Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-24-2017, 12:23 AM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany
Posts: 269
DA35 2.4 or FA35 2.0 which one would you go for (for the K-1) and why?

I know that there are some threads about those two lenses. However, I haven't found a specific one that deals with them when used together with the K-1.

I'm looking for a lens to cover the 35mm focal length again. I already have the 28-105mm 2.8 for my K-1 and also the Pentax 24-70mm 2.8. Still I want a prime for them being not as heavy as my zooms.

Which one of those two lenses would you favor over the other one for which reason? Obviously, the DA35 2.4 is cheaper. However, it falls behind in aperture speed. But is this really relevant?

Thanks in advance for helping me out!

P.S. I read that the FA35 2.0 provides a fantastic 3-D look. If this is true and the DA35 cannot excel at this domain, I'd go for the FA35 since plastic pictures (oh, I realize that this word used here might be misleading... since the DA35 is all about plastic!! so maybe I should have written "vivid") are something very special.
=> One example (pictures of the dog): https://www.pentaxians.de/40456504nx51499/objektive-f27/pentax-fa35-f20-al-an-k1-t23605.html

Not sure how the DA35 would have performed here.


Last edited by zeitlos; 12-24-2017 at 12:29 AM.
12-24-2017, 12:34 AM - 1 Like   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Otago, New Zealand
Posts: 305
I can only speak for apsc mode, and only the 35 2.4, though I have heard that the 35 2.4 will cover full frame. Albeit with vignetting.

The 35 2.4 is a really nice lens, on apsc it has great characteristics, very sharp from f4 or so, minimal distortion, the handling is great and it's incredibly light. It's my favorite lens.

I don't know how it compares to the fa 2.0 on full frame, so take my comments with a grain of salt. In all likelihood the fa is better as it's designed for full frame in the first place.

---------- Post added 12-24-17 at 12:34 AM ----------

I can only speak for apsc mode, and only the 35 2.4, though I have heard that the 35 2.4 will cover full frame. Albeit with vignetting.

The 35 2.4 is a really nice lens, on apsc it has great characteristics, very sharp from f4 or so, minimal distortion, the handling is great and it's incredibly light. It's my favorite lens.

I don't know how it compares to the fa 2.0 on full frame, so take my comments with a grain of salt. In all likelihood the fa is better as it's designed for full frame in the first place.
12-24-2017, 12:42 AM - 2 Likes   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,219
QuoteOriginally posted by zeitlos Quote
I know that there are some threads about those two lenses. However, I haven't found a specific one that deals with them when used together with the K-1.
Be honest, Zeitlos - were you trying very hard?

This is just from last week .... Advice on Adding a 35mm lens to Collection - PentaxForums.com

Happy Christmas.
12-24-2017, 12:43 AM - 1 Like   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,005
Only one is officially rated as full frame compatible. It is also better built and has an aperture ring.
Unless price is a big issue it's a no-brainer to me.

12-24-2017, 12:53 AM - 1 Like   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany
Posts: 269
Original Poster
Thank you for your comments! I didn't know that the DA35 shows some vignetting even though I know that the "DA" indicates this. All my reading has so far supported my idea that the DA is fully FF-compatible. So I'm glad I asked back.

Furthermore, I read a lot about some issues the FA might have with PF and some other things which people said is better controlled by the DA since it has a more modern coating. However, all articles I found dealt with them on APS-C cameras.

Of course I'll surely like the haptics of the FA more, however, I wouldn't mind that much since the DA is way cheaper. But optics are most important to me and how they perform on FF.

Merry Christmas to you guys as well

---------- Post added 12-24-2017 at 09:01 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote

Thanks for the link! Interesting Read! Reminds me of the fact that I still got a DA40XS 2.8. Unfortunately my K-1 is currently being repaired and won't be back that fast, so I cannot check it. Is there some detectable/serious vignetting when you use this lens on a K-1? 40mm vs. 35mm shouldn't be that much different on FF, right?

So I have to modify my question a bit: any reasons to choose the FA35 2.0 when you already got a DA40XS?
12-24-2017, 02:02 AM - 1 Like   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany
Posts: 269
Original Poster
So just ordered a new copy of it from SRS England.
12-24-2017, 02:31 AM - 3 Likes   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kiwi_jono's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,305
QuoteOriginally posted by zeitlos Quote
So just ordered a new copy of it from SRS England.
Great. I don't think you will be disappointed with the FA35.
I quite liked mine on the K-5 but I like it much more on the K-1. Its still a very useful focal length FF (if not more) and I like the bokeh better than I did on APS-C (maybe partly due to close focus distance for same framing I'm not sure).

