An amatuer's 1st Impressions of FA 35mm f.2

pentaxian_tmb · 10-05-2009, 07:15 AM

I've had this lens for a few weeks now and here are my first (amatuer) impressions.

Positives:

1. The lens works very well for macro shots.

2. Unlike what some reported here, it has great color rendition.

3. It produces very nice black and white images right out of the camera:

4. Overall, it is a nice walkaround lens. The focal length is great for most shots.

Negatives

1. The lens is not good in low light. I find I often have to shoot at ISO 1600 to get proper exposures, with a noticable amount of noise.

even before dusk:

Plus or minus--when opened up the DOF is VERY shallow with a small focal area.

I havn't had a chance to use it for daytime landscape shots yet. I am still deciding whether this or the 50mm 1.4 would be better for my upcoming trip.

krypticide · 10-05-2009, 09:24 AM

I like mine as well, though I feel like it gives slightly weird, soft-ish images at f/2.0. Still enjoy using it though!

Alfisti · 10-05-2009, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by krypticide

I like mine as well, though I feel like it gives slightly weird, soft-ish images at f/2.0. Still enjoy using it though!

soft ? This lens i snot perfect but should bite and bite hard at f/2.

Taikonaut · 10-05-2009, 11:06 AM

It's said FA35/2 is very Nikon-ish, as the guy who designed it later went to Nikon, and designed some great lens such as 24-70/2.8 there.

Its sharpness at wide open should be one of the best among non-DA Pentax lenses. Its view angle is comfortable at DSLRs, and fantastic on FF film cameras. I really like this lens.

pentaxian_tmb · 10-05-2009, 11:24 AM

What I like best is that it is kind of a jack of all trades lens. The lens is so compact and lightweight, it is very easy to carry around. I don't think twice about grabbing the camera when I leave the house now.

palmor · 10-05-2009, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by T_MB

I've had this lens for a few weeks now and here are my first (amatuer) impressions.

Negatives

1. The lens is not good in low light. I find I often have to shoot at ISO 1600 to get proper exposures, with a noticable amount of noise.

Plus or minus--when opened up the DOF is VERY shallow with a small focal area.

I havn't had a chance to use it for daytime landscape shots yet. I am still deciding whether this or the 50mm 1.4 would be better for my upcoming trip.

The noise isn't a function of the lens, it is a function of the camera at high ISO so you really can't say that is a negative. Also having to use ISO1600 just means its dark, if you want to shoot at lower ISOs you need a faster lens.

The DOF at F2 is shallow, and it will be even more shallow with the 50mm f/1.4.

John

Marc Sabatella · 10-05-2009, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by T_MB

1. The lens is not good in low light. I find I often have to shoot at ISO 1600 to get proper exposures, with a noticable amount of noise.

Well, OK, but what other lens of that focal length do you think would do better? I have no idea what you're comparing this against, but f/2 at 35mm is better than almost everything else out there.

palmor · 10-05-2009, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Well, OK, but what other lens of that focal length do you think would do better? I have no idea what you're comparing this against, but f/2 at 35mm is better than almost everything else out there.

I agree 100%

Pentax K10D ,Pentax smc P-FA 35mm f/2 AL
1/15s f/2.0 at 35.0mm iso1600 (hand held)
No Noise Reduction

audiobomber · 10-05-2009, 08:16 PM

I agree about the colour rendition, I disagree about the macro. Either that was a big flower or you cropped the photo. A Raynox 250 can be added for a big improvement in close focus shots. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

Originally posted by T_MB

Plus or minus--when opened up the DOF is VERY shallow with a small focal area.

I havn't had a chance to use it for daytime landscape shots yet. I am still deciding whether this or the 50mm 1.4 would be better for my upcoming trip.

If you set the 35mm and 50mm at the same aperture, you'll find you have more DOF with the shorter FL lens.

The FA 50mm 1.4 is a stop faster, but f/1.4 gives even less DOF than f/2. I bought an FA 35 because I found that my 28mm 2.8 wasn't fast enough and the FA 50mm was a bit too long in some situations. So it depends on what you're trying to do with the lens.

krypticide · 10-05-2009, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Alfisti

soft ? This lens i snot perfect but should bite and bite hard at f/2.

Hm, next time I see it, I will post an example. It could be I have a bad copy and never knew it...

