[pearl.ish]

The Pentax A 35mm f2 is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than the Pentax 40mm f2.8 Limited...

The two lenses aren't even in the same stratosphere.

[fs999]

As the FA 35mm F2

[kypfer]

Controversial … possibly.
Unfounded … almost certainly
Unscientific … definitely!
Let's see the direct comparisons, under controlled conditions, straight out of the camera and with no post processing.

[Papa_Joe]

Nope. The 40mm f.2.8 ltd is IQ-wise one the best Pentax lenses you can put onto an APS-C camera. So no way to be waaaaaaay better.
I would like to know how you drew your conclusion.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

The Pentax A 35mm f2 is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than the Pentax 40mm f2.8 Limited...

The two lenses aren't even in the same stratosphere.

I guess you have not tried out the DA 35mm F2.4, otherwise you would not have made this assumption.

I would like to know how you drew your conclusion.

I like to know how you came to your conclusion....

Let's see the direct comparisons, under controlled conditions, straight out of the camera and with no post processing.

That is the right reaction to this theorem.

PS.: You forgot to mention which version of the Pentax 40mm f2.8 Limited.

[Fogel70]

The Pentax A 35mm f2 is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than the Pentax 40mm f2.8 Limited...

The two lenses aren't even in the same stratosphere.

On what camera?

[JPT]

I have the SMC FA 35/2 and the SMC DA40/2.8 and they are both great lenses on APS-C. They are both very sharp copies.

I find that the FA 35 is a more versatile lens, being a bit wider and brighter for shots after sunset. I've also used it on a film camera and a K-1 II in the past and it is really nice as a wide angle on full frame.

The DA 40 on the other hand is of course smaller. The main ways in which it performs better than the FA 35 is having a nicer quality of bokeh and less flare when the sun is in or just about of the frame. I only take the occasional shot with it, but I'm always satisfied withe the quality when I do. It's great for environmental portraits where you want to isolate the subject, but still be aware of what is around them.

So if I had to keep just one, it would be the FA 35, but I'd be interested to know why the OP feels there is such a difference between the lenses. Fortunately I don't have to keep just one, so I'll keep them both. Perhaps I'll add a DA 35 Macro for maximum pointless redundancy.

[Digitalis]

The Pentax A 35mm f2 is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than the Pentax 40mm f2.8 Limited...

Not so controversial is the statement that the Pentax FA31mm f/1.8 ASPH Limited is better than both.


Pentax KP - SMCP-FA31mm f/1.8 ASPH Limited @f/1.8 ISO 100 1/640th

[AfterPentax Mark II]

For the record, my own all-time favourite fast 35mm is the big, heavy, original Super Takumar 35mm/2.0 with the 67mm filter ring. For its exquisite colour rendering style and its microcontrast above all, and it's sharp enough for my needs so why should I care beyond that.

I guess that every photographer has his or hers favourite lens and that that one is the best of them all. I go for the A (and F) 50mm f1.4. But according to the reviewers I have at least some better lenses than that one.

[slartibartfast01]

Does the OP own either lens?

[Madaboutpix]

A possibly controversial opinion:The Pentax A 35mm f2 is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than the Pentax 40mm f2.8 Limited...The two lenses aren't even in the same stratosphere.

Well, everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. A lot of what we do here on PF is exchanging opinions, but while there's nothing wrong with that per se, I do find reasoned opinions a lot more compelling to engage with. So, why not upload sample images and explain why you prefer one over the other? Right now it's not even clear which version of the 40-mil Limited you're referring to. If it's related to bokeh or character, you may even have an arguable point, but without illustration nor a minimum of specificity, it all remains a bit nebulous and indifferent, don't you think?

Haven't had the privilege to try out either of the two lenses you mention. If the user reviews are anything to go by, both seem to enjoy a solid following on these forums. I happen to own the smc-DA35 Limited Macro, which I like a lot, particularly (though not necessarily in this order)

• for its compact metal build and effective slide-out hood
• for its flexible imaging power both near and far away
• for its reliable (yet not overly clinical) sharpness and generous microcontrast when slightly stopped down
• for the lushness of its colour rendering
• for its capability of producing attractive sunbursts (which the HD version largely lost)

Samples illustrating at least some of the IQ-related characteristics commended above (accentuated by light-handed RAW editing to taste):

[pearl.ish]

On what camera?

K3 Classic. Haven't tried comparing them on the Sony A7R(you ever going to use me again?)3...

---------- Post added 09-09-22 at 11:21 AM ----------

What does better even mean when it comes to lenses?

Sharper? Some people care about that above all else, while others (like me) have it quite low on their list of priorities and only need a lens to be sharp enough for the job at hand.

