[Imp]

Hey all! It's been a while since I've posted.

I was wondering if peeps here had any thoughts on the FA 35mm 2.0 vs. the DA 35mm 2.8 limited.

Here is where I'm coming from:
1) I appreciate close-focus, like my Tamron 17-50 2.8 that can go to 0.27 meters, but I'm not sure if I need it to be a macro (I'd likely get something longer, but I'm not really planning on getting a lens just for macro anytime soon)
2) my only prime is am M 50 1.7 which I love for the size. However, it's too long on crop, it's fully manual, etc. I'd like a normal prime for my aps-c camera.
2.1) I really appreciate the f/1.7 of my 50mm lens. I am struggling to accept the 2.8 of the 35mm limited.

3) I like the results of the 50 1.7, and I think i'm fine with the obviously hexagonal bokeh, so that wouldn't be an issue with the FA 35.
4) The price difference new on B&H is USD100 (yes, I can always get a used limited cheaper, too)

My question is, with all the above reasons, would I be making a mistake going for the FA 35mm over the 35mm limited? Is the rendering of the limited THAT much better that you would say, in your own opinion, it is worth it? There is no way I'm getting the FA31mm, but I would really like the lens to be faster than f/2.8, - just the other day I was shooting a small band in really really dark conditions at iso 3200, f/1.7, 1/40th, with pretty dark results that need a lot of work in post. So... hit me with your opinions!

[pathdoc]

Unless you want the simultaneous convenience of a normal (~50mm equivalent) field of view and the ability to almost push your front element up one nostril of the subject and still attain focus, the 35mm Macro is not an essential item. I own it because it fits into my professional workflow nicely.

I haven't used the 35/2.0, but it carries the obvious advantage that if you ever got a K-1 or went to K-mount film, it would be compatible with all K-mount bodies (because it has an aperture ring).

[Imp]

Unless you want the simultaneous convenience of a normal (~50mm equivalent) field of view and the ability to almost push your front element up one nostril of the subject and still attain focus, the 35mm Macro is not an essential item. I own it because it fits into my professional workflow nicely.

I haven't used the 35/2.0, but it carries the obvious advantage that if you ever got a K-1 or went to K-mount film, it would be compatible with all K-mount bodies (because it has an aperture ring).

That is a very good point that I had not thought about. I wouldn't be going to FF digital or 35mm film anytime soon, but more likely I might adapt the lens to a panasonic or sony for filmmaking - in which case the aperture ring would be essential! That is a good point, thank you.

[caliscouser]

A couple of other options, the DA 35 2.4 and the Sigma 30 1.4. No slouches either.

[Imp]

A couple of other options, the DA 35 2.4 and the Sigma 30 1.4. No slouches either.

I've heard of bad cases of purple fringing from the sigma, not something I'd want to deal with for the price. The DA35 2.4 is getting closer to that 2.8 level, and I'm trying to go brighter (So yeah, the Sigma would be brighter, but...)

FA 35 2.0 or DA 35 2.8 limited

[antipattern]

It's a tough call. Another option would be the FA43 - small and slightly larger aperture, good ergonomics and manual aperture, but wide open it has a tendency towards fringing, too. Personally, I find the difference in focal length sufficient to warrant using it on APS-C over 50mm lenses.

The bokeh can be a bit distracting at times, but in the right hands it can be really pretty and provide 3D-pop.

Or, if you have money to burn, the FA31. I wouldn't own it had I not gotten it for an absolute steal.

[pres589]

Adorama had and may still have refurb Sigma 28 1.8's. I really like mine.

I don't really like 35mm on crop. My DA 35 rarely gets used. Your mileage may vary.

[monochrome]

The FA35/2 has been known as the poor man’s FA31/1.8. It is an astonishingly good image-making value; sharp, contrasty, colorful and inexpensive. Regrettably, I sold mine when I got the 31.

The major drawback in my opinion is the narrow focus ring on the front of the lens if you plan to use it adapted on mirrorless.

[Na Horuk]

2.1) I really appreciate the f/1.7 of my 50mm lens. I am struggling to accept the 2.8 of the 35mm limited.

