Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-07-2019, 04:20 PM   #16
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by amstel78 Quote
I've mentioned before in another thread that there seems to be something with the forum photo conversion algorithm that generally tends to flatten the color pallet. The link to the larger sized JPG is the more accurate of the two; hence one of the reasons why I try to include a separate URL to all photos I post on this website.
It depends on the original file size. If excessive, the file will be condensed to forum standards with colors coerced to sRGB as a side-effect. Yours was as you uploaded, at least that is how the ICC and XMP metadata reads.


Steve

04-07-2019, 04:25 PM   #17
Senior Member
amstel78's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: NEPA, NYC, and wherever work sends me...
Photos: Albums
Posts: 247
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Thank you Steve. Those are nice pictures! At f2 though, your samples seem to exhibit the same "glowy softness" that I've seen in mine albeit not as pronounced. It's there though, at least from what I could deduce from the forum-limited resolution. It's hard to describe, but for example, the rearview mirror and wiper blades in the old car photo aren't "tack sharp", or as sharp as they could have been if the lens had been stepped down to f3.5 or higher.

Nevertheless, I find f2 to be completely usable as long as one doesn't hover over the picture's minutiae.

Edited to add: slight softness in an image may be exacerbated on my screen which is a color calibrated 4k monitor. All photos therefore are viewed at the monitor's native resolution.

---------- Post added 04-07-19 at 11:30 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
It depends on the original file size. If excessive, the file will be condensed to forum standards with colors coerced to sRGB as a side-effect. Yours was as you uploaded, at least that is how the ICC and XMP metadata reads.

Steve
I've been saving as JPG level 8 directly from PS. Most large files that haven't been cropped tend to get reduced to around 650k to 1.5mb in size on average.
04-07-2019, 04:30 PM - 1 Like   #18
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,576
QuoteOriginally posted by amstel78 Quote
Those are nice pictures! At f2 though, your samples seem to exhibit the same "glowy softness" "non-D*FA50/1.4, sub-$1,000 film-era appearance" that I've seen in mine
Fixed that for you, James!
04-07-2019, 04:31 PM - 1 Like   #19
Senior Member
amstel78's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: NEPA, NYC, and wherever work sends me...
Photos: Albums
Posts: 247
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Fixed that for you, James!
Hahahaha... thanks for the correction Mike.


Like I said before, that beast of a lens has ruined me for life. Nothing will ever be the same after that.

04-07-2019, 04:35 PM   #20
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by amstel78 Quote
It's hard to describe, but for example, the rearview mirror and wiper blades in the old car photo aren't "tack sharp"
What can I say...there are very few "tacks" in the frame and DOF was about 2". I will have to go back to the original crop to see where the point of focus was placed. As for glow...OOF tends to look that way in diffuse light.


Steve
04-07-2019, 04:51 PM   #21
Senior Member
amstel78's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: NEPA, NYC, and wherever work sends me...
Photos: Albums
Posts: 247
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
What can I say...there are very few "tacks" in the frame and DOF was about 2". I will have to go back to the original crop to see where the point of focus was placed. As for glow...OOF tends to look that way in diffuse light.


Steve
Perhaps glow isn't the ride word. Your photo definitely isn't OOF. Like I said, it's hard to describe but I'm sure you'd see the difference in that photo between f2 and f3.5.

---------- Post added 04-07-19 at 11:57 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
My rule of min f number for eye level shooting: 2 x fl / 10.
25mm > f5.0
35mm > f7. 1
50mm > f10

You'll use wider aperture to have some subject separation in which case sharpness in the corners isn't a concrrn anymore.

---------- Post added 07-04-19 at 22:52 ----------

I would never open a 35mm lens at f2 with a 3d scene and expecting dof sharpness across the frame.
Noted and agreed. In this case however, the entire image and in particular, the center appears soft compared to the same photo shot stopped down. There are a few scenarios where shooting wide open is warranted; low light, or where DOF has to be narrow for subject separation. The HD 35 f/2 can manage to a certain degree but doesn't excel when compared to the latest digital-era primes like the *50.

Last edited by amstel78; 04-07-2019 at 04:58 PM.
04-07-2019, 08:36 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,236
My experience with the original FA35/2 is similar to yours, amstel78. I had 2 (actually I think 3) copies of this lens. My first one was a new Samsung version; then I tried one or two used Pentax FA35/2 copies, hoping to get a different result.

I kept trying, but I decided the lens wasn't for me. Simply put, the image quality suffered noticeably at apertures wider than f/2.5. Softness was part of it; the other was probably the "glow" that you describe (I don't have a better description either). But the image degradation (perhaps a lack of contrast?) at f/2.2 was obvious and consistent on all my copies. It's clearly in the design of the lens - and I didn't like it.



While you may be "spoiled" by the D FA * 50/1.4, I don't think it's tainting your view. Your observations still appear accurate and valid.

Of course it still produces nice images, and this includes yours. In fact I rather like the DA35/2.4 variant, but it's easy to like a lens that performs so well wide-open while being so affordable. It produces bokeh circles with high IQ. But I understand it's not good for FF.


So you can use this somewhat overpriced (IMO) (HD)"FA35/2.5," or wrestle with the amazing but hard to tame FA31/1.8 that's fantastic wide open and can't seem to produce harsh backgrounds no matter what you do. But it also was difficult for me to get many interesting images out of it - at least on APS-C (I never tried it on FF).


