[Mystic]

Wel, now after hours spent reading threads about FA35/2 and other primes - 31ltd, 43ltd da35/2.8

could you please illustrate what is great 3d look of 31ltd and 43ltd or even of DA35/2.8.? because I do not understand this term.. why 35/2 doesn't have it? how do you see that it doesn't have it?

also many of you claim that 35/2 has bad bokeh.. could you illustrate it? could you show the examples of its bokeh? good/bad..

thanks..

now i'm in the internal conflict. which to get? DA35/2.8? no, it focuses slowly, and is good only for macro work, and totally not suitable for street photography, because the focus range has to travel miles.. and does it everytime you focus.. and those who had it went to 35/2 so if I want fast standart prime, FA 35/2 is the lens..

or

maybe 43ltd? most of you like it.. and I started to think that I also would like it, yet.. 43mm on aps-c is.. 65mm.. that is way too far for street photography.. since my field of view is something like 31-35mm so.. and my compositions would be very tight.. then 31ltd is the case..

but..

31ltd is not even available.. and if available costs a leg both hands and a dog.. how then I would be photographing? it's eliminated for being too expensive.. and it's even large and its hood is not practical.. as I could assume.

so 35/2 is the case.. but.. again.. bad bokeh.. what is that? and it doesn't have 3d rendering.. or view.. how to understand? f/2 and doesn't have bokeh? how is it possible? bad bokeh? you mean it's unpleasant to watch?

then I'm just left where i've started.. get a zoom. sigma 17-70/2.8-4.. but then aigain I want better quality.. gggggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......

[LeDave]

I don't necessarily think any bokeh is a bad bokeh. A lot of people just tend to like the smoothness and quality of a certain bokeh which the 31 LTD produces, a smooth buttery out of focus area that makes the in-focused area pop in a very intriguing dynamic way of which they call the 3D effect. Some just don't like harsh bokeh or bokeh that doesn't help the in-focused area.

As for the DA 35 f/2.8 Limited Macro, I used to have this lens and it was my favorite, it was probably the sharpest lens I've owned. It's good for macro work and can be suitable for street photography. The thing is the focus ring has a long way to travel from each end and may not be practical for street photography, but you can still make it work if you experiment with the lens a bit and find out how you would do it.

I've never owned the FA 35 f/2 so I can't say much about it, but I've heard great things about it's sharpness.

A lot of people complain about the pricing of the FA 31 Limited, I used to own both the FA 43 Limited and the 77 Limited but never the 31 Limited because it was way out of what I was willing to pay for it. So you're not the only one who hates the pricing also.

Get yourself a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or 28-75 f/2.8 if you are speaking about optical quality that you want, these are great lenses.

[Ash]

The 35/2 is still a good lens despite some users feeling it 'has no soul' - one of those X-factor aspects you see in a 'wow' photo from the 31 ltd or 35 macro.

That said, the 35/2 is still very good against the zooms, but the DA 35 is even better - does it all IMO.
I'd agree with you getting a zoom, and a Tamron 17-50 at that - the best compromises all round.
Otherwise, if just for size and stealth-factor, perhaps the DA 21 may be suited (if not too wide).

[georgweb]

Hey Mystic,
the FA 35/2 is a prototypical lens review case I think. The score in the database is now close to 9.0 which is really good.
But, for example user Abbazz gives a 5.0 score and says: Longitudinal chromatic aberration, ugly bokeh, unpleasant pictures

Now if you have a look at Abbazz pictures (just look for his posts) you will see that he really can take interesting pictures
and beautiful they are, too. So I think you can trust Abbazz, you only have to find out if you like what he likes.

Apart from that, here are picture links that I have found for the lenses you are asking about,

pentax fa 35/2 - Flickr: Search

Flickr: The Pentax SMC DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited Pool

Flickr: The Pentax Limited Lenses | Pentax LE???? Pool

I only have manual focus lenses so I would recommend the MC Flektogon 35/2.4 or the Y/C Yashica ML 28/2.8.
The (SMC) Takumar 3.5/28 is also excellent but you need good light to focus.

Good luck with the choice,
Georg

[Pentaxor]

why some people consider it's BOKEH as a BAD BOKEH is because it's out-of-focus (OOF) background doesn't appeal some people. as LeDave mentioned, some people prefer a smooth/uniform low/non-defined background (the FA35 displays or renders a more definitive background which to some people make the subject less isolated or has less POP as they say). however, the FA35's unreal sharpness resolves this and to some people, this is a great attribute and makes the bokeh is a non-issue. actually, the FA35's bokeh is good and not a bad bokeh. it just doesn't have a "great" bokeh that's why some people say that it's BAD. mind you that BOKEH rendering is subjective, it is non-quantifiable.

finally, I think the main reason that some people are disappointed in the FA35 is because people are expecting it for use as a portraiture lens which I believe is not the lens' real purpose or forte. as a full-frame wide-angle lens, the FA35 is great into getting definitive backgrounds. thereby making it very usable in architectures, cityscapes, landscapes, walk-around lens for images which requires strong contrast and sharpness, especially during night time or lowlight events. I believe that is where this lens should be used primarily.

