A couple of quick questions... Did you do any comparison shots where you attempted to match the exposure 'look' of the D90 to the k20? How much do you need to comp it to keep it from blowing up some of the highlights and get the darker output of the K20d?

Also the DA 35 is a macro lens, is the Nikon a macro too? How close can you focus with it?
Could the flatter field of a macro lens explain some of the differences we are seeing?

I would like to see a comparison at equal 'brightness' even if you have to bump shutterspeed up a bit on the nikon keeping Ap and ISO equal... As the bright areas are killin' the detail

Thanks for posting these... The cheap primes in the Nikon lineup are a draw for me... PS have you shot any shallow dof video yet? I would love to see it if you have.

[maxwell1295]

Wow, I expected a better fight than this one turned out to be. This is the equivalent of a 1st round TKO.

It's not even close...

[K100Dave]

The DA 35 LTD wins this hands down.

[jsherman999]

That's a great book, Jay. One of my favorite reads of recent years.

Oh, nice lens comparison, too.

The Metaphysical Club? Yes, it's a tremendous book, changed my thinking in a couple ways.

Is that text shot for real? Looks like a DOF/focus issue with the Nikon. Even despite that, I prefer the Pentax look overall, and not by a little. Thanks for doing this little test!

Originally posted by brucestrange
My favorite Pentax lens is the 35/2, but I've found the Nikkor 35/1.8 to be sharper wide open. I've never used the DA35, so I can't speak to that as much, though I will say side by side comparisons always have their caveats. For instance, the first shot of the Carcassone box is not the same framing with both, so it's hard to compare text crops, knowing the focal point is also probably different, as well as the angle of the camera with respect to the box (affecting the apparent depth of field of the crop).

The cameras were both sitting on a table in the same position and angle to the box. The nikon sit's a bit 'higher', but both were focused (AF) on the same line - the line at the far left of the crop (contains "prize-winning".) The box was at an angle as you can see.

But the situation could have been even more controlled, these were pretty quick & dirty and do show the differences both from MP, focus, and resolution, at
least as far as AF can take it.

In any case, Photozone found the Nikkor 35/1.8 to be sharper at 2.8 than the the DA35 at 2.8, and it found the Nikkor to be a little sharper in the center than the FA35 at 2.8 while it found the FA35 to be slightly sharper in the borders at 2.8. Photozone found the Nikkor to be sharper at 1.8 than the FA35 at 2.

This I find confusing - as I understand it, results from different manufacturers can't be directly compared using photozone's metrics - I'm pretty sure I read that from Klaus himself. Were you comparing something I haven't seen, or maybe I misunderstood?

Unfortunately I don't have the FA any more to test, but I'm finding that my copy of the DA 35ltd wide-open is pretty much just as sharp if not sharper than the 35G 1.8 at f/2.8. I should do some more bracketed MF tests to verify that, though.

A couple of quick questions... Did you do any comparison shots where you attempted to match the exposure 'look' of the D90 to the k20? How much do you need to comp it to keep it from blowing up some of the highlights and get the darker output of the K20d?

No, not really, but that is the next thing I want to test.

Also the DA 35 is a macro lens, is the Nikon a macro too? How close can you focus with it?
Could the flatter field of a macro lens explain some of the differences we are seeing?

The Nikkor's not a macro, and can get about 7 inches from the front element. It does show a bit of distortion that you don't see in a macro lens like the DA 35.

I would like to see a comparison at equal 'brightness' even if you have to bump shutterspeed up a bit on the nikon keeping Ap and ISO equal... As the bright areas are killin' the detail

Thanks for posting these... The cheap primes in the Nikon lineup are a draw for me... PS have you shot any shallow dof video yet? I would love to see it if you have.

Yes, I don't think flickr can host video, so I'll have to figure out a way to share those. You'll be able to see my little guy bobbin' in & out of the DOF!

I'll be testing more standard shots also and will plan to post the tests here.

The Nikon is a great, quick little lens, but I find it just a tad inferior to the FA 35.

All variables like AF point, exact AF lock in a particular shot, precise angle of view, etc, tend get mitigated over the course of 1000's of shots, and you start to 'see' the strengths and weaknesses of lenses compared to each other. It's hard sometimes to point that out in a couple shots linked in a thread like this, because with a small sample size any little variable gets talked about as much as the "results" (which is understandable.) So, that being said, these images represent what I've been seeing from these lenses/sensor combos in my everyday shooting pretty well.




