[stevebrot]

I know to take the PF lens user reviews with a grain of salt,

Always read the actual reviews. Some users will issue a huge downgrade because a manual focus lens lacks AF or a K/M series lens lacks mount contacts. I seem to remember one reviewer marking a lens down because it was not a Zeiss. As noted above, the M 35/2.8 and A 35/2.8 are the same optics in a different package and no, the A 35/2.8 is not superior in any way other than convenience on Pentax dSLRs.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 07-03-2018 at 10:22 AM. Reason: Made for correct focal length

[pres589]

Always read the actual reviews. Some users will issue a huge downgrade because a manual focus lens lacks AF or a K/M series lens lacks mount contacts. I seem to remember one reviewer marking a lens down because it was not a Zeiss. As noted above, the M 28/2.8 and A 28/2.8 are the same optics in a different package and no, the A 28/2.8 is not superior in any way other than convenience on Pentax dSLRs. One should also note that both were originally aimed for the consumer market with street prices at or close to Vivitar 28/2.8 prices at the time.*


Steve

* Truth be told, I would lean towards one of the Komine-made Vivitars over either of the Pentax products.

This thread isn't about 28mm prime lenses. I'm asking about the M 35 f2.8 vs. the A 35 f2.8. I already own a Kiron 28mm f2.8 which is a bit too wide for what I consider "general carry do-all fixed focal length shooting" on a full-frame camera. The Kiron is great and it's not going on this trip.

[stevebrot]

This thread isn't about 28mm prime lenses. I'm asking about the M 35 f2.8 vs. the A 35 f2.8. I already own a Kiron 28mm f2.8 which is a bit too wide for what I consider "general carry do-all fixed focal length shooting" on a full-frame camera. The Kiron is great and it's not going on this trip.

I noticed my mistake and edited probably while you were typing . Thanks for the heads up though. Most of the comments about the 28s also apply to the 35s.

Addendum: I did scan through the reviews for both lenses and noted that the M was downgraded by a few users with little presence on the site. I specifically remember the user "Lens tester" who submitted several low scoring and cryptic reviews as well as a single post criticizing review score inflation. They rated the the M35/2.8 low on handling when adapted to Sony (rolls eyes). OTOH, several reviewers rated the A 35/2.8 at 9 and 10, go figure...


Steve

[pres589]

I see your edits. I also went out and looked up slow aperture issues with these lenses. Appears pretty easy to fix.

I think that there are so many good 35's from Pentax that there's no real reason to go looking for 3rd party optics for most people. I don't have some Zeiss dreams or whatever and cannot rationalize paying multiple hundreds of dollars when the M & A 35 f2.8's are so available and inexpensive.

Time to go M shopping, I guess.

[UncleVanya]

Just curious why the heavier 55 1.8 over the M or A 50 1.7?

[pres589]

Focal length. It's a compromise move; they never made a DA 70 2.4 with an aperture ring. I may not even go that route as I already own an M 50 1.4 although I'm not really a fan of 50mm lenses on full frame for the same sort of reasons I don't like 35mm on crop. I don't have nearly the weight challenge as I do space.

[Zivelot]

I had both the M and A version. To me they do not seem to have any difference in picture quality, be that film or digital. This is only a user point of view, never tested them properly against each other, just enjoyed shooting them.

[pres589]

I had both the M and A version. To me they do not seem to have any difference in picture quality, be that film or digital. This is only a user point of view, never tested them properly against each other, just enjoyed shooting them.

That's a perfect point of view to share and the kind of feedback I was looking for from a user of both. Thanks.

[ChristianRock]

Well I haven't had either of those 35mm lenses, but I can tell from experience that the coatings between an K/M and A lens can make quite a difference... I used to have a K 24 2.8 (which was an M in all but name, since it was produced during the M series days) and now I have an A 24 2.8. They share the same optical formula when it comes to the glass, but the coatings are quite different, and they might as well be different lenses. I liked the K version a lot, but I love the A. The colors, contrast and flare resistance are very much improved.
So while reviewers did seem to post some unfair reviews of the M 35 2.8, I wouldn't totally discount the fact that the A version might be improved when it comes to what the final images look like.
(the M 28 2.8 to the A 28 2.8 not so much in my experience - but the F 28 2.8 seems to be quite better in the "real world" than the previous versions, and the FA 28 2.8 is a different optical formula so comparisons can't be made).
I would like to be able to actually compare these two lenses but that is not likely to ever happen - there are so many good 35mm lenses out there, from the DA 35 2.4 I can only see upgrading to the FA 35 f2 (and maybe getting the K 35 3.5 for awesomeness).

