[Canada_Rockies]

There's a new problem - too sharp. You'll have to buy a SMC-F 28-80. That will solve your problem!

I would send you my copy of that lens for the postage, but you would be paying too much for it.

[MarkJerling]

I would send you my copy of that lens for the postage, but you would be paying too much for it.

Thank you - but I own one already. It makes a handy paperweight!

[Jonathan Mac]

The first two are cross-posted to the camera p0rn thread. My new 35mm f/2.8 arrived this morning so I did a comparison with it's faster brother, shot with the M 50/1.4.

The 35mm f/2.8 is good and solid and optically seems no slouch though it doesn't seem to get REALLY sharp until f/4.5. But then, the f/2 version doesn't get REALLY sharp until f/4, so not much of a difference.


IMGP5664a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP5666a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

Might be time for a 35mm shoot-out: these two plus the SMC DA limited, DAL 35/2.4 and the K 35/3.5...

[Piotrek K]

The first two are cross-posted to the camera p0rn thread. My new 35mm f/2.8 arrived this morning so I did a comparison with it's faster brother, shot with the M 50/1.4.

The 35mm f/2.8 is good and solid and optically seems no slouch though it doesn't seem to get REALLY sharp until f/4.5. But then, the f/2 version doesn't get REALLY sharp until f/4, so not much of a difference.

Thanks for the interesting info - what do you mean by REALLY sharp - does it mean sharp across the frame at 100%? Do you think 2.8 is equally sharp at f/4.5 to its faster sibling at f/4?

---

Last edited by Piotrek K; 09-24-2015 at 01:08 AM.

[Jonathan Mac]

Thanks for the interesting info - what do you mean by REALLY sharp - does it mean sharp across the frame at 100%?

It means what I personally regard as REALLY sharp, and I only checked the centre but on a fairly normal focal length lens built for 135 format I will take a leap of faith that the edges will be sharp too. "REALLY sharp" means that when I look at it at 100% I don't for a moment think "it'll do at normal viewing sizes but I wouldn't be completely happy with it if it were a landscape". Instead, I think "wow, that's sharp".

All these technical terms and highly specialised measuring techniques are of course patented and rigourously enforced in a court of law, so don't anybody even think about trying to copy them...

Do you think 2.8 is equally sharp at f/4.5 to its faster sibling at f/4?

Yes, at least in the centre.

[Piotrek K]

Many thanks, Jonathan Mac! Such an answer means more then charts or MTF tables!

[timo]

One of my favorite M's !

Last night around sunset with the M35-70/2.8-3.5:

Nice. A touch of JMW Turner here.

[Jonathan Mac]

Here are a few shots with the M 35mm f/2.8, taken on the Fuji X-M1. The first two were wide open, the last one is stopped down to f/8. So far I'm quite happy with the image quality, though wide open there's some colour-fringing in the out-of-focus areas, a bit of glow and general lack of contrast in general. Bokeh seems particularly smooth though.


Autumn by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


Fence & graffiti by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


Sun up over Madrid by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[8540tomg]

The first two are cross-posted to the camera p0rn thread. My new 35mm f/2.8 arrived this morning so I did a comparison with it's faster brother, shot with the M 50/1.4.

The 35mm f/2.8 is good and solid and optically seems no slouch though it doesn't seem to get REALLY sharp until f/4.5. But then, the f/2 version doesn't get REALLY sharp until f/4, so not much of a difference.

Probably not much of a difference in sharpness but the f2 is brighter in the viewfinder and a little easier to focus at least for my old eyes.

Tom G

[reh321]

The first two are cross-posted to the camera p0rn thread. My new 35mm f/2.8 arrived this morning so I did a comparison with it's faster brother, shot with the M 50/1.4.

The 35mm f/2.8 is good and solid and optically seems no slouch though it doesn't seem to get REALLY sharp until f/4.5. But then, the f/2 version doesn't get REALLY sharp until f/4, so not much of a difference.

Might be time for a 35mm shoot-out: these two plus the SMC DA limited, DAL 35/2.4 and the K 35/3.5...

Based on photos I've taken with my old Pentax-A and Pentax-M lenses on my K-30, and comparing them to pictures I took with the same lenses on my Super Program 30 years ago, I believe that even a moderately-priced DSLR delivers much more sharpness than I ever got with Kodachrome 25, which was supposed to be the "sharpest" color film, and an older kit lens delivers more sharpness than modern kit lenses do. I guess I need to look around for a longer Pentax-M or Pentax-A lens and see if it can do better on my Q-7 than what my modern Sigma 70-300mm is providing for birding pictures.

[Jonathan Mac]

Pentax M 35mm f/2.8 at f/4 on Fuji X-M1


Looking up by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[Jonathan Mac]

K3 with Pentax M 35mm f/2.8 then 100mm f/2.8


IMGP5676a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP5775a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[rob1234]

I think the M35/2.8 is a very underrated little lens:

Wide-open at near MFD:



Infinity, f/8:



Full size on clicky.

[AldaCZ]

Some with M50/1,7

[Jonathan Mac]

Some shots around a metal-work workshop this morning with the K3 and M 35mm f/2.8. All taken either wide open or at f/4.


IMGP5792a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP5804a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP5813a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP5833a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP5821a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr