Pentax DA-L 35mm f/??

RMabo · 06-05-2010, 03:35 AM

Question is wether the K-x will be Pentax last entry level DSLR without weather sealing or if the replacement will be weather sealed? Making a DA L 35 for only one camera seems a bit, well, odd. I believe more in a DA 35 WR but that would have higher costs and getting more complaints from users as being "more expensive than Canon"..

thibs · 06-05-2010, 04:54 AM

Mmm old fa35/2 reworked as cheap da-l OR reworked as DA WR (better construction) + a 30/1.4 as DA* would be OK IMO

cheap is not necessary to me but affordable would be a very welcome addition to pentax line up.

ytterbium · 06-05-2010, 05:50 AM

IMHO 35mm DA WR and DA* 30mm would be too close. Both, price and application wise.

I think a FAST (may be bigger [than ltd's], more plastic - rubber ring, hood bayonet etc and WR, but at least F1.8) ~30mm is a requirement. Otherwise the APS-C DA system lacks designated normal prime an is VERY incomplete. Slow or expensive limited, obsolete and overpriced second hand FA's doesn't cut it.

So a DA* 30/1.4 is very likely. Then not to have too much overlap in high-end segment (DA*'s/Limiteds), the other one has to be the cheap f1.8..2 workhorse.

omega leader · 06-05-2010, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

he's actually an open contradiction. he criticizes Pentax so much and dissatisfied, yet he continues to look or post new articles concerning Pentax everytime. if I was his Canon gear which he loves very much to death, I would be extremely jealous for the lack of attention I'm getting from him.

And now he doesn't even have any "critical" analysis he just links to things. At least Ken discussed stuff.

Blue · 06-05-2010, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by nextimelah

sounds like this Ricehigh guy has got quite a reputation here!

He's very popular here. The Lead Moderator likes him a lot. sarcasm

Blue · 06-05-2010, 10:15 AM

I don't see the logic of bring back the FA 35mm f2 with a plastic mount. The retail price of the FA 35mm f2 was $299 at the end of 2008. If Hoya wanted to show their genius, they would bring back the FA at THAT price.

Edit: Maybe they are working on a DA* 35mm f2 based on the FA or a DA* 35mm f1.4 based on the M 35mm f1.4 prototype.

ytterbium · 06-05-2010, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Blue

I don't see the logic of bring back the FA 35mm f2 with a plastic mount. The retail price of the FA 35mm f2 was $299 at the end of 2008. If Hoya wanted to show their genius, they would bring back the FA at THAT price.

Edit: Maybe they are working on a DA* 35mm f2 based on the FA or a DA* 35mm f1.4 based on the M 35mm f1.4 prototype.

If you remove the aperture ring, metal mount, don't include hood you can probably sell it for 200$. If, as always, it comes to Europe at approx. the same price in euros and has nice pop to images because of the digital coatings, many would buy it in a moment.
Practically i'm sure it will never happen.
Most likely it will be slow (2..2.4), overpriced DA* that lacks many expected properties (screw drive AF for example), has some problems in it's first batches and is useful only to some rich or overly enthusiastic people.

**kiwi_jono** · 06-08-2010, 03:03 PM

I can't be alone in having a very limited "hobby" budget???

It leaves me quite jealous of the latest Nikkor offering:
Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G lens review: design, build, coverage, focusing | Cameralabs

For $199 and good performance like this , I would actually buy this lense if it was a K mount. And this is with an inbuilt focus motor so is there potential for further cost saving?

As it is I'm still looking around for a good MF 35mm lense (but at this focal length even old lenses are often relatively pricey).

ytterbium · 06-08-2010, 03:16 PM

Basic things like this, makes me think if my next basic upgrade to basic kit wont be pentax anymore.
Limiteds, fullframes and 600mm lenses are nice to have, but are not the things that get the job done for my basic needs.

calsan · 06-09-2010, 01:32 AM

18-55 II WR is already a small, water resistant lens that is sharp wide open (about F4.5) at 35mm and fast to focus.
Being devil's advocate: Why would a K-X user actually buy a faster lens in this focal range, given the camera's much celebrated low noise performance and shake reduction? This will be even more true in the future with new camera bodies. I think everyone still thinks in terms of film where maybe you were stuck with ISO 400 until you finished the roll, so a fast lens was more useful. For 'bokeh', well use a longer focal length.... such as 55mm.

Erik · 06-09-2010, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by calsan

18-55 II WR is already a small, water resistant lens that is sharp wide open (about F4.5) at 35mm and fast to focus.
Being devil's advocate: Why would a K-X user actually buy a faster lens in this focal range, given the camera's much celebrated low noise performance and shake reduction? This will be even more true in the future with new camera bodies. I think everyone still thinks in terms of film where maybe you were stuck with ISO 400 until you finished the roll, so a fast lens was more useful. For 'bokeh', well use a longer focal length.... such as 55mm.

