Pentax FA 20-35 versus DA 16-45

Pentaxor · 10-26-2009, 08:54 AM

which one would you prefer best?

jsherman999 · 10-26-2009, 12:50 PM

I tried a copy of that FA 20-35 in a store once - I was impressed by it's very small size and great sharpness at 20mm. The copy I tried was a bit soft at 35mm.

On APS-C, I think the 16-45 is the more useful FL range, and gives nothing up to the FA 20-35 in sharpness.

I think the 20-35 f4 was basically the 12-24 of the film days, wasn't it?

.

Pentaxor · 10-26-2009, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

I tried a copy of that FA 20-35 in a store once - I was impressed by it's very small size and great sharpness at 20mm. The copy I tried was a bit soft at 35mm.

On APS-C, I think the 16-45 is the more useful FL range, and gives nothing up to the FA 20-35 in sharpness.

I think the 20-35 f4 was basically the 12-24 of the film days, wasn't it?

.

sounds like it. thought the 12-24 gets weak around 24mm though. I think it shines around 20-30mm. never mind the 35 if you got the FA35.

Kirivon · 10-26-2009, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

sounds like it. thought the 12-24 gets weak around 24mm though. I think it shines around 20-30mm. never mind the 35 if you got the FA35.

Might as well get a DA21 at that point.

vinceloc · 10-26-2009, 05:37 PM

My FA20-35/4 is sharp all the way and at any aperture until f13. It's like 4 primes rolled into one - 20/24/28/35

I got it over the DA16-45/4 cause it is smaller, does not extend much (if the hood is on, you'd think it was an internal zooming lens) and goes with FF. Great for travelling. The only advantage the DA16-45 is 16mm (where it vignettes anyway).

You can check out my PPG for shots using the FA20-35/4 if you want to compare IQ.

Andi Lo · 10-26-2009, 06:18 PM

The FA 20-35 does seem like a very nice lens, especially since I use film myself. That price tag though. Urgh!

Nick Siebers · 10-28-2009, 08:32 AM

I love the FA 20-35. I haven't tried the DA16-45 but most reviews suggest similar image quality. I have been tempted by the more useful range (wider and longer) but the smaller size of the FA lens is a winner for me. Plus, it is fun to use 20mm on 35mm format.

clawhammer · 10-28-2009, 12:34 PM

I love my 20-35 on both film and digital. On film it vignettes a little on the wide end, but overall is very nice. If you're just shooting digital, I'd go ahead and get the 16-45- it's just more versatile, and noticeably wider.

10-26-2009, 08:54 AM	#1
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Pentax FA 20-35 versus DA 16-45 which one would you prefer best?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K-7 video versus Canon T2i	justtakingpics	Video Recording and Processing	11	07-16-2010 04:01 PM
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 versus the Pentax 55-300mm	geezer52	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	01-19-2010 01:08 PM
Nikon D300s versus Pentax K-7 ?, toughts ?	brosen	Pentax DSLR Discussion	61	10-21-2009 11:07 PM
Tamron 28-80 AF Versus Pentax 28-90 FA	Nowhere Matt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	02-03-2009 09:27 AM
Please help- Sigma versus Pentax flashes	kdkai	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	7	10-07-2008 03:35 PM

10-26-2009, 12:50 PM	#2
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	I tried a copy of that FA 20-35 in a store once - I was impressed by it's very small size and great sharpness at 20mm. The copy I tried was a bit soft at 35mm. On APS-C, I think the 16-45 is the more useful FL range, and gives nothing up to the FA 20-35 in sharpness. I think the 20-35 f4 was basically the 12-24 of the film days, wasn't it? .

10-26-2009, 01:03 PM	#3
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513 Original Poster	Originally posted by jsherman999 I tried a copy of that FA 20-35 in a store once - I was impressed by it's very small size and great sharpness at 20mm. The copy I tried was a bit soft at 35mm. On APS-C, I think the 16-45 is the more useful FL range, and gives nothing up to the FA 20-35 in sharpness. I think the 20-35 f4 was basically the 12-24 of the film days, wasn't it? . sounds like it. thought the 12-24 gets weak around 24mm though. I think it shines around 20-30mm. never mind the 35 if you got the FA35.

10-26-2009, 02:50 PM	#4
Kirivon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 173	Originally posted by Pentaxor sounds like it. thought the 12-24 gets weak around 24mm though. I think it shines around 20-30mm. never mind the 35 if you got the FA35. Might as well get a DA21 at that point.

10-26-2009, 05:37 PM	#5
vinceloc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 367	My FA20-35/4 is sharp all the way and at any aperture until f13. It's like 4 primes rolled into one - 20/24/28/35 I got it over the DA16-45/4 cause it is smaller, does not extend much (if the hood is on, you'd think it was an internal zooming lens) and goes with FF. Great for travelling. The only advantage the DA16-45 is 16mm (where it vignettes anyway). You can check out my PPG for shots using the FA20-35/4 if you want to compare IQ.

10-26-2009, 06:18 PM	#6
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	The FA 20-35 does seem like a very nice lens, especially since I use film myself. That price tag though. Urgh!

10-28-2009, 08:32 AM	#7
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	I love the FA 20-35. I haven't tried the DA16-45 but most reviews suggest similar image quality. I have been tempted by the more useful range (wider and longer) but the smaller size of the FA lens is a winner for me. Plus, it is fun to use 20mm on 35mm format.

10-28-2009, 12:34 PM	#8
clawhammer Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Photos: Gallery Posts: 971	I love my 20-35 on both film and digital. On film it vignettes a little on the wide end, but overall is very nice. If you're just shooting digital, I'd go ahead and get the 16-45- it's just more versatile, and noticeably wider.