in this area.

your "absolutely disagree" means what exactly ?

1) that DA35 is better then "FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes"

OR

2) that DA35 is not better then "FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes" , but not a bit (think about bit as 2.8 vs 2.0, 1.8, 1.9) worse

jsherman999 · 08-24-2008, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by deejjjaaaa

your "absolutely disagree" means what exactly ?

1) that DA35 is better then "FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes"

OR

2) that DA35 is not better then "FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes" , but not a bit (think about bit as 2.8 vs 2.0, 1.8, 1.9) worse

My DA 35ltd is better than my FA 31ltd for street photography and landscapes, and it's better than the DA 40ltd I used to own for that also. So I "absolutely disagree" with what ogle said.

.

ogl · 08-25-2008, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

My DA 35ltd is better than my FA 31ltd for street photography and landscapes, and it's better than the DA 40ltd I used to own for that also. So I "absolutely disagree" with what ogle said.

.

FA31 is one the best lens Pentax ever made...

How can DA35 be better than FA31 for landscapes if DA35 has lower resolution...

It's funny....DA40 is better too in terms of resolution. And much smaller.
DA35 has
no better contrast, no better color. Explain, please.

DA35 is digital lens, not FF. Slower. Has lower resolution.
It's strange to hear your opinion...

08-24-2008, 10:35 AM	#17
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	I think and I know that: 1. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 in terms of resolution. 2. DA35 is slower than FA31, FA35, FA43 3. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, DA40 and FA43 for portrait. 4. DA35 is not better than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes, but a bit worse. 5. DA35 has very good construction - better than FA77 IMO 6. DA35 is very good macro lens with resolution better than DFA100 macro. 7. DA35 has very standart bokeh, in some situations not good. 8. DA35 has no any art, mystic or outstanding in end picture. (to say honest FA35 and DA40 are not better ) 9. DA35 has very good contract and color There are TWO types of LIMITED - FA (classical) and pancakes. What is the new move of Pentax - " MACRO LIMITED " with optical design from Tokina? I don't understand. It's not enough to put simply good lens in metal to be LIMITED. IMO. Last edited by ogl; 08-24-2008 at 08:25 PM.

08-24-2008, 01:45 PM	#22
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Why can't I leave this alone?! Originally posted by ogl I think and I know that: 1. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 in terms of resolution. 2. DA35 is slower than FA31, FA35, FA43 3. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, DA40 and FA43 for portrait. 4. DA35 is not better than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes, but a bit worse. 5. DA35 has very good construction - better than FA77 IMO 6. DA35 is very good macro lens with resolution better than DFA100 macro. 7. DA35 has very standart bokeh, in some situations not good. 8. DA35 has no any art, mystic or outstanding in end picture. 9. DA35 has very good contract and color 1. According to Klaus' test, sure, you've got some testable data to back you up. So I won't argue this (although my copy is as sharp as my DA 70). 2. Without a doubt, but this doesn't make it any worse of a lens. I rarely even go wider than f/4, so it's a matter of what pictures different individuals want to take. Faster doesn't equal better for everyone. 3. This assertion has no measurable value. So, you say it's worse, I say it isn't. There's no way to prove either of us right. 4. I can't argue it's better or worse for this, and neither can you. It's damn good in my experience. Again, what look does each individual photog want? What applications does he/she use it for? 5. I can't argue this as I have not held or used any other LTDs. besides the DA 70. I'll take your word for it here. 6. Again, I can't compare here as I've not had the DFA 100mm. I have had the Cosina 105, and the DA 35 seems clearly better to me. 7. Examples have shown this, I won't argue. But, one of "Pentax's Greatest Lenses," the FA 43 has been shown to have standard or even rough bokeh at times too. This isn't a deal breaker for me, for some (you, obviously) it is. 8. This is where your argument throws me a bit. This may be the most subjective aspect of a lens. I feel it renders beautifully, better than examples I've seen of the DA 40, FA 43 and FA 31. It's what I like. It's not what you like. Certainly, you can't presume that "art" and "mystic" are aspects seen in the same way by everybody (or even the same way by any two people). 9. I believe this too, but I don't believe that everyone will. Some feel it is too dark and saturated, I feel it nails colors right on. Again, it's all a quite subjective. Ultimately, I guess the reason I keep responding to you is not so much to defend this lens as to push for more logic in the lens debates that occasionally occur here. I don't care so much if people don't like this lens, but when clear opinion is stated as fact, I get a little flustered. Anyway, enjoy whatever lenses you (as in everybody) like best. Todd