Pentaxor · 10-05-2009, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Well, OK, but what other lens of that focal length do you think would do better? I have no idea what you're comparing this against, but f/2 at 35mm is better than almost everything else out there.

at the same fl, I can't think anything that is better than the FA35/2. not even the DA35 which is a pretty nice lens or the slightly larger DA40. in comparison with the slightly faster and wider FA31, the FA35 is even up to it or matches up pretty well, that is if people don't mind the bokeh difference and build. for 1/3 of the price of the FA31, you got yourself one of the best lens ever created by Pentax. and it sure could whip some lashes on their Canikon counterparts. need to say more?

pentaxian_tmb · 10-06-2009, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

I agree about the colour rendition, I disagree about the macro. Either that was a big flower or you cropped the photo. .

Nope--no crop on the photo.

pentaxian_tmb · 10-06-2009, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Well, OK, but what other lens of that focal length do you think would do better? I have no idea what you're comparing this against, but f/2 at 35mm is better than almost everything else out there.

No clue....It was just an observation. Apparently I had unrealistic expectations. My own ignorance..not the lens's fault. Sorry for being dumb.....

pentaxian_tmb · 10-06-2009, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

I agree about the colour rendition, I disagree about the macro. Either that was a big flower or you cropped the photo. A Raynox 250 can be added for a big improvement in close focus shots. .

I know it is not a true macro, but compared with what else I have, this gives me the closest focal distance I think. I will check out the barrel extenders though.

Alfisti · 10-06-2009, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by krypticide

Hm, next time I see it, I will post an example. It could be I have a bad copy and never knew it...

It would not surprise me, the 35/2 is far sharper wide open than the 50/1.4 or the 77 i have owned.

10-05-2009, 07:15 AM	#1
pentaxian_tmb Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 436	An amatuer's 1st Impressions of FA 35mm f.2 I've had this lens for a few weeks now and here are my first (amatuer) impressions. Positives: 1. The lens works very well for macro shots. 2. Unlike what some reported here, it has great color rendition. 3. It produces very nice black and white images right out of the camera: 4. Overall, it is a nice walkaround lens. The focal length is great for most shots. Negatives 1. The lens is not good in low light. I find I often have to shoot at ISO 1600 to get proper exposures, with a noticable amount of noise. even before dusk: Plus or minus--when opened up the DOF is VERY shallow with a small focal area. I havn't had a chance to use it for daytime landscape shots yet. I am still deciding whether this or the 50mm 1.4 would be better for my upcoming trip.

10-05-2009, 10:13 PM	#11
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Well, OK, but what other lens of that focal length do you think would do better? I have no idea what you're comparing this against, but f/2 at 35mm is better than almost everything else out there. at the same fl, I can't think anything that is better than the FA35/2. not even the DA35 which is a pretty nice lens or the slightly larger DA40. in comparison with the slightly faster and wider FA31, the FA35 is even up to it or matches up pretty well, that is if people don't mind the bokeh difference and build. for 1/3 of the price of the FA31, you got yourself one of the best lens ever created by Pentax. and it sure could whip some lashes on their Canikon counterparts. need to say more? Last edited by Pentaxor; 10-06-2009 at 07:19 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1st 40d impressions	palmor	General Talk	10	03-06-2009 05:57 AM
My 1st shot with 35mm f2.8 limited	dammit_jill	Post Your Photos!	5	01-20-2009 08:11 PM
K20D review in Amatuer Photographer	NicholasN	Pentax News and Rumors	34	08-13-2008 06:37 AM
DA 55-300 - quick 1st impressions	simonkit	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	05-13-2008 06:30 PM
Pretty new amatuer	bigburb	Post Your Photos!	6	09-05-2007 11:18 AM

10-05-2009, 09:24 AM	#2
krypticide Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	I like mine as well, though I feel like it gives slightly weird, soft-ish images at f/2.0. Still enjoy using it though!

10-05-2009, 09:38 AM	#3
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Originally posted by krypticide I like mine as well, though I feel like it gives slightly weird, soft-ish images at f/2.0. Still enjoy using it though! soft ? This lens i snot perfect but should bite and bite hard at f/2.

10-05-2009, 11:06 AM	#4
Taikonaut Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: New York Posts: 62	It's said FA35/2 is very Nikon-ish, as the guy who designed it later went to Nikon, and designed some great lens such as 24-70/2.8 there. Its sharpness at wide open should be one of the best among non-DA Pentax lenses. Its view angle is comfortable at DSLRs, and fantastic on FF film cameras. I really like this lens.