Contrast? That depends on the sort of contrast characteristics you like. Most people nowadays seem to like the very high edge contrast that modern lenses are designed to have, which gives them even more of an in-your-face sense of sharpness. Others (like me) don't like their edge contrast too strongly defined and care much more about the sort of microcontrast that can give photos a sense of three dimensionality.

Colour rendering? That's something that most people hardly ever mention when they talk about lenses nowadays. But there are some (like me) who think it's the most important thing of all.

So when you say that the A 35mm/2.0 is so much better than the 40mm/2.8 Ltd, what do you mean by "better"?

For the record, my own all-time favourite fast 35mm is the big, heavy, original Super Takumar 35mm/2.0 with the 67mm filter ring. For its exquisite colour rendering style and its microcontrast above all, and it's sharp enough for my needs so why should I care beyond that.

I have come to this conclusion almost immediately; I bought both of them this week. The green-ring 40mm Limited is wonderful for what it is, but I think I would take the M/40mm 2.8 over the OG Limited on the street – at that focal length do I really need the AF on APS-C for street photography most days? That said, I wouldn't be mad if I could shoot the Konica Hexanon 40mm 1.8 over the Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 on my K3.

In my (vast) experience with Pentax vintage lenses (I recycle cameras as a hobby and have tried a lot out over the years), it is a real ignorance is bliss situation until you try the F2.0 versions – for example, I thought the M/28/2.8 was a blast – I loved that lens – for 2 years it lived on my Fuji X-E1. Then I was given a very good price on the Pentax-M 28mm f2.0... That was when it dawned on me – the f2.0 version was so much better – those were lenses made to compete with the best in the world and the pro-sumer f2.8s just don't hold a candle to the nicer offerings.

There is nothing wrong with the Limited, just as there is really nothing wrong with many of the cheapest options Pentax has ever offered... The Pentax-M 50mm f2 is such a fantastically sharp lens and it has better microcontrast than the 50mm 1.4 from the same era, but technically the 50mm f1.4 delivers more delicious results. Naturally once you hear about that lavishness in the next room, of course you want to have a slice for yourself...

---------- Post added 09-09-22 at 11:27 AM ----------

Does the OP own either lens?

Yes. I own both.

I also own about 30 other lenses in my permanent collection, and I have tested almost every lens Pentax made during what we would now consider the vintage era. I still use some of them regularly.

The A-35mm f2 will probably not come off of my K3 very often in the future.

---------- Post added 09-09-22 at 11:32 AM ----------

Well, everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. A lot of what we do here on PF is exchanging opinions, but while there's nothing wrong with that per se, I do find reasoned opinions a lot more compelling to engage with. So, why not upload sample images and explain why you prefer one over the other? Right now it's not even clear which version of the 40-mil Limited you're referring to. If it's related to bokeh or character, you may even have an arguable point, but without illustration nor a minimum of specificity, it all remains a bit nebulous and indifferent, don't you think?

Haven't had the privilege to try out either of the two lenses you mention. If the user reviews are anything to go by, both seem to enjoy a solid following on these forums. I happen to own the smc-DA35 Limited Macro, which I like a lot, particularly (though not necessarily in this order)

• for its compact metal build and effective slide-out hood
• for its flexible imaging power both near and far away
• for its reliable (yet not overly clinical) sharpness and generous microcontrast when slightly stopped down
• for the lushness of its colour rendering
• for its capability of producing attractive sunbursts (which the HD version largely lost)

Samples illustrating at least some of the IQ-related characteristics commended above (accentuated by light-handed RAW editing to taste):

Oh sorry – I was pretty wrecked last night when I posted the thread, haha...

It is the green version, OG 40mm Limited.

I definitely understand your point – maybe in the next few days I will upload some of my test comparison shots but in all likelihood I will shoot my X100V now until winter arrives. Generally when the temperature up here in Canada drops below -0°C I put the X100V away and bust out the K3, but I was looking at the shots from the K3 and I almost sold it yesterday!! I have the 35mm f2 on the K3 now, I could die a happy woman with that setup.

I haven't yet tried the Pentax Limited 35mm Macro, but I might be able to trade for one in town and then I am sure that it will be sharper than the A35/2... But will it have the handling? Is the relatively small difference in IQ and overall sharpness worth it for that sweet manual focus experience?

---------- Post added 09-09-22 at 11:42 AM ----------

I have the SMC FA 35/2 and the SMC DA40/2.8 and they are both great lenses on APS-C. They are both very sharp copies.

I find that the FA 35 is a more versatile lens, being a bit wider and brighter for shots after sunset. I've also used it on a film camera and a K-1 II in the past and it is really nice as a wide angle on full frame.