[WerTicus]

i have the fa35 f2 and a fa50 f1.4 and i find myself never using the 35 because its comparatively soft next to the fa 50. That is why im considering a fa31 now.

I'd also choose the da 70 over the fa 77 because the 70 is sharper, despite being slower.

[pinholecam]

I have the FA35 and have nothing bad to say of it. Sharp from f2 and very sharp from f2.8 onwards. Excellent focal length on film and/or digital.

For my low standards, I can tell bad (eg. confusing) and good bokeh, but can't differentiate buttery smooth with creamy.

If you are like me, then FA35 is a wonderful lens to have. If you are a more refined photographer, then maybe the 31ltd is a better choice.

Not to the high standards seen in this forum, but here I some of shots done with the FA35.
Why I like the FA35/2 - ClubSNAP Photography Forums
Hope I don't scare you away from this lens with my poor shots

[Pentaxor]

i have the fa35 f2 and a fa50 f1.4 and i find myself never using the 35 because its comparatively soft next to the fa 50. That is why im considering a fa31 now.

I'd also choose the da 70 over the fa 77 because the 70 is sharper, despite being slower.

I find your statement odd. my FA35 is as sharp and at certain times sharper than my FA50/1.7 at F2 and F4 til F8. and you know that the f1.7 is sharper than the 1.4.

even the photozone MTF resolution tests would show that.

[K McCall]

You asked for illustrations, so I'm going to post some photos of the lenses you mentioned - all except for the FA 35/2. But I have the FA 31, the FA 43, and the DA 35 Macro, and I use them frequently.

Shot with the FA 31 and processed in Lightroom:


Show with the FA 43 and processed in Lightroom:


I find that both the FA 31 and the FA 43 provide that 3D "pop" you hear about, but only if you shoot wide-open or close to it and if you are really close to your subject - roughly the closest focusing distance possible. Of course, if the background is really far away, then you don't need to be quite so close.

The DA 35 Macro is quickly becoming one of my favorite lenses, and something of an all-around lens for me. It doesn't quite have the same kind of look as the 31 or the 43, but it's still a remarkably sharp lens, even at f/2.8. It's slower to lock focus than a non-macro lens but it is by no means slow (at least compared to lenses like the D-FA 100mm Macro).


This is always a tough decision, and like you I very nearly went with the FA 35/2 when I first bought a DSLR. I went with the FA 43 instead, though, and never regretted my decision. I picked up the other two lenses later.

[Mystic]

I don't necessarily think any bokeh is a bad bokeh. A lot of people just tend to like the smoothness and quality of a certain bokeh which the 31 LTD produces, a smooth buttery out of focus area that makes the in-focused area pop in a very intriguing dynamic way of which they call the 3D effect. Some just don't like harsh bokeh or bokeh that doesn't help the in-focused area.

As for the DA 35 f/2.8 Limited Macro, I used to have this lens and it was my favorite, it was probably the sharpest lens I've owned. It's good for macro work and can be suitable for street photography. The thing is the focus ring has a long way to travel from each end and may not be practical for street photography, but you can still make it work if you experiment with the lens a bit and find out how you would do it.

I've never owned the FA 35 f/2 so I can't say much about it, but I've heard great things about it's sharpness.

A lot of people complain about the pricing of the FA 31 Limited, I used to own both the FA 43 Limited and the 77 Limited but never the 31 Limited because it was way out of what I was willing to pay for it. So you're not the only one who hates the pricing also.

Get yourself a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or 28-75 f/2.8 if you are speaking about optical quality that you want, these are great lenses.

yeah.. dificult decision.. I had tamron 28-75, yes it was sharp, but the focus area was too short for me.. everytime i've missed more stuff in focus.. and more over it was front focusing, so I couldn't use it on km.

well + ofr DA35..

[Mystic]

The 35/2 is still a good lens despite some users feeling it 'has no soul' - one of those X-factor aspects you see in a 'wow' photo from the 31 ltd or 35 macro.

That said, the 35/2 is still very good against the zooms, but the DA 35 is even better - does it all IMO.
I'd agree with you getting a zoom, and a Tamron 17-50 at that - the best compromises all round.
Otherwise, if just for size and stealth-factor, perhaps the DA 21 may be suited (if not too wide).

hmm.. DA35 even better.. ? what about it's slow focus in most situations?

da21 is a bit too wide.. and too slow.. I mean f/3.5? or something..
I have 12-24mm so I want small portable lens for all round shooting for my k7

tamron 17-50 is also a little big I would guess and I want pentax colors and contrasts..

[Mystic]

Hey Mystic,
the FA 35/2 is a prototypical lens review case I think. The score in the database is now close to 9.0 which is really good.
But, for example user Abbazz gives a 5.0 score and says: Longitudinal chromatic aberration, ugly bokeh, unpleasant pictures

Now if you have a look at Abbazz pictures (just look for his posts) you will see that he really can take interesting pictures
and beautiful they are, too. So I think you can trust Abbazz, you only have to find out if you like what he likes.

