I hate to dump on all this wonderful analysis of what I'm sure is a great lens but I find these threads a strange and funny dialog at times. Maybe I've just read far too many threads that follow this theme, maybe I'm just getting old and tired. Maybe it's more the language used than the actual thread idea itself.
I certainly hope the DA35mm gets Mike's thumbs up since the blog is read by thousands on a daily basis. It can only help Pentax (maybe they should post an ad there?). I am curious about Stevebrot's question though. I couldn't find a direct quote that he was even talking about the DA35 even after searching the blog. Maybe I missed something.
Don't get me wrong, I like owning the best glass I can afford. I think I have a decent little collection but nothing like what I see here and elsewhere. I also own some crap lenses that I still use because they offer a 'look' or effect that the super sharp, great bokeh etc, lens can't touch. Yet each lens does just what I want it to do and in most cases better than I'm able to push it.
I've seen some pretty fine images come from some fairly 'pedestrian' lenses and I always find it funny when someone says "WOW great shot what lens?" The answer comes back, an FA 70-200 or something similar. Don't take that the wrong way 70-200 owners, the viewer expected an A*135mm f1.8 or FA85mm/1.4 because the shot looked so good. It's a compliment to your shooting style using what you have to work with.
I agree with the OP's earlier comment that the thing Mike might be seeing is a combination of DA35 and K20D sensor. Really how could he not? The one thing I lament with DSLR's over film is that every image from your DSLR will be basically the same. With film, if you wanted a certain look, warmer, colder, more/less grain, more/less contrast, you changed the film to suit the shooting project, even half way through a roll! Can't change the sensor and the only option is Photoshop. So I'm fairly sure it's as much the sensor as it is the lens.
So back to my mini rant. The statement that caught my attention was the following (from Mikes article):
Quote: And now for my thoughts on maturity...
(he's referring to testing a lens Vs using a lens)
But here's what's interesting: the opposite is also true. When I'm actually out photographing—that is, out and about pursuing "real" pictures—the kind I actually want to look at—I never pay the slightest attention to the technical properties of the lens. Then, the goal is to forget the equipment. What I've learned about the lens with my test photos might inform how I use it, how I go about approaching something, but once I've decided a lens is okay, I just photograph with it. If some slight technical flaw shows up in a picture, I don't obsess about it.
And when you think about it, isn't that really the mark of maturity in a photographer? He or she does the necessary research, acquires the equipment needed to do the work, but then gets on with the work. And forgets about the equipment. When you're photographing, technique should be transparent.
So like any of us, I get a new lens and test it out, take a few shots of various tough subjects, review the images, maybe compare it to one of my known "standards" and then the lens goes in the bag or is returned/sold. Every lens has a strength or weakness but frankly these are quite minor. My Tamron 28-75mm/2.8 can have double line bokeh when there are sticks in a close up shot and the sun is bright. So I don't use that lens in those situations. No reason to sell it or look for a 'better' lens though.
After that, it's as Mike said
"I just photograph with it. If some slight technical flaw shows up in a picture, I don't obsess about it". Most minor issues can be corrected later but that doesn't happen often. I know I can post a picture from a zoom and no one can tell it wasn't a prime most of the time. Sure I realize a resized Jpeg is far different than a RAW file. I know certain lenses will do certain things better or worse. But I do print quite a bit, at the corner kiosk and a pro lab using TIFF versions. I'm happy with the results from my primes, my zooms and my crap lenses.
I hope the debates on every lens continue. I learn some stuff from those that have 'better' gear than I do. Heck I play a part in that myself having recently published a comparison of the FA50/1.4 and FA50/2.8 macro.
These threads serve a purpose. I respect everyone here who has posted and those lurking that want to know more about the tests. It's not a complaint because these threads can help those that have limited resources to make the best choices. But if a 31mm or a 70mm is way out of your needs and budget but the 2 kit lenses are affordable. Then I hope the new owner feels they have a good quality setup. Because they do.
My point is, don't make lens collecting and getting the ultimate lens for the focal range the goal. Those who are lucky enough to acquire [what's considered] the best lens for the focal range should be careful. Don't become elitist or intimidating to the new DSLR owner with a kit lens.
The goal is the photograph. If it's a good one, I for one, could care less if it was taken with an Albinar.
So anyone know the lens used (without looking at the EXIF)?
Attachment 16404