08-24-2008, 04:07 PM	#23
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	This thread needs pictures Green Blade World Bee Home These shots suck. I mean they are totally crap compared to any other Pentax lens. There's no way a 35mm can be good for macros. You will never ever catch an insect with one. And the resolution is so rubbish that subtle detail like flower petals will be all washed out. The bokeh is nowhere near as good as lenses that cost three times as much and the DA35 is simply not fast enough (at the same speed as almost any other lens) to catch the glimmerings of morning light reflecting blades of grass through dewdrops. OK, sure I grant the build is amazing, the size perfect and the colour rendering so subtle it's like looking at the world itself. Oh, and maybe the local contrast might be some of the best I've ever seen. But I wouldn't use this on my next fashion shoot. Unless you paid me. P.S. Don't try using this lens on your K100D like I did and certainly don't up the ISO. The poor thing just cannot handle it. Especially when hand-held.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA*55 at photozone.de.	ogl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	11-24-2009 09:51 AM
DA 17-70 versus DA 16-45 on photozone	rparmar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	12-16-2008 11:50 AM
Photozone 55-300	k100d	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	09-30-2008 07:37 PM
More Photozone reviews!	feronovak	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	05-04-2007 05:26 PM
FA 50 F/1.4 Test at PhotoZone	XKimZe	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	04-20-2007 08:52 AM

08-24-2008, 10:14 AM	#16
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by deejjjaaaa ogl sold his DA35 some time ago... probably before you joined this forum. Maybe. I still not new to Pentax. Pentax was around before this forum. Edit: Oh wow, he joined way back in the Paleozoic area . . . Dec 2007. These things were only available in June 08. So he didn't have it for long if he had it. Last edited by Blue; 08-24-2008 at 10:22 AM.

08-24-2008, 10:40 AM	#18
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by Blue These things were only available in June 08. So he didn't have it for long if he had it. well, some people start singing dithyrambs the same day when their new lens arrive to them... ogl at least played w/ it for some time.

08-24-2008, 11:13 AM	#19
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by gnaztee Regarding the DA 35, I have it, I love it, I think there IS something special about the way it renders. I love that I can use it for street photography and go right into an extreme closeup. I've even defended it recently in this forum. All that being said, I think it's a bit silly for us (yes, I include me) to be arguing about it. First of all, everyone has different ideas of what they want their own photos to look like. If this wasn't true, there'd be no need for lightroom or photoshop, there would just be one program that had a "Make My Picture Perfect" option. For instance, I like what I've seen of the FA 31 and FA 43, but not as much as the DA ltds. I don't find that mystery quality others find in those photos. Check that, I SEE what they're talking about, but I don't particularly like it. No biggie, to each his or her own. I definitely like the DA 35 more than the FA 31, but I got no problem with others being opposite that. Secondly, regarding the two reviews, one is clearly subjective and one is technical. As many others have stated, neither one should be taken as the final word on whether or the lens is great. I'm glad the first two guys liked it, but I liked it before their article. And I trust Klaus' technical review, and find it interesting, but couldn't care less if he recommends it or not, I like it. Finally, Ogl, and I don't say this with any malice at all, but it seems a bit strange for you to cite the photozone review to back up your campaign against this lens, when your biggest complaints about the lens are that it's "dull" and has "no mystic," two categories that I couldn't find in Klaus' test. Oh, one more thing in regards to my post title: check out the differing opinions on the DA 40 when it came out (a lens that has been cited as better than the DA 35 in this current round of lens disputes). Some of the arguments sound strangely similar: Why so little lust for the DA 40mm ? [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review Many lenses, many users, many needs, everyone can be happy with what they have! Todd I have the 40 Ltd and have used it almost exclusively in the studio. It is extremely sharp, has great contrast and renders colors wonderfully. I love the fact that it is sharp from wide open till f16 with no problem. I don't even consider it's size. For me it is just a 40 (60) mm lens that sits very nicely for full fashion images as well as portraits. I recently purchased the 43 Ltd and have yet to use it professionally. As I have the 31 Ltd, I doubt if I will purchase the 35 macro unless really needed for a Beauty gig. Ben Ben

