Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-13-2009, 12:28 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
What I mean by IQ being fine at low iso and not at higher iso's and how it's related to the lens and not the camera is as follows. Lets put it this way, if I were to take an image with my FA77 at f2 and iso 1600, I can do my NR and sharpen and have a very nice image. Because the images taken with the FA77 at f2 are sharp and holds up well with increasing iso. If I take an image with the FA24 at f2 and iso 1600, then do NR and sharpen I will have a very poor image. Remember, NR removes detail as well. This is because the image is barely fine at f2 and with increasing iso it becomes unusable. At f2 and iso 100 I can sharpen without making the noise worse and have a nice image.
Not having either lens to compare, I'm just speculating here - but have you considered how much of the difference you are seeing is a simple consequence of the difference in focal length? That is, with the FA77, you are probably often filling with a single face; with the FA24, faces are more likely smaller to begin with. So the noise at high ISO is going to be that much more likely to remove the detail. Ditto with other objects, of course, but faces make nice points of comparison.

Anyhow, it would be interesting to see comparable sample images. BTW, you might also consider shooting the FA24 at f/2.4 and seeing if this gives a better compromise - the improvement in sharpness from stopping down may well outweigh the loss in sharpness from need higher ISO levels for a given shutter speed (or slower shutter speed for a given ISO).

12-13-2009, 12:33 PM   #17
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
Carfan,

35f/2 is an excellent lens. Maybe one of the best in terms of sharpness at all apertures. Take a look at the tests at photozone for example. It outperforms the legendary 31 by a hair! It is not just outstanding in performance / price. It is just outstanding.
12-13-2009, 01:12 PM   #18
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by LFLee Quote
The price of FA35 has gone up to about $370 on ebay on several bids that I followed in the past two weeks.... I wish I could score one around $250 but it appear to be impossible now.

For its current price, I picked up a DA35 Macro instead....
that's true. I just happened to luck on one copy for 275 last May or June I think.
however, there are times where people in this forum would like to trade their FA35/2 for a DA35/2.8 and vice-versa. so you might want to look for them here in the marketplace once in a while or initiate a trade offer.
12-13-2009, 01:28 PM   #19
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,126
My 35/2 stays mounted to the K10D as my standard walk-around. It is sharp, fast, compact, light, and quick to focus. The FA 35/2 works real well for manual focusing as well. Did I mention that it is stellar for street work on my film bodies? You might have guessed that I really like my FA 35! Despite the recent price increase for new copies (see the Pentax Web store), I still feel that it is a good value for that focal length and lens speed.

Steve

12-13-2009, 01:28 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago suburbs
Photos: Albums
Posts: 848
I have both the Pentax M 35mm f2.0 and the FA 35mm. I like the FA better. Not to say the M is bad, just the FA is better. I should sell the M, I don't use it now. Can't comment of the 35mm Macro, I have never used it. I guess I vote for the FA.
GP
12-13-2009, 01:35 PM   #21
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,958
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Not having either lens to compare, I'm just speculating here - but have you considered how much of the difference you are seeing is a simple consequence of the difference in focal length? That is, with the FA77, you are probably often filling with a single face; with the FA24, faces are more likely smaller to begin with. So the noise at high ISO is going to be that much more likely to remove the detail. Ditto with other objects, of course, but faces make nice points of comparison.

Anyhow, it would be interesting to see comparable sample images. BTW, you might also consider shooting the FA24 at f/2.4 and seeing if this gives a better compromise - the improvement in sharpness from stopping down may well outweigh the loss in sharpness from need higher ISO levels for a given shutter speed (or slower shutter speed for a given ISO).
I am sure focal length has some consequences. But as the 24 focuses much closer than the 77, I was able to get comparable images with the two at iso 1600, as in being able to get closer with the 24 and filling in the frame. I still think the 77 images are sharper at f2.

But, wouldn't this be what would be expected?....say we have a sharpness scale of 1-10. Lens A has sharpness of 10 at f2 and iso 100, and lens B has a sharpness of 5 at f2 and iso 100. Now if iso is increased, wouldn't one expect to see lens A performing better at higher iso's as well with the same camera?

Stopping down will indeed at times make it better. When taking hand held shots, it is in fact a fine balance between iso, aperture and even the shutter speed which will still render a sharp image based on the focal length. At 24,, 1/5th shutter is doable with K-7 SR, and then it's balancing the aperture and shutter. But, at f2.8 this balance sort of becomes irrelevant to me as there are many choice at f2.8, that one wouldn't need an f2 lens.

I've considered the fast sigma's stopped down to f2, but I think the 35/2 is still better at f2.

P.S: I also find faces as the perfect target for high iso performance. At first it sounds counter-intuitive as portraits in general are more pleasing when not too sharp, but I also find it easier to evaluate high iso performances on faces (I guess it's the chroma noise).

Last edited by pcarfan; 12-13-2009 at 01:57 PM.
12-13-2009, 01:49 PM   #22
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
Fa 35/2 performs great in the close up image testing. However, it is a knowledge that it lacks the luster of Fa 31/1.8
12-13-2009, 02:53 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
I am sure focal length has some consequences. But as the 24 focuses much closer than the 77, I was able to get comparable images with the two at iso 1600, as in being able to get closer with the 24 and filling in the frame. I still think the 77 images are sharper at f2.

