Fa 35 Vs Da 40

EdZarts · 04-09-2007, 12:09 PM

greetings all,
Right now my main shooting kit consists of the k100d with the DA 21 ltd and the 50-200 zoom. yes, it's a rather minimalist kit, but I use the da21 for probably 80% of my shots, so the zoom is just there for the odd "reach out and touch someone" kind of shot :-)

the only thing I feel I "really" need in terms of lenses is a "normal", and I've pretty much narrowed it down to the 40/2.8 and the 35/2. Of course now I'm completely torn between them and cant decide!

I like the speed of the 35 (stop faster) and maybe a slight preference for the wider focal length, however the 40/2.8 has the ultimate compactness-factor and quickshift going for it...

so I'm torn - is the extra stop of speed worth carrying around a bigger lens? (I carry my k100 99% of the time, so weight/size is definitely an issue.)

so the question for all of you that have/tested both lenses - how do they compare in terms of IQ/bokeh? how are they wide open? (ie if I have to stop the 35 down to 2.8 to be as good as the 40 wide open, I'd probably go with the 40) which has smoother bokeh?

both are about the same price, so thats not an issue.... argh, decisions decisions!

Jonas B · 04-09-2007, 12:41 PM

My vote goes for the FA35, as usual. I can not see that the DA40 has anything talking for it when it comes to image quality. Not that it is that far behind but to my needs one stop easily beats that little difference in size.

But basically, you are asking us something that is about your personal preferences. That is hard.... Thinking about myself I always have the camera in my bag, which I nearly always bring. The size difference hence is to the the advantage of the FA35. I don't want to fiddle with a lens too little to really fiddle with. What good is it with QS if you have problems handling the focusing ring?

And maybe you like the signature of the DA40?

Make a search for pictures taken with these lenses over at pBase (the search function, brands, scroll down to lenses).

Leya216 · 04-09-2007, 12:45 PM

I didn't need the extra speed and I find that the smaller the equipment the more likely I am to bring it along which means I am more likely to get the shot. So if size matters this is THE lens! It also focuses really fast on the K100D (I haven't compared it to the 35mm). I don't find mine to be so sharp wide open but I PP everything so it doesn't matter to me
Here's a photo I shot with it Sunday

Reps · 04-09-2007, 01:00 PM

Why?
Very simple: I realize how good (and cool and slim etc.) the DA40 is and well aware of QuickShift feature (which again is superb!) but call me an oldie- I sold my 40 and kept my 35... stupid You ask? Maybe, but still happy :-)
Best and happy shooting,JR
BTW this decision was due to non-existent light during our low-light season? N0, 43LTD usage was the fault :-(

kbrabble · 04-09-2007, 01:12 PM

I chose to keep the 40mm. To me, build quality, and quick shift focusing are worth the small loss of speed. As far as image quality is concerned, either one is an excellent choice.

guillermovilas · 04-09-2007, 03:37 PM

Well i got my 40mm f/2.8 Limited just 3 days ago and here are a few of my first shots.

guillermovilas · 04-09-2007, 03:41 PM

This shot was taken in a restaurant with very little light indeed.

So it`s handheld with no flash at 1/20s and ISO 1600

Last edited by guillermovilas; 04-24-2007 at 04:47 PM.

guillermovilas · 04-09-2007, 03:45 PM

Just so that you can see how small it is and how it looks like on a K10D

GaryML · 04-09-2007, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by EdZarts

the only thing I feel I "really" need in terms of lenses is a "normal", and I've pretty much narrowed it down to the 40/2.8 and the 35/2. Of course now I'm completely torn between them and cant decide!

I like the speed of the 35 (stop faster) and maybe a slight preference for the wider focal length, however the 40/2.8 has the ultimate compactness-factor and quickshift going for it...

so I'm torn - is the extra stop of speed worth carrying around a bigger lens? (I carry my k100 99% of the time, so weight/size is definitely an issue.)

Two new Pentax DA 35mm lenses are one the way: one is a DA 35mm f2.8 Limited Macro and the other is a DA 35mm of unknown speed (probably at least f2) and with a SDM (in-lens motor). Both will offer interesting, compact alternatives to the FA 35. If you can wait a while, these alternatives may be better than the old FA 35mm. Of course, you will need a K10D body (or it's successor) to take advantage of the SDM.