08-24-2008, 11:56 AM	#20
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by deejjjaaaa well, some people start singing dithyrambs the same day when their new lens arrive to them... ogl at least played w/ it for some time. You mean like he did back in January before it was released? Originally posted by ogl It' really COOL lense with HIGHEST resolution, contract, interesting bokeh. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/19065-da-35mm-f2-8-macro-limited.html

08-24-2008, 11:59 AM	#21
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by ogl . . . There are TWO types of LIMITED - FA (classical) and pancakes. What is the new move of Pentax - " MACRO LIMITED " with optical design from Tokina? I don't understand. It's not enough to put simply good lens in metal to be LIMITED. IMO. Hoya owns both Tokina and Pentax. Tokina has used Hoya glass for decades. Even when Pentax uses Hoya/Tokina glass, it gets the SMC coating.

08-24-2008, 07:44 PM	#24
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by ogl I think and I know that: 1. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 in terms of resolution. 2. DA35 is slower than FA31, FA35, FA43 3. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, DA40 and FA43 for portrait. 4. DA35 is not better than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes, but a bit worse. 5. DA35 has very good construction - better than FA77 IMO 6. DA35 is very good macro lens with resolution better than DFA100 macro. 7. DA35 has very standart bokeh, in some situations not good. 8. DA35 has no any art, mystic or outstanding in end picture. 9. DA35 has very good contract and color There are TWO types of LIMITED - FA (classical) and pancakes. What is the new move of Pentax - " MACRO LIMITED " with optical design from Tokina? I don't understand. It's not enough to put simply good lens in metal to be LIMITED. IMO. Originally posted by gnaztee 1. According to Klaus' test, sure, you've got some testable data to back you up. So I won't argue this (although my copy is as sharp as my DA 70). 2. Without a doubt, but this doesn't make it any worse of a lens. I rarely even go wider than f/4, so it's a matter of what pictures different individuals want to take. Faster doesn't equal better for everyone. 3. This assertion has no measurable value. So, you say it's worse, I say it isn't. There's no way to prove either of us right. 4. I can't argue it's better or worse for this, and neither can you. It's damn good in my experience. Again, what look does each individual photog want? What applications does he/she use it for? 5. I can't argue this as I have not held or used any other LTDs. besides the DA 70. I'll take your word for it here. 6. Again, I can't compare here as I've not had the DFA 100mm. I have had the Cosina 105, and the DA 35 seems clearly better to me. 7. Examples have shown this, I won't argue. But, one of "Pentax's Greatest Lenses," the FA 43 has been shown to have standard or even rough bokeh at times too. This isn't a deal breaker for me, for some (you, obviously) it is. 8. This is where your argument throws me a bit. This may be the most subjective aspect of a lens. I feel it renders beautifully, better than examples I've seen of the DA 40, FA 43 and FA 31. It's what I like. It's not what you like. Certainly, you can't presume that "art" and "mystic" are aspects seen in the same way by everybody (or even the same way by any two people). 9. I believe this too, but I don't believe that everyone will. Some feel it is too dark and saturated, I feel it nails colors right on. Again, it's all a quite subjective. Ultimately, I guess the reason I keep responding to you is not so much to defend this lens as to push for more logic in the lens debates that occasionally occur here. I don't care so much if people don't like this lens, but when clear opinion is stated as fact, I get a little flustered. Anyway, enjoy whatever lenses you (as in everybody) like best. Todd I have to say, I'm enjoying the 'controversy' over this - add to this Mike & Carl's overwhelmingly positive review of this lens (& K20D combo,) and this becomes quite dramatic - a drama - with ogl playing the part of scorned lover. So, here's my brief response to your list, ogl: 1. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 in terms of resolution. Possibly true, but 1) sample variation may account for some disparity, and 2) who cares - all of those are so sharp that the very minor difference is just academic, and probably not even visible t pixel-peepers - only MTF testers. 2. DA35 is slower than FA31, FA35, FA43 Yup. 3. DA35 is worse than FA31, FA35, DA40 and FA43 for portrait. I'd disagree - to me, the FA 35 images I've seen have been sharp, but have no 'wow' factor, and the DA 40 I owned was clinically perfect and very sharp, but again, not so much 'wow'. I'd rate these lenses this way for portraiture: 1) 31ltd 2) 43ltd 3) 35ltd 4) 40ltd 5) FA 35. 4. DA35 is not better than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes, but a bit worse. Absolutely disagree. The more I use it, the more I see it shine in this area. 5. DA35 has very good construction - better than FA77 IMO Yup. 6. DA35 is very good macro lens with resolution better than DFA100 macro. Yes. 7. DA35 has very standart bokeh, in some situations not good. Yes, but still very good in most situations. 8. DA35 has no any art, mystic or outstanding in end picture. Absolutely disagree. It has more 'art' than the FA 35 or DA 40, for example. 9. DA35 has very good contract and color Yes. .

