[pcarfan]

My current lens line-up is mentioned in my signature. I just tallied up my CC points, gift cards, Bing cashback and I should have a nice sum for lenses pretty soon. I have ~US$600 now and expect to have another ~$400 by January.

I was seriously considering the DA*16-50 for WR and IQ, but I am not at all comfortable with the QC, and even though this could just be paranoia , I just can't do it, even with my $100 rebate that came with the K-7.

I got the FA*24/2 for low light, and the IQ is acceptable wide open at low iso's, but it quickly deteriorates at high iso at f2, which defeats it's purpose as a low light lens. I love the focal length and overall rendering, so will be keeping it as my main lens, but not for low light.

IQ and sized are a priority for me, however if there is a compelling reason like the FA*24/2, then I can overlook the size.

I think the FA35/f2 is a great performer at f2 and should hold together well even at high iso's and wide open. So, I am considering this. Does this sound like a good plan? what are the opinions of the owners of this lens as to it's performance at f2 and high iso.

For the remaining funds, I will get the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM for low light as well. I think the IQ is in par with the DA55*/1.4 and could be a tad sharper than the Pentax wide open, and much less expensive. I will have to put up with the size and I really don't need WR for this focal length. I am comfortable with this choice, but not too sure of the 35/2. As the 35/f2 from everything I see looks too good to be true (If what I am seeing is true, why hasn't it gotten a cult status ?).

P.S: I could get the K-x and use my current lenses at higher iso...but, I don't want to carry around another body for now. I could get the sigma 70-200/2.8 but I really don't want to carry around another large lens. I am seriously considering replacing my sigma 100-300 with the F300/4.5 for size. So, size is of paramount interest to me. Low light performance will allow me to leave the tripod at home, which again helps with this size issue. DA21 is wide enough for now, and the DA15 is not necessary as I have the sigma 10-20 for those rare occasions requiring wider than 21.

---

Last edited by pcarfan; 12-13-2009 at 07:55 AM.

[Mystic]

well I also thinking of buying FA 35/2

and I would like to know how it compares against DA35/2.8?
anyone who experienced both of them?

what are the average price for it? is there someone who is willing to sell it in mint condition in Europe?

[d.bradley]

I'm not quite following your comments on the performance of the 24/2. Once you hit F2.0, the IQ is going to change with ISO but the characteristics of the lens will remain constant. So if you're OK with the performance @f2 ISO 100, what's wrong with f2 @ ISO1600? Is the issue with the low light performance of the lens or the camera?

[pcarfan]

well I also thinking of buying FA 35/2

and I would like to know how it compares against DA35/2.8?
anyone who experienced both of them?

what are the average price for it? is there someone who is willing to sell it in mint condition in Europe?

f2 to f2.8 is one full stop difference, and for me that is not an option.

[pcarfan]

I'm not quite following your comments on the performance of the 24/2. Once you hit F2.0, the IQ is going to change with ISO but the characteristics of the lens will remain constant. So if you're OK with the performance @f2 ISO 100, what's wrong with f2 @ ISO1600? Is the issue with the low light performance of the lens or the camera?

I don't quite understand your question. You do say "Once you hit F2.0, the IQ is going to change with ISO but the characteristics of the lens will remain constant", so it seems like you are saying IQ is going to change with iso and then you ask why it would matter? Can you please elaborate? I also don't understand the characteristics remaining constant?

[Alfisti]

I'd think twice. I picked mine up for cheap on the marketplace before lens prices went nuts. At the current asking price, i dunno. It's a wonderful lens and sharper than the 77/1.8 wide open (it's really, really sharp) but $400+ ....... i dunno.

If you can handle the bulk and weight of the 16-50 i'd be getting that.

[pcarfan]

I'd think twice. I picked mine up for cheap on the marketplace before lens prices went nuts. At the current asking price, i dunno. It's a wonderful lens and sharper than the 77/1.8 wide open (it's really, really sharp) but $400+ ....... i dunno.

If you can handle the bulk and weight of the 16-50 i'd be getting that.

Thanks...what is a good price for the 35/2 ?

---

Last edited by pcarfan; 12-13-2009 at 10:07 AM.

[Just1MoreDave]

I think the FA35/f2 is a great performer at f2 and should hold together well even at high iso's and wide open. So, I am considering this. Does this sound like a good plan? what are the opinions of the owners of this lens as to it's performance at f2 and high iso.


... As the 35/f2 from everything I see looks too good to be true (If what I am seeing is true, why hasn't it gotten a cult status ?)

I can pick my FA35 photos out of a crowd. It's not exactly a fair test, since I took them, and maybe they are photos I took more time with, but still, I like the results a lot. The lens is very sharp, quite a bit more than the Takumar or M series that I used to have. I don't think it's a problem, but some other users have complained that it may be too sharp, stepping over the line into harshness. That might get worse with higher resolution sensors. Another complaint was the six-blade aperture. I probably don't look at my photos carefully enough. Anyway it's not a problem at f2.