The DA 40 on the other hand is of course smaller. The main ways in which it performs better than the FA 35 is having a nicer quality of bokeh and less flare when the sun is in or just about of the frame. I only take the occasional shot with it, but I'm always satisfied withe the quality when I do. It's great for environmental portraits where you want to isolate the subject, but still be aware of what is around them.

So if I had to keep just one, it would be the FA 35, but I'd be interested to know why the OP feels there is such a difference between the lenses. Fortunately I don't have to keep just one, so I'll keep them both. Perhaps I'll add a DA 35 Macro for maximum pointless redundancy.

I just can't describe how perfect it feels on the K3.

The experience of using that pinnacle of Pentax engineering from a bygone era that was the last stop on the line before AF came along and photography became so much easier in some ways (yet so much more complex in others)... It feels like perfection and the images make me want to stop 'chimping' altogether. If the meter is in the middle and the subject is in focus, there is no reason to lower the camera and confirm anything.... The quality washes over you and it gradually becomes unnecessary to check because already know you are shooting gold out of your fingertips. Haha

[Madaboutpix]

With more specific comments, you've piqued my interest. Would you care to post some samples shot with the A35 F2? This is not to "challenge" you or anything - just genuinely interested. Have occasionally seen copies sold on eBay, where well preserved ones seem to fetch handsome prices.

[pearl.ish]

Controversial … possibly.
Unfounded … almost certainly
Unscientific … definitely!
Let's see the direct comparisons, under controlled conditions, straight out of the camera and with no post processing.

How many Pentax lenses do you own?

---------- Post added 09-09-22 at 11:46 AM ----------

With more specific comments, you've piqued my interest. Would you care to post some samples shot with the A35 F2? This is not to "challenge" you or anything - just genuinely interested. Have occasionally seen copies sold on eBay, where well preserved ones seem to fetch handsome prices.

I will be posting some samples, yes. It was the same experience I had switching from the Pentax-M 28mm f2.8 to the Pentax-M 28mm f2.0 on my MX. Immediately noticed it is a better hunk of glass.

Currently I am trying reeeeally hard to keep my X100V (I am thinking of sellng it now while the price is up, buying a GR3 to try out while I wait for that new XH2 sensor to hit the X100 line). If I keep using my K3 now I might as well sell it, because 10 months of winter is coming and the X100V is not a winter camera. Haha

[reh321]

K3 Classic. Haven't tried comparing them on the Sony A7R(you ever going to use me again?)3...

---------- Post added 09-09-22 at 11:21 AM ----------


I have come to this conclusion almost immediately; I bought both of them this week. The green-ring 40mm Limited is wonderful for what it is, but I think I would take the M/40mm 2.8 over the OG Limited on the street – at that focal length do I really need the AF on APS-C for street photography most days? That said, I wouldn't be mad if I could shoot the Konica Hexanon 40mm 1.8 over the Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 on my K3.

In my (vast) experience with Pentax vintage lenses (I recycle cameras as a hobby and have tried a lot out over the years), it is a real ignorance is bliss situation until you try the F2.0 versions – for example, I thought the M/28/2.8 was a blast – I loved that lens – for 2 years it lived on my Fuji X-E1. Then I was given a very good price on the Pentax-M 28mm f2.0... That was when it dawned on me – the f2.0 version was so much better – those were lenses made to compete with the best in the world and the pro-sumer f2.8s just don't hold a candle to the nicer offerings.

There is nothing wrong with the Limited, just as there is really nothing wrong with many of the cheapest options Pentax has ever offered... The Pentax-M 50mm f2 is such a fantastically sharp lens and it has better microcontrast than the 50mm 1.4 from the same era, but technically the 50mm f1.4 delivers more delicious results. Naturally once you hear about that lavishness in the next room, of course you want to have a slice for yourself...

---------- Post added 09-09-22 at 11:27 AM ----------


Yes. I own both.

I also own about 30 other lenses in my permanent collection, and I have tested almost every lens Pentax made during what we would now consider the vintage era. I still use some of them regularly.

The A-35mm f2 will probably not come off of my K3 very often in the future.

It still is not clear to me how you are comparing these lenses.

I used the Pentax-A 50mm F1.7 that was kitted with my “Super Program” for most of the twelve plus years I used that film camera.
When I purchased the K-30, I used that lens with the K-30, and was surprised to discover that the lens was sharper than even Kodachrome25 could show.
The lubrication in that lens has since dried and will no longer focus to infinity, so I no longer use it,
but I was happy to put hand focusing mostly behind me in any case {now I do hand focus sometimes when I use some film lenses on my K-30}.
I still think the 20-40mm Ltd works “fine” on my KP.
Are you using detail, color, bokeh, ……. to rate lenses?