But, wouldn't this be what would be expected?
Not knowing how the tests test out, I can't say, but sure, it wouldn't surprise me if the FA77 won. It just surprises me that it would win by so much that the results would be particularly noticeable when shooting at ISO 1600. Maybe in *extreme* pixel peeping situations, but not so much in normal use. Which is why I'm curious to see your pictures.

BTW, no doubt the 35/2 is a great lens. But it's a very different FOV still.

QuoteQuote:
P.S: I also find faces as the perfect target for high iso performance. At first it sounds counter-intuitive as portraits in general are more pleasing when not too sharp, but I also find it easier to evaluate high iso performances on faces (I guess it's the chroma noise).
I think the brain is also specially "wired" with respect to face recognition. In a way, that also makes faces an especially inappropriate test if that's not your main photographic interest, but assuming you are planning on shooting people, you can learn a lot more looking at how a camera/lens performs on a face than by looking at how it performs on a resolution chart, bookshelf, etc.

12-13-2009, 03:20 PM   #24
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,958
Original Poster
Marc, I didn't do any official testing as such with the 77 and 24. Just shot handheld and zoomed in with the LCD to evaluate. I usually like tests but this one is not going to give me much info.

As long as a lens that will give more detail at f2 is better for high iso as well, then I think the consensus is that 35/2 at f2 will perform better than the F24 at f2 at iso 1600. I know the focal length is going to be weird, but it should be considerably wider than the 43, and that should be useful. Especially given the crop factor it is closer to the normal crop.
12-13-2009, 06:05 PM   #25
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Oh, yeah - I don't think it will be "weird" at all, Just very different from the 24, so it's hard for me to see the 35 as being any kind of straight up replacement for the 24.
12-13-2009, 06:42 PM   #26
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,958
Original Poster
It's not going to be a replacement for the 24 as I am keeping it. I am just trying to find the widest AF lens that is still usable wide open at f2 or faster and iso1600 with the K-7. Anyhow, just bough the lens, and paid a bit more than I wanted to, but it's got the size I want (a big plus for me), definitely got the speed, and seems like a fine performer at f2. If it is as sharp as what photozone claims at f2, then I will be one happy camper.

Last edited by pcarfan; 12-13-2009 at 07:02 PM.
12-13-2009, 07:20 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
Thanks...what is a good price for the 35/2 ?
That's a personal decision really, I think i paid just over $200 used. $400+ just seems a lot of money for a small prime with very little glass. You can get a 100mm DFA macro for that price on the marketplace.

But if you're really keen on having a fast 'normal' that bites and bites real hard at f/2, then this is your lens. It's just flat out sharp right from f/2.
12-13-2009, 10:45 PM   #28
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
It's not going to be a replacement for the 24 as I am keeping it. I am just trying to find the widest AF lens that is still usable wide open at f2 or faster and iso1600 with the K-7. Anyhow, just bough the lens, and paid a bit more than I wanted to, but it's got the size I want (a big plus for me), definitely got the speed, and seems like a fine performer at f2. If it is as sharp as what photozone claims at f2, then I will be one happy camper.
please post some samples when you get to shoot with it.
12-14-2009, 03:43 AM   #29
Senior Member
sajah's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Korea
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 275
Just curious, you have FA43mm limited, it's not so far from 35mm, yet you did comparison with FA 77mm limited instead. Is FA 43mm limited soft at f2.0? I'd like to know because err I failed to get a silver refurbished 43mm (turns out the website wasn't up to date, the item has long gone grrr) and now determined to hunt for one But I've been long interested with FA 35mm f2, and well I could only get either one for the budget. Would really appreciate your comment, thanks!
12-14-2009, 05:27 AM   #30
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,958
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by sajah Quote
Just curious, you have FA43mm limited, it's not so far from 35mm, yet you did comparison with FA 77mm limited instead. Is FA 43mm limited soft at f2.0? I'd like to know because err I failed to get a silver refurbished 43mm (turns out the website wasn't up to date, the item has long gone grrr) and now determined to hunt for one But I've been long interested with FA 35mm f2, and well I could only get either one for the budget. Would really appreciate your comment, thanks!
No, the 43 is not soft for me wide open. But, to fill the frame I wanted something with decent working distance and I think the 77 focuses closer, and chose that. It's only because I wanted to get close to the subject, so it will be easier for me to evaluate on the rear LCD.

However, I think the 77 at f1.8 is a tad sharper than 43 at 1.9, but I wouldn't call the 43 soft.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
f2, fa 35mm f2, iq, iso, k-mount, lens, light, pentax fa 35mm, pentax lens, performance, sigma, size, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help me identify this lens ... pentax 35mm 2.8? sameagle Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 04-30-2010 08:36 AM
For Sale - Sold: New Pentax FA 35mm f/2 AL Lens pentaman Sold Items 1 01-19-2010 11:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: Takumar 49mm lens hood for a 35mm/F2 or 35mm/F3.5 with case SteveM Sold Items 3 11-24-2009 05:39 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax PZ-1p 35mm Camera with Pentax SMC FA 28-80 f/3.5-80 Lens MikeDubU Sold Items 8 02-23-2009 01:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:08 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top