Personally, at this point in time, I wouldn't buy a lens without the Quick-shift feature. I frequently switch to manual focus and I find Quick-shift super-convenient.

jthommo · 04-09-2007, 08:11 PM

I've seen many good pics posted from the 40 (see above for example). I have the 35/2 and I like the "normal" focal length. Example:

WMBP · 04-09-2007, 09:10 PM

Don't mean to interrupt this thread, but I'm curious: what is "quick shift focusing"? Don't think I've heard the term before.

Will

nystateofmind27 · 04-09-2007, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by WMBP

Don't mean to interrupt this thread, but I'm curious: what is "quick shift focusing"? Don't think I've heard the term before.

Will

The D-FA macros and most or all DA lens have "quick shift" which means that you can leave the lens on AF, but still manually focus after the AF does it's job. You just turn the focus ring and refocus at anytime, without moving the switch to MF. I love this feature and I really miss it in the FA 43mm.

WMBP · 04-09-2007, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by nystateofmind27

The D-FA macros and most or all DA lens have "quick shift" which means that you can leave the lens on AF, but still manually focus after the AF does it's job. You just turn the focus ring and refocus at anytime, without moving the switch to MF. I love this feature and I really miss it in the FA 43mm.

I'm glad I asked - and thanks for the quick reply. Looks like my Pentax 16-45 has this feature. Just gave it a quick try here and it is indeed rather nifty.

Now, we return you to your regularly scheduled thread....

Will

EdZarts · 04-10-2007, 04:21 AM

I didn't realize there was a new 35 SDM coming out... I think that will probably push me toward the 40, and wait to see how the new 35 is. <sigh> I'm sure I'll probably end up with both... :-)

EdZarts · 04-10-2007, 04:08 PM

well, I pulled the trigger... 17th st. photo had the da40 in stock, it's on its way, should be here tomorrow :-)

04-09-2007, 12:09 PM	#1
EdZarts Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 26	Fa 35 Vs Da 40 greetings all, Right now my main shooting kit consists of the k100d with the DA 21 ltd and the 50-200 zoom. yes, it's a rather minimalist kit, but I use the da21 for probably 80% of my shots, so the zoom is just there for the odd "reach out and touch someone" kind of shot :-) the only thing I feel I "really" need in terms of lenses is a "normal", and I've pretty much narrowed it down to the 40/2.8 and the 35/2. Of course now I'm completely torn between them and cant decide! I like the speed of the 35 (stop faster) and maybe a slight preference for the wider focal length, however the 40/2.8 has the ultimate compactness-factor and quickshift going for it... so I'm torn - is the extra stop of speed worth carrying around a bigger lens? (I carry my k100 99% of the time, so weight/size is definitely an issue.) so the question for all of you that have/tested both lenses - how do they compare in terms of IQ/bokeh? how are they wide open? (ie if I have to stop the 35 down to 2.8 to be as good as the 40 wide open, I'd probably go with the 40) which has smoother bokeh? both are about the same price, so thats not an issue.... argh, decisions decisions!

04-09-2007, 12:45 PM	#3
Leya216 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 184	I love my 40mm I didn't need the extra speed and I find that the smaller the equipment the more likely I am to bring it along which means I am more likely to get the shot. So if size matters this is THE lens! It also focuses really fast on the K100D (I haven't compared it to the 35mm). I don't find mine to be so sharp wide open but I PP everything so it doesn't matter to me Here's a photo I shot with it Sunday Last edited by Leya216; 04-09-2007 at 12:52 PM.

04-09-2007, 01:00 PM	#4
Reps Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Tartu, Estonia Posts: 159	FA 35/2 superb for me... Why? Very simple: I realize how good (and cool and slim etc.) the DA40 is and well aware of QuickShift feature (which again is superb!) but call me an oldie- I sold my 40 and kept my 35... stupid You ask? Maybe, but still happy :-) Best and happy shooting,JR BTW this decision was due to non-existent light during our low-light season? N0, 43LTD usage was the fault :-(

04-09-2007, 03:37 PM	#6
guillermovilas Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hasselt , Belgium Posts: 224	Well i got my 40mm f/2.8 Limited just 3 days ago and here are a few of my first shots. Last edited by guillermovilas; 04-24-2007 at 04:47 PM.