.

[brucestrange]

The cameras were both sitting on a table in the same position and angle to the box. The nikon sit's a bit 'higher', but both were focused (AF) on the same line - the line at the far left of the crop (contains "prize-winning".) The box was at an angle as you can see.

The focus points in AF systems are usually bigger than the little center rectangles in the viewfinders indicate. If the Nikkor AF system liked the contrast of some lettering or lines slightly to the left of the Pentax AF system's choice, the difference in the results could be significant. Also, if the camera's angle with respect to the subject was shifted even slightly, because of the angle of the box, it could yield significant differences. Of course, perhaps all things were equal, in which case, I must say your copy of the Nikkor 35/1.8 is a real dog.

This I find confusing - as I understand it, results from different manufacturers can't be directly compared using photozone's metrics - I'm pretty sure I read that from Klaus himself. Were you comparing something I haven't seen, or maybe I misunderstood?

I was using the graphs that are shown for each lens, and which are adjusted for the differing theoretical maximums of each manufacturers respective sensors. Maybe that was stupid of me. In any case, my personal experience has been that the Nikkor 35/1.8 is sharper at 1.8 than my Pentax FA35/2 at 2. That said, I find both lenses to be superb optically. My only beef with the FA35 is the focus accuracy. The Nikkor yields many more keepers for me. All this may be reflective of sample variations as well.

[RBellavance]

pentax looks better for sure. but its 2x as expensive...
...
it seems pentax is starting to lose the niche of cheap but quality (esp with the canada price hikes).

In Canada, the FA35 is 2.75 times as expensive as the Nikkor 35/1.8 (roughly 775$ vs 280$)

[RBellavance]

The DA 35 LTD wins this hands down.

Except below f/2.8, where the Nikkor is infinitely better.

The DA35 and the Nikkor 35/1.8 are in a different class, and have different purposes. Interesting comparison nonetheless, thanks for taking the time to do it !

[pdo]

No doubt a macro lens is going win. That's like comparing a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 to a macro 50mm F2.8. Macro lens is always going to be sharper.

[jsherman999]

No doubt a macro lens is going win. That's like comparing a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 to a macro 50mm F2.8. Macro lens is always going to be sharper.

Not necessarily true, in fact I think the M 50 1.7 and FA 35 f/2 might be sharper than this DA 35ltd. Macros are designed for flat focus and especially close focus, and will show very high resolution scores in those situations partly because they're so close to the subject.

Often, when taken out of their strength (close focus,) macros can do worse than general purpose lenses, especially at long distances and infinity.

I was surprised to see the DA35 wide-open match the Nikkor 35 1.8 stopped down.



.

[jsherman999]

Of course, perhaps all things were equal, in which case, I must say your copy of the Nikkor 35/1.8 is a real dog.

No, the lens is performing optimally, as far as I can tell - I only have one sample of the lens, of course, but my output is matching or better than other full-sized image samples I've been able to download from dpreview and elsewhere.


Here are a couple wide-open shots (AF):







crop:

[jsherman999]

The DA35 and the Nikkor 35/1.8 are in a different class, and have different purposes. Interesting comparison nonetheless, thanks for taking the time to do it !

Yes, the FA 35 f/2 would have been a more direct comparison than the DA 35ltd,
I wish I still had one to test with!

I'll throw in a shot from the FA 35 f/2 just to show some FA goodness here:


(wide-open):

[Jewelltrail]

A great thread Jay--hope we never take this kind of quality work for granted--thank you.

jsherman999:I'll throw in a shot from the FA 35 f/2 just to show some FA goodness here:

That is some blue in your little boy's eye there!

[axl]

nice comparison Jay,
seems that 35ltd + K20 is one awsome combo. As for the shots, I prefer Pentax combo results. It's always easier to retrieve detail from darker shot than get back burnt highlights.
Thanks for taking the time and comparing those two.

BR

[nulla]

Thanks Jay... great stuff


Pentax by a mile for me


Neil

[quickiekuchen]

A nice comparison, but the only real comparison can be made with Pentax DA 31/1,8 Limited, FA 35/2,0 and DA 40 Limited.