[Ronald Oakes]

And the "A" or "M" is still quite good regardless the reviews ……. However.....this is why I settled on the SMC-K 35mm 3.5.
For your adventure....take the 35mm 2.8 A lens. You cant go wrong.

[pres589]

Christian, agreed; my question is if there are unspoken improvements that would make the A a noticeable amount better than the M version of these lenses? The database scores between them are quite different. So far just Zivelot has suggested that they perform pretty equally in his first-hand experience with both.

I could see myself getting an M and an A, testing, and reporting on my findings.

Ronald: If I was shooting with my K-5 II, where ISO 1600 is just a couple clicks away and the noise is low, I could see myself going for an f3.5 lens. With film I think I want that extra speed available to me when the lights are low.

[Ronald Oakes]

I noticed my mistake and edited probably while you were typing . Thanks for the heads up though. Most of the comments about the 28s also apply to the 35s.

Addendum: I did scan through the reviews for both lenses and noted that the M was downgraded by a few users with little presence on the site. I specifically remember the user "Lens tester" who submitted several low scoring and cryptic reviews as well as a single post criticizing review score inflation. They rated the the M35/2.8 low on handling when adapted to Sony (rolls eyes). OTOH, several reviewers rated the A 35/2.8 at 9 and 10, go figure...


Steve

"Lens Tester" will be forever "NOT" be forgotten by this forum....lol. He swooped in , gave us the blunt scoop , Straightened us all out , and quickly left ! Wow.....what a Show !
And his Revealing reviews will forever be etched on Pentax Forum's Lens review section.

[ChristianRock]

Christian, agreed; my question is if there are unspoken improvements that would make the A a noticeable amount better than the M version of these lenses? The database scores between them are quite different. So far just Zivelot has suggested that they perform pretty equally in his first-hand experience with both.

I could see myself getting an M and an A, testing, and reporting on my findings.

Ronald: If I was shooting with my K-5 II, where ISO 1600 is just a couple clicks away and the noise is low, I could see myself going for an f3.5 lens. With film I think I want that extra speed available to me when the lights are low.

There is an FA 35mm f2 lens in the For Sale section of the PentaxForums Marketplace that has been there for a few weeks (unexplainably IMHO) that is selling for 180 dollars... that is less than I have seen the A 35 2.8 sell for in some cases! I don't think there is any question that this lens is better than the M/A 35 2.8 designs, and even a bit better than the DA 35 2.4 design that is similar (but not the same, as the DA has a hybrid aspherical element while the FA lens has the aspherical made from molded glass). I would find a way to get this lens if I didn't have the similar DA 35 2.4 and funds weren't tight (I have no relation to the seller btw)

[clickclick]

The database scores between them are quite different.

Don't get hung up on this. If you want a great example of a huge disparity in ratings, check out the Takumar 15/3.5 versus the K and A version reviews. Some of the Takumars and very first of the K series had an aspherical element (have one of those ), but the great majority of the K and all the A series do not. The Takumar variants score high, the A variants score high, but the poor K, which is going to be optically like either of the others, is way down on the score. So, read the reviews, search for sample shots, and I think go for the M if you don't want the camera aperture control and don't mind it missing in the exif data. That may or may not be important to you (you shooting film or digital?), so that would be one thing to consider. Also, what modes to you like to shoot in? I have plenty of full manual lenses, but I do like my A series where I can see the aperture in the viewfinder, control it with the thumb wheel, easier AV shooting potentially etc. A lot will get down to what you like and your shooting style.

[pres589]

Christian, would you want to focus an FA 35 f2 manually 100% of the time? Most AF lenses aren't that much fun to focus manually anyway. I do agree that pricing for the A 35 f2.8 seems oddly high.

clickclick: Understood and agreed on how some random lenses get odd scores that are probably not really very "fair". I'm using this on film cameras and will quite possibly be shooting with a K1000 when the time comes, so, I can only control aperture with a ring and EXIF data is a couple decades into the future.