Why does anyone buy anything? If what you said was true, Pentax could reduce their lens lineup to the 18-55 and 55-300 and discontinue everything else, and everyone would be as happy. Fast lenses are always useful. It doesn't matter if I have ISO 409600, f/4.5 is still f/4.5 and not f/2.

thibs · 06-09-2010, 02:48 AM

I'd position myself between you both.
Yep, fast lens is useful, for light but for DOF control as well.

Now, IMO, it is less critical than before since we can use things like Iso1600 without problem (IMO, again). But it doesn't make fast lens useless, no: it is less of an absolute necessity e.g. someone could absolutely have a 50 macro and use it for low light. It will be OK. On film, it wouldn't have been.

Note: this is not taking into account AF performance, nor DOF issues.

gazonk · 06-09-2010, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by thibs

e.g. someone could absolutely have a 50 macro and use it for low light. It will be OK. On film, it wouldn't have been.

Well, I'm not quite sure about that. A 50mm at f/2.8 gives you pretty thin DOF on film. Even in quite low light I often stopped my 50mms (1.7 and 1.8) down to 2.8 in order to have a reasonable DOF to work with.

dlacouture · 06-09-2010, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

Well, I'm not quite sure about that. A 50mm at f/2.8 gives you pretty thin DOF on film. Even in quite low light I often stopped my 50mms (1.7 and 1.8) down to 2.8 in order to have a reasonable DOF to work with.

Yep, but even at f/2.8, it translates roughly to a 35mm f/1.4 (DOF-wise), so we won't have those creamy backgrounds anymore (or will they go all the way to f/0.7???).

gazonk · 06-09-2010, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by dlacouture

Yep, but even at f/2.8, it translates roughly to a 35mm f/1.4 (DOF-wise), so we won't have those creamy backgrounds anymore (or will they go all the way to f/0.7???).

It's closer to a 35mm 1.8. But that wasn't really the point here.

06-05-2010, 10:15 AM	#21
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	I don't see the logic of bring back the FA 35mm f2 with a plastic mount. The retail price of the FA 35mm f2 was $299 at the end of 2008. If Hoya wanted to show their genius, they would bring back the FA at THAT price. Edit: Maybe they are working on a DA* 35mm f2 based on the FA or a DA* 35mm f1.4 based on the M 35mm f1.4 prototype. Last edited by Blue; 06-05-2010 at 10:34 AM.

06-08-2010, 03:03 PM	#23
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	I'm a Hobbiest Photographer I can't be alone in having a very limited "hobby" budget??? It leaves me quite jealous of the latest Nikkor offering: Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G lens review: design, build, coverage, focusing \| Cameralabs For $199 and good performance like this , I would actually buy this lense if it was a K mount. And this is with an inbuilt focus motor so is there potential for further cost saving? As it is I'm still looking around for a good MF 35mm lense (but at this focal length even old lenses are often relatively pricey).

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Pentax SMC 35mm/2, 35mm/3.5	andersju	Sold Items	4	05-16-2010 06:23 PM
Wanted - Acquired: SMC Pentax FA 35mm f2 AL / Samsung D-Xenogon 35mm f2	bcmjr	Sold Items	1	04-28-2010 03:21 PM
For Sale - Sold: Samsung D-Xenogon 35mm f/2 (Pentax SMCP-FA 35mm f/2.0) (US)	waterhouse8800	Sold Items	1	04-25-2010 09:21 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC K 35mm/2 35mm F2 Rare Collector's Item, w/ Metal Hood (Worldwide)	frank	Sold Items	16	04-07-2010 05:03 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K 24mm/2.8; A 28mm/2.8; M 35mm/2 for a FA 35mm/2	Curbster54	Sold Items	1	12-04-2009 12:54 PM

06-05-2010, 03:35 AM	#16
RMabo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 845	Question is wether the K-x will be Pentax last entry level DSLR without weather sealing or if the replacement will be weather sealed? Making a DA L 35 for only one camera seems a bit, well, odd. I believe more in a DA 35 WR but that would have higher costs and getting more complaints from users as being "more expensive than Canon"..

06-05-2010, 04:54 AM	#17
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Mmm old fa35/2 reworked as cheap da-l OR reworked as DA WR (better construction) + a 30/1.4 as DA* would be OK IMO cheap is not necessary to me but affordable would be a very welcome addition to pentax line up.

06-05-2010, 05:50 AM	#18
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	IMHO 35mm DA WR and DA* 30mm would be too close. Both, price and application wise. I think a FAST (may be bigger [than ltd's], more plastic - rubber ring, hood bayonet etc and WR, but at least F1.8) ~30mm is a requirement. Otherwise the APS-C DA system lacks designated normal prime an is VERY incomplete. Slow or expensive limited, obsolete and overpriced second hand FA's doesn't cut it. So a DA* 30/1.4 is very likely. Then not to have too much overlap in high-end segment (DA*'s/Limiteds), the other one has to be the cheap f1.8..2 workhorse.