10-05-2009, 11:24 AM	#5
pentaxian_tmb Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 436 Original Poster	What I like best is that it is kind of a jack of all trades lens. The lens is so compact and lightweight, it is very easy to carry around. I don't think twice about grabbing the camera when I leave the house now.

10-05-2009, 12:56 PM	#6
palmor Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: North of Boston, MA Posts: 798	Originally posted by T_MB I've had this lens for a few weeks now and here are my first (amatuer) impressions. Negatives 1. The lens is not good in low light. I find I often have to shoot at ISO 1600 to get proper exposures, with a noticable amount of noise. Plus or minus--when opened up the DOF is VERY shallow with a small focal area. I havn't had a chance to use it for daytime landscape shots yet. I am still deciding whether this or the 50mm 1.4 would be better for my upcoming trip. The noise isn't a function of the lens, it is a function of the camera at high ISO so you really can't say that is a negative. Also having to use ISO1600 just means its dark, if you want to shoot at lower ISOs you need a faster lens. The DOF at F2 is shallow, and it will be even more shallow with the 50mm f/1.4. John

10-05-2009, 07:42 PM	#7
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by T_MB 1. The lens is not good in low light. I find I often have to shoot at ISO 1600 to get proper exposures, with a noticable amount of noise. Well, OK, but what other lens of that focal length do you think would do better? I have no idea what you're comparing this against, but f/2 at 35mm is better than almost everything else out there.

10-05-2009, 08:04 PM	#8
palmor Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: North of Boston, MA Posts: 798	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Well, OK, but what other lens of that focal length do you think would do better? I have no idea what you're comparing this against, but f/2 at 35mm is better than almost everything else out there. I agree 100% Pentax K10D ,Pentax smc P-FA 35mm f/2 AL 1/15s f/2.0 at 35.0mm iso1600 (hand held) No Noise Reduction

10-05-2009, 08:16 PM	#9
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	I agree about the colour rendition, I disagree about the macro. Either that was a big flower or you cropped the photo. A Raynox 250 can be added for a big improvement in close focus shots. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74221-raynox-macro-club.html Originally posted by T_MB Plus or minus--when opened up the DOF is VERY shallow with a small focal area. I havn't had a chance to use it for daytime landscape shots yet. I am still deciding whether this or the 50mm 1.4 would be better for my upcoming trip. If you set the 35mm and 50mm at the same aperture, you'll find you have more DOF with the shorter FL lens. The FA 50mm 1.4 is a stop faster, but f/1.4 gives even less DOF than f/2. I bought an FA 35 because I found that my 28mm 2.8 wasn't fast enough and the FA 50mm was a bit too long in some situations. So it depends on what you're trying to do with the lens.

10-05-2009, 08:51 PM	#10
krypticide Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	Originally posted by Alfisti soft ? This lens i snot perfect but should bite and bite hard at f/2. Hm, next time I see it, I will post an example. It could be I have a bad copy and never knew it...

10-06-2009, 05:15 AM	#12
pentaxian_tmb Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 436 Original Poster	Originally posted by audiobomber I agree about the colour rendition, I disagree about the macro. Either that was a big flower or you cropped the photo. . Nope--no crop on the photo.

10-06-2009, 05:17 AM	#13
pentaxian_tmb Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 436 Original Poster	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Well, OK, but what other lens of that focal length do you think would do better? I have no idea what you're comparing this against, but f/2 at 35mm is better than almost everything else out there. No clue....It was just an observation. Apparently I had unrealistic expectations. My own ignorance..not the lens's fault. Sorry for being dumb.....

10-06-2009, 05:21 AM	#14
pentaxian_tmb Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 436 Original Poster	Originally posted by audiobomber I agree about the colour rendition, I disagree about the macro. Either that was a big flower or you cropped the photo. A Raynox 250 can be added for a big improvement in close focus shots. . I know it is not a true macro, but compared with what else I have, this gives me the closest focal distance I think. I will check out the barrel extenders though.

10-06-2009, 05:27 AM	#15
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Originally posted by krypticide Hm, next time I see it, I will post an example. It could be I have a bad copy and never knew it... It would not surprise me, the 35/2 is far sharper wide open than the 50/1.4 or the 77 i have owned.