Apart from that, here are picture links that I have found for the lenses you are asking about,

pentax fa 35/2 - Flickr: Search

Flickr: The Pentax SMC DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited Pool

Flickr: The Pentax Limited Lenses | Pentax LE???? Pool

I only have manual focus lenses so I would recommend the MC Flektogon 35/2.4 or the Y/C Yashica ML 28/2.8.
The (SMC) Takumar 3.5/28 is also excellent but you need good light to focus.

Good luck with the choice,
Georg

thanks for the links.. while inspecting photos taken with 35/2 sharpness is the main indredient.. and some chromatic things pop out.. and some feel of the past.. film era.. it's sharp, bokeh is really.. not modern..

while looking at da35/2.8 i liked more photos.. they look better I even found amazing street shots so it's possible.. all the closeups look amazing. landscapes sharp.. abstracts interesting.. well I guess it's another for DA35

and no, I do not want to use manual focus lenses I have one russian helios 44/2 it's I gues is 58mm f/2 it's sharp.. but not my focal point. and manual focus in dynamic photography is too dificult..

[Mystic]

why some people consider it's BOKEH as a BAD BOKEH is because it's out-of-focus (OOF) background doesn't appeal some people. as LeDave mentioned, some people prefer a smooth/uniform low/non-defined background (the FA35 displays or renders a more definitive background which to some people make the subject less isolated or has less POP as they say). however, the FA35's unreal sharpness resolves this and to some people, this is a great attribute and makes the bokeh is a non-issue. actually, the FA35's bokeh is good and not a bad bokeh. it just doesn't have a "great" bokeh that's why some people say that it's BAD. mind you that BOKEH rendering is subjective, it is non-quantifiable.

finally, I think the main reason that some people are disappointed in the FA35 is because people are expecting it for use as a portraiture lens which I believe is not the lens' real purpose or forte. as a full-frame wide-angle lens, the FA35 is great into getting definitive backgrounds. thereby making it very usable in architectures, cityscapes, landscapes, walk-around lens for images which requires strong contrast and sharpness, especially during night time or lowlight events. I believe that is where this lens should be used primarily.

very informative+
fa 35/2 a fast, sharp lens for street photography designed for 35mm. film.
bokeh.. suffers because of the lens sharpness and somewhat different rendering.. ok.. thanks.

I just have to answer what will be my priorities.. all round is my priority..

[Mystic]

I have the FA35 and have nothing bad to say of it. Sharp from f2 and very sharp from f2.8 onwards. Excellent focal length on film and/or digital.

For my low standards, I can tell bad (eg. confusing) and good bokeh, but can't differentiate buttery smooth with creamy.

If you are like me, then FA35 is a wonderful lens to have. If you are a more refined photographer, then maybe the 31ltd is a better choice.

Not to the high standards seen in this forum, but here I some of shots done with the FA35.
Why I like the FA35/2 - ClubSNAP Photography Forums
Hope I don't scare you away from this lens with my poor shots

hmm.. I think I'm refined photographer.. I'm not saying i'm very good, it's just i would like to be such..

I liked your pictures.. yet, they do not look that modern.. that refined I might say..

thanks for your input.. but i'm started to lean toward DA35..
one thing still that bugs me.. is it's slow focus..

[Mystic]

You asked for illustrations, so I'm going to post some photos of the lenses you mentioned - all except for the FA 35/2. But I have the FA 31, the FA 43, and the DA 35 Macro, and I use them frequently.

Shot with the FA 31 and processed in Lightroom:


Show with the FA 43 and processed in Lightroom:


I find that both the FA 31 and the FA 43 provide that 3D "pop" you hear about, but only if you shoot wide-open or close to it and if you are really close to your subject - roughly the closest focusing distance possible. Of course, if the background is really far away, then you don't need to be quite so close.

The DA 35 Macro is quickly becoming one of my favorite lenses, and something of an all-around lens for me. It doesn't quite have the same kind of look as the 31 or the 43, but it's still a remarkably sharp lens, even at f/2.8. It's slower to lock focus than a non-macro lens but it is by no means slow (at least compared to lenses like the D-FA 100mm Macro).


This is always a tough decision, and like you I very nearly went with the FA 35/2 when I first bought a DSLR. I went with the FA 43 instead, though, and never regretted my decision. I picked up the other two lenses later.

these pictures look all amazing.. yes I want 31ltd.. it would be perfect.. yet.. I do not think I could afford it.. so the
43ltd.. well I'm afraid it's a little too tight.. i mean.. focal length

and as you start to like DA35 I'm starting to lean toward it too..

what is the price that you'd sell your 31ltd?

could you comment more on the focus of DA35?

could you show more of your samples pictures of DA35?

for now I think my taste agrees with yours..