[pinholecam]

Isn't it ALL the Pentax lenses?

[rjbrett]

best suited to close work and not far-off subjects

I do usually use it for these things, so I put it on the KP today to try it on more distant subject with some detail, and..... it's, .(don't look too close)....adequate;



I'll just keep it for those things to which it is more suited, and in the meantime have a newly arrived, larger, bag, and might be more inclined to pack one of my longer primes if I think I might need the reach;

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Pixel peepers seem to like the DA 35 f2.4 which I own and don't really care for as there's more to life than sharpness.

The DA 35 f2.4 is a bit of a strange creature. But so is the 18-135. I bought that one for my Samsung GX-10 and it delivered pleasant looking pictures, but now on the KP it is a different lens altogether. I found that with 35mm f2.4 it is a bit of the same behaviour. Put it on a K-3 II and it is good but... Put it on my K-01 and I was blown away by the colour, its vividness and the overall look of the picture. And yes, when pixelpeeping... I do not know what to think, so I stopped doing that. But the 18-135 went from camera to camera and keeps getting better and better. But pixelpeepers might not like this, but I have some outstanding results with it, sometimes just luck (taking a picture and the zoom creeped out while pushing the exposure button to mention such an occasion), sometimes the right lens at the right time.

[bdery]

When reading the original question, the lenses that came to mind are the FA Limited.

They have SOME flaws (CA and PF, for instance) which don't make them excellent test performers, but their rendering makes them truly special.

[pres589]

I'm still wondering if the DA 35 f2.4 isn't better suited to film shooting. Now that I own a Super Program I hope to find out before too long (probably be a while). I have a good copy of the lens but I rarely use it.

[pepperberry farm]

When reading the original question, the lenses that came to mind are the FA Limited.

They have SOME flaws (CA and PF, for instance) which don't make them excellent test performers, but their rendering makes them truly special.

I love my 31 and 77 Limiteds, but could never get comfy with the 43....

[BigMackCam]

I think the F35-70 f/3.5-4.5 might qualify.

It has neither the resolution nor optical correction of modern pixel-peeper favourites, yet its fans often call it a "stack of primes" I mightn't stretch quite that far, but I do think it's a lovely, versatile little lens (I use mine on APS-C format) that's "sharp enough" and renders well across the entire focal length range. Plus, it can be acquired very cheaply... I think I paid around GBP £40 - 45 for an excellent, well-cared-for example, and I know of members here who paid considerably less for theirs. It's a lot of lens for such little outlay.

It may be too good for anyone - even pixel-peepers - to hate, but it's certainly a product of its era with inherent limitations, and has been overtaken by many a modern zoom with greater focal length range. Still, I completely get why it's so well liked by so many folks. I'm one of them

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 08-22-2021 at 09:12 PM.

[lesmore49]

Smc da 18-135

X 2. I have one, stayed away from it for a couple of years, finally bought one as it's focal range is so useful. Yep, it creeps a bit , but I tell ya, this lens is one of my go to lenses when I'm using my ASP-C bodies. Exceptional lens,

I don't really pixel peep the edges on my photographs.

[BigMackCam]

I don't know whether these have been mentioned already, but... surely the DA 50/1.8 and FA 50/1.4 qualify? PPs will complain that the plastic-fantastic DA is only ever sharp at the centre, and that the FA is too soft to be usable wide open... but many of us love one or the other, or both.

[bdery]

I think the F35-70 f/3.5-4.5 might qualify.

It has neither the resolution nor optical correction of modern pixel-peeper favourites, yet it's fans often call it a "stack of primes" I mightn't stretch quite that far, but I do think it's a lovely, versatile little lens

That lens is actually well-regarded, I think. And I find its sharpness more than impressive, as well as its rendering. What limits it is the short focal range, more than anything. It also helps to make it a good performer, as it's a "safe" design, not particularly challenging. And at 2x, not something you'd see released nowadays.

[ChristianRock]

I'm still wondering if the DA 35 f2.4 isn't better suited to film shooting. Now that I own a Super Program I hope to find out before too long (probably be a while). I have a good copy of the lens but I rarely use it.

I find the DA 35 2.4 one of the best Pentax lenses for film - provided you have a camera that can control its aperture, of course.

It's also great on my K10D and K200D, and I'm very pleased with what the K-S1 does with it as well.

I also own the DA 35 2.8 Limited and I don't think the Plastic Fantastic is inferior, they are just different. The Limited has a more "artistic" rendering, but for any picture that has people in it, I'll always take the DA 35 2.4 as it gives much better results. The rendering of skin and hair is great, while the 35 Limited was probably not created thinking about taking pictures of people.

Both are very sharp. The 35 2.4 a bit sharper at medium and longer distances in my experience. Neither one qualifies for this thread

[vector]

I haven't really had any problem with my DA15. The DA18-135 drives me nuts with weak corners and telephoto, plus the variable aperture can be disappointing. But I am too often surprised when reviewing my library in lightroom to find a nice shot was taken with that lens and not something better. This summer I used it on my K1 because it was my only weather sealed zoom and it was raining out. It did quite well and for the snaps on a hike I didn't really miss the full 36mp resolution. The Da50-200 has been a hard one to love but again I have some great shots with it. I hear lots of gripes about the clinical DA35 but in my experience after adding the HDFA35 which is generally well liked, other than build the 2 are almost indistinguishable. I'll add another plug for the FA50 1.4 though. I have a lot of awesome shots from a lens that I think a lot of people cited as a reason to jump to other brands to get wide open sharpness at that focal length.

[richard0170]

I don't know whether these have been mentioned already, but... surely the DA 50/1.8 and FA 50/1.4 qualify? PPs will complain that the plastic-fantastic DA is only ever sharp at the centre, and that the FA is too soft to be usable wide open... but many of us love one or the other, or both.

I find myself having no complaints about the DA 50 f1.8. I like that it is fast, sharp, light and cheap. I like the colour rendition too. It has not even succumbed to unreliable focusing like my DA 35mm f2.4, which I did also like until this fault manifested itself. I did once wish it would focus slightly closer, but the acquisition of several macro lenses has buried that little gripe.