IMO the lens had too much competition to gain cult status when it was available new. The FA31 was an option and considered the ultimate, so the FA35's reputation could only be second to that. When the DA35 came out, everyone considering one had to consider the other. The FA35 only got popular when it was not easy to find at $300.

I got the FA*24/2 for low light, and the IQ is acceptable wide open at low iso's, but it quickly deteriorates at high iso at f2, which defeats it's purpose as a low light lens. I love the focal length and overall rendering, so will be keeping it as my main lens, but not for low light.

I don't really get this either. It doesn't matter whether I get it, but it makes me wonder if you simply don't like the K-7 at high ISO. In that case, any lens is going to have the same problem.

[aerodave]

I've always been happy with my FA35, and I pretty much only use it wide-open or nearly so. I just think of it as a low-light lens, so it never really sees anything above f/4.

I can't complain about its rendering under those conditions. It's always sharp, even at f/2. And in terms of color rendition and other more subjective IQ considerations, it definitely makes the camera's high-ISO performance the limiting factor.

If you were interested in trying it out, I'm local and would be happy to arrange something so you could do so. Maybe swap my my FA35 for one of your lenses for a short while?

[vizjerei]

FA35 basically is my normal lens that I have it on my camera when I go anyway, it is fast enough lens for me and man, it is sharp! I usually use it at wide or 2.8. It is good enough that I have no desire to try out the DA35 :P

[pcarfan]

Thank you for the replies.

Aerodave, thanks for the offer. If I find the need, I'll let you know.


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.

(Hope this helps, this is the thrid way I am trying to explain what I am thinking...I deleted the other two as the explanation got muddy.............if this doesn't make sense, I'll try it another way)

[LFLee]

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....

[pcarfan]

FA35 basically is my normal lens that I have it on my camera when I go anyway, it is fast enough lens for me and man, it is sharp! I usually use it at wide or 2.8. It is good enough that I have no desire to try out the DA35 :P

Cool....If the image is razor sharp at f2 then I can shoot at iso 1600 and afford to lose some clarity because of the higher iso, and still retain enough clarity to be able to do NR which will in turn reduce more detail and then sharpen as needed.

If the 35/f2 is not razor sharp at f2, and barely fine, then at iso 1600 it would have lost more sharpness, and with NR lose even more and at the end be left with one mushy picture.

[Pentaxor]

My current lens line-up is mentioned in my signature. I just tallied up my CC points, gift cards, Bing cashback and I should have a nice sum for lenses pretty soon. I have ~US$600 now and expect to have another ~$400 by January.

I was seriously considering the DA*16-50 for WR and IQ, but I am not at all comfortable with the QC, and even though this could just be paranoia , I just can't do it, even with my $100 rebate that came with the K-7.

I got the FA*24/2 for low light, and the IQ is acceptable wide open at low iso's, but it quickly deteriorates at high iso at f2, which defeats it's purpose as a low light lens. I love the focal length and overall rendering, so will be keeping it as my main lens, but not for low light.

IQ and sized are a priority for me, however if there is a compelling reason like the FA*24/2, then I can overlook the size.

I think the FA35/f2 is a great performer at f2 and should hold together well even at high iso's and wide open. So, I am considering this. Does this sound like a good plan? what are the opinions of the owners of this lens as to it's performance at f2 and high iso.

For the remaining funds, I will get the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM for low light as well. I think the IQ is in par with the DA55*/1.4 and could be a tad sharper than the Pentax wide open, and much less expensive. I will have to put up with the size and I really don't need WR for this focal length. I am comfortable with this choice, but not too sure of the 35/2. As the 35/f2 from everything I see looks too good to be true (If what I am seeing is true, why hasn't it gotten a cult status ?).

P.S: I could get the K-x and use my current lenses at higher iso...but, I don't want to carry around another body for now. I could get the sigma 70-200/2.8 but I really don't want to carry around another large lens. I am seriously considering replacing my sigma 100-300 with the F300/4.5 for size. So, size is of paramount interest to me. Low light performance will allow me to leave the tripod at home, which again helps with this size issue. DA21 is wide enough for now, and the DA15 is not necessary as I have the sigma 10-20 for those rare occasions requiring wider than 21.

careful with the FA35/2. you can cut yourself with it. I think you can use it for shaving off your beard.

[Pentaxor]

well I also thinking of buying FA 35/2

and I would like to know how it compares against DA35/2.8?
anyone who experienced both of them?

what are the average price for it? is there someone who is willing to sell it in mint condition in Europe?

DA35/2.8 would be left behind in the sharpness department, no matter how good it is already in terms of sharpness. it just couldn't keep up with the faster speed and uncanny sharpness of the FA35/2. although the DA35/2.8 has a nice bokeh which is very useful for macro and also has a 3D look.