08-24-2008, 08:23 PM	#25
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Tastes differ. DA35/2.8 macro - I can understand. DA35/2.8 MACRO LIMITED - I don't.

08-24-2008, 08:32 PM	#26
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by ogl Tastes differ. DA35/2.8 macro - I can understand. DA35/2.8 MACRO LIMITED - I don't. It is all metal construction and it is decent to manual focus as well. Not even the D FA 50mm and 100mm are all metal construction. The all metal construction is one of the criteria for a lens being designated as a "Limited."

08-24-2008, 08:40 PM	#27
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by Blue Hoya owns both Tokina and Pentax. Tokina has used Hoya glass for decades. Even when Pentax uses Hoya/Tokina glass, it gets the SMC coating. Hoya does not own Tokina.

08-24-2008, 08:48 PM	#28
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by jsherman999 4. DA35 is not better than FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes, but a bit worse. Absolutely disagree. The more I use it, the more I see it shine in this area. your "absolutely disagree" means what exactly ? 1) that DA35 is better then "FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes" OR 2) that DA35 is not better then "FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes" , but not a bit (think about bit as 2.8 vs 2.0, 1.8, 1.9) worse

08-24-2008, 10:11 PM	#29
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by deejjjaaaa your "absolutely disagree" means what exactly ? 1) that DA35 is better then "FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes" OR 2) that DA35 is not better then "FA31, FA35, FA43 and DA40 for street photography and for landscapes" , but not a bit (think about bit as 2.8 vs 2.0, 1.8, 1.9) worse My DA 35ltd is better than my FA 31ltd for street photography and landscapes, and it's better than the DA 40ltd I used to own for that also. So I "absolutely disagree" with what ogle said. .

08-25-2008, 02:17 AM	#30
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by jsherman999 My DA 35ltd is better than my FA 31ltd for street photography and landscapes, and it's better than the DA 40ltd I used to own for that also. So I "absolutely disagree" with what ogle said. . FA31 is one the best lens Pentax ever made... How can DA35 be better than FA31 for landscapes if DA35 has lower resolution... It's funny....DA40 is better too in terms of resolution. And much smaller. DA35 has no better contrast, no better color. Explain, please. DA35 is digital lens, not FF. Slower. Has lower resolution. It's strange to hear your opinion...