06-05-2010, 09:18 AM	#19
omega leader Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Niagara Region, Ontario Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	Originally posted by Pentaxor he's actually an open contradiction. he criticizes Pentax so much and dissatisfied, yet he continues to look or post new articles concerning Pentax everytime. if I was his Canon gear which he loves very much to death, I would be extremely jealous for the lack of attention I'm getting from him. And now he doesn't even have any "critical" analysis he just links to things. At least Ken discussed stuff.

06-05-2010, 10:13 AM	#20
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by nextimelah sounds like this Ricehigh guy has got quite a reputation here! He's very popular here. The Lead Moderator likes him a lot.

06-05-2010, 01:41 PM	#22
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	Originally posted by Blue I don't see the logic of bring back the FA 35mm f2 with a plastic mount. The retail price of the FA 35mm f2 was $299 at the end of 2008. If Hoya wanted to show their genius, they would bring back the FA at THAT price. Edit: Maybe they are working on a DA* 35mm f2 based on the FA or a DA* 35mm f1.4 based on the M 35mm f1.4 prototype. If you remove the aperture ring, metal mount, don't include hood you can probably sell it for 200$. If, as always, it comes to Europe at approx. the same price in euros and has nice pop to images because of the digital coatings, many would buy it in a moment. Practically i'm sure it will never happen. Most likely it will be slow (2..2.4), overpriced DA* that lacks many expected properties (screw drive AF for example), has some problems in it's first batches and is useful only to some rich or overly enthusiastic people.

06-08-2010, 03:16 PM	#24
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	Basic things like this, makes me think if my next basic upgrade to basic kit wont be pentax anymore. Limiteds, fullframes and 600mm lenses are nice to have, but are not the things that get the job done for my basic needs.

06-09-2010, 01:32 AM	#25
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,549	18-55 II WR is already a small, water resistant lens that is sharp wide open (about F4.5) at 35mm and fast to focus. Being devil's advocate: Why would a K-X user actually buy a faster lens in this focal range, given the camera's much celebrated low noise performance and shake reduction? This will be even more true in the future with new camera bodies. I think everyone still thinks in terms of film where maybe you were stuck with ISO 400 until you finished the roll, so a fast lens was more useful. For 'bokeh', well use a longer focal length.... such as 55mm.

06-09-2010, 02:27 AM	#26
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Originally posted by calsan 18-55 II WR is already a small, water resistant lens that is sharp wide open (about F4.5) at 35mm and fast to focus. Being devil's advocate: Why would a K-X user actually buy a faster lens in this focal range, given the camera's much celebrated low noise performance and shake reduction? This will be even more true in the future with new camera bodies. I think everyone still thinks in terms of film where maybe you were stuck with ISO 400 until you finished the roll, so a fast lens was more useful. For 'bokeh', well use a longer focal length.... such as 55mm. Why does anyone buy anything? If what you said was true, Pentax could reduce their lens lineup to the 18-55 and 55-300 and discontinue everything else, and everyone would be as happy. Fast lenses are always useful. It doesn't matter if I have ISO 409600, f/4.5 is still f/4.5 and not f/2.

06-09-2010, 02:48 AM	#27
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	I'd position myself between you both. Yep, fast lens is useful, for light but for DOF control as well. Now, IMO, it is less critical than before since we can use things like Iso1600 without problem (IMO, again). But it doesn't make fast lens useless, no: it is less of an absolute necessity e.g. someone could absolutely have a 50 macro and use it for low light. It will be OK. On film, it wouldn't have been. Note: this is not taking into account AF performance, nor DOF issues.

06-09-2010, 03:30 AM	#28
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by thibs e.g. someone could absolutely have a 50 macro and use it for low light. It will be OK. On film, it wouldn't have been. Well, I'm not quite sure about that. A 50mm at f/2.8 gives you pretty thin DOF on film. Even in quite low light I often stopped my 50mms (1.7 and 1.8) down to 2.8 in order to have a reasonable DOF to work with.

06-09-2010, 04:40 AM	#29
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Originally posted by gazonk Well, I'm not quite sure about that. A 50mm at f/2.8 gives you pretty thin DOF on film. Even in quite low light I often stopped my 50mms (1.7 and 1.8) down to 2.8 in order to have a reasonable DOF to work with. Yep, but even at f/2.8, it translates roughly to a 35mm f/1.4 (DOF-wise), so we won't have those creamy backgrounds anymore (or will they go all the way to f/0.7???).

06-09-2010, 04:51 AM	#30
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by dlacouture Yep, but even at f/2.8, it translates roughly to a 35mm f/1.4 (DOF-wise), so we won't have those creamy backgrounds anymore (or will they go all the way to f/0.7???). It's closer to a 35mm 1.8. But that wasn't really the point here.