Last edited by DSims; 04-07-2019 at 08:43 PM.
04-07-2019, 10:36 PM   #23
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by amstel78 Quote
Perhaps glow isn't the ride word. Your photo definitely isn't OOF. Like I said, it's hard to describe but I'm sure you'd see the difference in that photo between f2 and f3.5.
I might, though to be honest, the photo as taken shows the detail I intended. Did you post earlier that you were viewing on a 4K monitor? My I ask what size? If too small, they tend to swallow detail due to the dot pitch being beyond the viewer's visual acuity unless viewed at very close distance.

There is also a small caution regarding the Pentax Forum image display quality. The default "modern" skins for this site may require the browser to downsample many images with significant loss of quality in order to maintain "liquid" layout. This happens for both forum hosting and for off-site hosting with services such as Flickr. Changing to a "classic" skin will allow display resolution up to that stipulated in your account settings.

FWIW, I updated the f/2.0 example image post with higher resolution copies that better show the detail on the originals.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-07-2019 at 10:56 PM.
04-08-2019, 01:02 AM - 1 Like   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: SW Bavaria
Posts: 546
Here is a test of the FA 35/2.0: Pentax SMC-FA 35mm f/2 AL - Review / Test Report

Short summary: One of the best fast lenses you can get. Not far behind the SMC DA* 55 1.4 and far beyond the FA 50 1.4 (which is quite easy).

EDIT: The test is for APS-C only!
04-08-2019, 06:48 AM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,178
People pixel peep at 100% which, based on 4k ppi, is the equivalent of printing something like 180 cm x 120 cm looking at 20" distance. Also saying that the lens isn't sharp in the center wide open is something subjective because most primes even modern prime resolve their max at f5.6. The fa35 2 is a small lens, why compare it to lenses 4 times bigger?
04-08-2019, 10:41 AM - 1 Like   #26
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by Papa_Joe Quote
Not far behind the SMC DA* 55 1.4 and far beyond the FA 50 1.4 (which is quite easy).
For an even more telling comparison, consider Klaus' tests of the FA 43/1.9 Limited on the same camera...

Pentax SMC-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited - Review / Test Report - Analysis


Steve
02-22-2020, 04:24 PM   #27
Unregistered User
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by amstel78 Quote
I recently posted a few test samples of the HD Pentax-FA 35mm f2 on a K10D here: K10D and the new HD Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 - PentaxForums.com

I figured it was time to post a few samples of the same lens mounted to my K1-II. I just took these a few hours ago. All images posted have EXIF data attached. Minimal PP applied for artistic value only. No image sharpening applied. Larger sized JPGs can be found here: Index of /temp/K1-II_HD_35_f2


In a nutshell: wide open at f/2, the lens is soft but not overly so. It has a "glowy" feel which is reminiscent of fast Pentax primes of old on 35mm film. It could work for some specific cases if that's what you're looking for, but on a high resolution digital sensor, can become painfully distracting. Also, flare and ghosting seem to be well controlled. CA is manageable but annoying at f2, although pretty much disappears at f/2.8 and higher. Is it worth the extra $100 over the standard FA 35mm f/2? No, I don't think so. If on the other hand you can get it for less than $400 new, then by all means.

Without further ado:
I noticed that the HD FA 35mm F2 is the cheapest of the two FA 35mm F2 versions. The HD version costs about € 170,00 less than the SMC version. But from your post it appaears that its pricing is different at the other side of the Atlantic?
02-22-2020, 07:49 PM   #28
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by AfterPentax Quote
I noticed that the HD FA 35mm F2 is the cheapest of the two FA 35mm F2 versions. The HD version costs about € 170,00 less than the SMC version. But from your post it appaears that its pricing is different at the other side of the Atlantic?
At B&H...

HD FA 35/2 $349

FA 35/2 $319
I paid $299 for mine about 12 years ago.


Steve
02-23-2020, 02:03 AM   #29
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,576
QuoteOriginally posted by AfterPentax Quote
I noticed that the HD FA 35mm F2 is the cheapest of the two FA 35mm F2 versions. The HD version costs about € 170,00 less than the SMC version. But from your post it appaears that its pricing is different at the other side of the Atlantic?
For some reason, the SMC FA35/2 has always been priced confusingly higher in the UK and Europe compared to the US. I don't know if there's a reason, of if it's just a pricing anomaly...

Having said that, from what I can tell, there are very low stocks left of the original SMC version. SRS only has the HD, and some used examples of the SMC, in stock.
03-18-2020, 03:01 PM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,304
I'm having a hard time finding a FF review of the HD FA 2/35 lens with full size samples. I'm interested in how it compares to the DA 2.4/35. My initial feelings is that the latter isn't very good on ff. Lots of vinjetting and pretty soft corners.

Pentax probably choose to update the FA 2/35 lens because it's good but the characteristics are now very well mapped on the K-1, at least not as far as I have found. Any help would be much appreciated!
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, eye level, f/2, f2, frame, hd, hd pentax-fa 35mm, k-mount, k1-ii, lens, lens sample photo, lenses, media, mike, pentax, pentax lens, pentax-fa, pentax-fa 35mm f/2, performance, post, sample photo archive, samples, sharpness, shot, slr lens, smc, steve, thanks
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K1 to K1 Mark II or not II Kingman Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 39 03-07-2019 10:09 PM
For Sale - Sold: DA and HD DA Primes: DA 50 1.8, DA XS 40mm, HD DA 35mm, DA 21mm, HD DA 15mm Amarony Sold Items 8 02-20-2019 06:21 AM
Pentax K1 or Pentax K1 Mark ii giselag Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 15 01-04-2019 01:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K1 Kit - Pentax K1, Sigma ART 35mm F1.4, and Pentax 77mm F1.8 Jerry_Lundegaad Sold Items 14 11-13-2018 03:10 PM
HD 20-40 or HD 21 & HD 35 macro BarryE Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 33 09-03-2017 06:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:25 AM. | 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