04-09-2007, 03:45 PM	#8
guillermovilas Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hasselt , Belgium Posts: 224	Just so that you can see how small it is and how it looks like on a K10D Last edited by guillermovilas; 04-24-2007 at 04:47 PM.

04-09-2007, 12:41 PM	#2
Jonas B Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Göteborg, Sweden Posts: 810	My vote goes for the FA35, as usual. I can not see that the DA40 has anything talking for it when it comes to image quality. Not that it is that far behind but to my needs one stop easily beats that little difference in size. But basically, you are asking us something that is about your personal preferences. That is hard.... Thinking about myself I always have the camera in my bag, which I nearly always bring. The size difference hence is to the the advantage of the FA35. I don't want to fiddle with a lens too little to really fiddle with. What good is it with QS if you have problems handling the focusing ring? And maybe you like the signature of the DA40? Make a search for pictures taken with these lenses over at pBase (the search function, brands, scroll down to lenses).

04-09-2007, 01:12 PM	#5
kbrabble Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 181	I chose to keep the 40mm. To me, build quality, and quick shift focusing are worth the small loss of speed. As far as image quality is concerned, either one is an excellent choice.

04-09-2007, 03:41 PM	#7
guillermovilas Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Hasselt , Belgium Posts: 224	This shot was taken in a restaurant with very little light indeed. So it`s handheld with no flash at 1/20s and ISO 1600 Last edited by guillermovilas; 04-24-2007 at 04:47 PM.

04-09-2007, 05:39 PM	#9
GaryML Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 441	Originally posted by EdZarts the only thing I feel I "really" need in terms of lenses is a "normal", and I've pretty much narrowed it down to the 40/2.8 and the 35/2. Of course now I'm completely torn between them and cant decide! I like the speed of the 35 (stop faster) and maybe a slight preference for the wider focal length, however the 40/2.8 has the ultimate compactness-factor and quickshift going for it... so I'm torn - is the extra stop of speed worth carrying around a bigger lens? (I carry my k100 99% of the time, so weight/size is definitely an issue.) Two new Pentax DA 35mm lenses are one the way: one is a DA 35mm f2.8 Limited Macro and the other is a DA 35mm of unknown speed (probably at least f2) and with a SDM (in-lens motor). Both will offer interesting, compact alternatives to the FA 35. If you can wait a while, these alternatives may be better than the old FA 35mm. Of course, you will need a K10D body (or it's successor) to take advantage of the SDM. Personally, at this point in time, I wouldn't buy a lens without the Quick-shift feature. I frequently switch to manual focus and I find Quick-shift super-convenient.

04-09-2007, 08:11 PM	#10
jthommo Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canberra, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 338	I've seen many good pics posted from the 40 (see above for example). I have the 35/2 and I like the "normal" focal length. Example:

04-09-2007, 09:10 PM	#11
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Don't mean to interrupt this thread, but I'm curious: what is "quick shift focusing"? Don't think I've heard the term before. Will

04-09-2007, 09:22 PM	#12
nystateofmind27 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 93	Originally posted by WMBP Don't mean to interrupt this thread, but I'm curious: what is "quick shift focusing"? Don't think I've heard the term before. Will The D-FA macros and most or all DA lens have "quick shift" which means that you can leave the lens on AF, but still manually focus after the AF does it's job. You just turn the focus ring and refocus at anytime, without moving the switch to MF. I love this feature and I really miss it in the FA 43mm.

04-09-2007, 10:56 PM	#13
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Originally posted by nystateofmind27 The D-FA macros and most or all DA lens have "quick shift" which means that you can leave the lens on AF, but still manually focus after the AF does it's job. You just turn the focus ring and refocus at anytime, without moving the switch to MF. I love this feature and I really miss it in the FA 43mm. I'm glad I asked - and thanks for the quick reply. Looks like my Pentax 16-45 has this feature. Just gave it a quick try here and it is indeed rather nifty. Now, we return you to your regularly scheduled thread.... Will

04-10-2007, 04:21 AM	#14
EdZarts Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 26 Original Poster	I didn't realize there was a new 35 SDM coming out... I think that will probably push me toward the 40, and wait to see how the new 35 is. <sigh> I'm sure I'll probably end up with both... :-)

04-10-2007, 04:08 PM	#15
EdZarts Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 26 Original Poster	well, I pulled the trigger... 17th st. photo had the da40 in stock, it's on its way, should be here tomorrow :-)