Couple of shots (at f2):
Old cash register | Jonathan Wilson | Flickr
Ford V8 | Jonathan Wilson | Flickr
12-24-2017, 02:54 AM - 1 Like   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 596
FA35 f2 - the poor man's FA31, supposedly. Could be better said as the 'pragmatic' man's choice. I've compared the DA (and the macro version, which I sold as I moved to mostly FF) with the FA35 and the FA 31. The DA's were not usable on FF, for - vignetting, and edge resolution issues.

The comparison between the FA35 and the FA31 surprised me, as I was expecting all sorts of wonderful improvements and fields full of pixies with the 31. The build of the 31 apart, I feel that the difference is at best subtle in actual use. Yes, the 31 is my preferred lens for the occasional, 'wow where did that come from' image, but this may of course just be hope & expectation coming through. My FA35 doesn't get a look in very often now, but as it's so light there are times when it has an outing.

So go for the FA35

12-24-2017, 03:11 AM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany
Posts: 269
Original Poster
I have to say that I sold my FA31 1.8 two weeks ago. Bought a new copy a few years ago, however, hardly ever used it. I loved its mechanics/build quality but found it more and more decadent just to take it out from time to time to feel its materials So I finally sold it.

There are basically just there "rememberable" pictures I took with the FA31 1.8 (APS-C):
Lausbub ? Scallywag | the-living-years | Flickr
Friends | Two friends trying to get some loaves of bread bac? | Flickr
Melon Shop Georgia | the-living-years | Flickr

and maybe:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the-living-years/11501244304/in/dateposted-public/

Very likely that the FA35 2.0 would have been able to come up with the same results.

So I'm not really sure whether I will use the FA35 more often however, since it's way cheaper (320 pounds at SRS right now) it's not that much of a waste of money if I just use it from time to time.

---------- Post added 12-24-2017 at 11:12 AM ----------

I have to say that I sold my FA31 1.8 two weeks ago. Bought a new copy a few years ago, however, hardly ever used it. I loved its mechanics/build quality but found it more and more decadent just to take it out from time to time to feel its materials So I finally sold it.

There are basically just there "rememberable" pictures I took with the FA31 1.8 (APS-C):
Lausbub ? Scallywag | the-living-years | Flickr
Friends | Two friends trying to get some loaves of bread bac? | Flickr
Melon Shop Georgia | the-living-years | Flickr


So I'm not really sure whether I will use the FA35 more often however, since it's way cheaper (320 pounds at SRS right now) it's not that much of a waste of money if I just use it from time to time.
12-24-2017, 03:30 AM - 1 Like   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,005
So you bought an expensive lens, but didn't use it because it was expensive?
That's just nuts. Mine goes everywhere with me....



12-24-2017, 03:34 AM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany
Posts: 269
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
So you bought an expensive lens, but didn't use it because it was expensive?
That's just nuts.
Absolutely. What makes you think such weird things? Maybe my English isn't always good enough to express myself. I'm sorry for that.

Basically I prefer covering this focal length with my zooms. However, I don't want to do without it completely, that's why I ordered the FA35 today. Still, won't use it that often I suppose. But spending 350 Euro isn't as bad as wasting more than 1000 Euro on something you hardly ever use.

Last edited by zeitlos; 12-24-2017 at 03:41 AM.
12-24-2017, 04:56 AM   #12
pid
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 258
... and if you see an old SMC Takumar 1:3.5 35mm take it and get flashed! Sharp, beautiful rendering, cheap and easy to use.
12-24-2017, 04:59 AM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany
Posts: 269
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pid Quote
... and if you see an old SMC Takumar 1:3.5 35mm take it and get flashed! Sharp, beautiful rendering, cheap and easy to use.
Does it have autofocus?
12-24-2017, 05:30 AM - 1 Like   #14
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,190
DA35/2.4 is not spec'ed/tested for FF, its not just a matter of vignetting.
So off center sharpness (esp stopped down), CA, abberations , will not be factory tested since the intended image circle is apsc.
Yes, you could get a good copy that works on FF, but you can also get one that does not so well (and that won't be Pentax's fault)

So between the 2, certainly the FA35/2.
12-24-2017, 05:53 AM - 2 Likes   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,219
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
DA35/2.4 is not spec'ed/tested for FF
Of course they tested it, Pinholecam.

PENTAX K-1 Laboratory | PENTAX K-1 Special site | RICOH IMAGING
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, apsc, comments, da, da35, da40xs, f4, fa, fa31, fa35, ff, flickr, frame, friends, georgia, grain, k-1, k-mount, lens, lenses, likelihood, mode, pentax lens, salt, shop, slr lens, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you could keep only one, which one and why? Ketsuppi11 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 12-14-2017 10:57 AM
DA35/2.4 is better than FA35/2 in serious tests ogl Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 03-03-2011 02:02 PM
DA35/2.4 AL and FA35/2 AL are the sisters. ogl Pentax News and Rumors 83 09-12-2010 02:47 PM
Which one would be your "go to" film camera from the following? cheekygeek Pentax Film SLR Discussion 18 01-29-2010 02:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top