But do you really need fast aperture? I don't know your usage, but I have DA 35mm f2.4 and use it at f8 90% of the time. Almost never go below f3.2. Just no reason, not for my photos. I think people often want superfast lens, but then quickly realize that massive bokeh photos are a gimmick and very limited. Still, if you need fast aperture, go for the FA 35mm or Sigma 35mm or even Samyang 35mm (if you don't mind MF).
I am happy with my DA 35mm f2.4 and according to reviews the DA 35mm f2.8 macro is even better, and the FA 35mm f2 is in between these two. I think the macro is great even for non-macro purposes, but its AF and aperture are a little slower. If those two attributes are important to you, then avoid that lens

[Madaboutpix]

Based on your own statements about your likes and expectations, you should probably go for the FA35 F2, since it really seems to be the brighter and not necessarily macro lens that you want. Kind of a no-brainer, I guess.

Personally, I haven't used the FA, but if it shares what I understand to be the rendering characteristics of its series, I would expect slightly warmer colours and a tad less contrast than I see in my smc DA35 F2.8 Macro. I happen to like the Limited's snappy rendering a lot, but, by all accounts, the FA35 is a more than solid performer which has plenty of character itself.

For the premium you pay for the Limited, it should be noted, you do get a much nicer build quality and that close-focusing ability. I've also found my copy to be quite usable already wide open at F2.8, with sharpness peaking at around F5 or F5.6, and nicely holding up till about F8 or, allowing for a wee bit of diffraction, F11.

[Just1MoreDave]

There should be a huge number of FA 35 example shots to look at. I think the FA has a look to it. I like to think that I can pick out shots from it among a lot of similar focal lengths, probably just hubris. It is not immune from purple fringing.

The DA/FA decision has been well-discussed in the past. When 3200 was far uglier (K10D and K20D days), the typical advice was if you needed speed and not macro, the FA was the best choice.

[bdery]

I appreciate close-focus

For the record, you would be better served comparing magnification instead of focus distance.

I really appreciate the f/1.7 of my 50mm lens

I would really like the lens to be faster than f/2.8

Then the decision is pretty much made up already, isn't it? The FA 35 is a superb lens, so is the DA 35 macro. It's not a question of quality in this case. The DA has macro and quick-shoft, the other is full frame and faster.

You might go halfway and get the DA 35 F2.4 Cheaper , FF compatible (not officially, but it is) a bit faster than the macro.

[pathdoc]

The major drawback in my opinion is the narrow focus ring on the front of the lens if you plan to use it adapted on mirrorless.

It's not that much different from the FA50, is it? I found the FA50/1.4 usable on an MX in manual focus, though not ideal of course; the MX was something of a rear lenscap to bring it halfway around the world so I could take it into a store and try it on a K-1, LOL. But I still ended up shooting three rolls of film on that camera, even though I also had a K-5 with me!!!

[seventysixersfan]

I was trying to make the same decision between these two lenses and it probably comes down, in large part, to what you want to do with it-- macros, or "snap shots"? This review of the macro lens convinced me to get the FA 35:
Pentax SMCP-DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited User Review « robertsdonovan.com

decisive excerpt in the review for me: "On the DA 35 Macro focus hunting goes more like “ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip, ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiip, ziiiiiip, ziiip-zip.” I missed a ton of snap shots with the kids while this lens oscillated back and forth the focus scale on me. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying the focus isn’t accurate. As all Pentaxians apparently already know, their DSLRs do not have the fastest autofocus system. The DA 35 Macro exacerbates this problem considerably. Its deliberate focusing is an important feature for shooting critical macro shots in controlled conditions but is also the main reason why it isn’t a replacement for standard lenses for every day use."

[ChristianRock]

Regarding the Sigma 30 1.4 Art - I have it and I think it's a wonderful lens. I have also read one review where the user said the AF was mostly off and the purple fringing got worse with stopping down - that isn't true with my lens, so I think they just had a bad sample. There is purple fringing but it's not so bad that it can't be fixed, and by f/1.8 it's pretty much gone. I only use center point AF on my K-S1 and I focus manually with the K10D, so some things that are issues for others might not be an issue for me. But I think it's the lens that makes the most sense as a fast normal prime for the APS-C system. I really wonder why it's basically the only player in that segment (under f2 primes for APS-C) - other than the FA 31 Limited of course, but that one is too expensive for some of us.

I also have the DA 35 2.4 and I think it's a wonderful, light lens for carrying the camera all day and not having any excuses for the size/weight of the setup (the DA 40 variants and the F and FA 28 2.8 would have the same kind of appeal I suppose).