Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2010, 02:19 AM   #46
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deventer, NL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 113
like all the others said, it's all down to the image quality this thing produces. If it's as good as my A35/2, I might as well swap them (if the second hand market for the A35 doesn't collapse now). Not excited about the plastic bayonet though, we'll see how durable that is. Does anyone have experiences with wearing down these DA-L mounts, or does it just feel ugly?

09-09-2010, 03:40 AM   #47
Veteran Member
tomtor's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 382
Plastic mounts are ok for me.

QuoteOriginally posted by urje Quote
like all the others said, it's all down to the image quality this thing produces. If it's as good as my A35/2, I might as well swap them (if the second hand market for the A35 doesn't collapse now). Not excited about the plastic bayonet though, we'll see how durable that is. Does anyone have experiences with wearing down these DA-L mounts, or does it just feel ugly?
I use the DA-L 18-55 on my K-X when it's in my backpack to work and interchange it frequently with eg the metal FA-77, DA 50-135 and DA18-250 when I'm on a shooting session.

The plastic mount looks ok.

IMO the negative feedback on plastic mounts is out of proportion and this 35/2.4 lens + K-R looks like an excellent option for a photographer on a budget.

I expect it to be a good performer wide open and faster than 2.4 looks nice on paper, but if you're in a dynamic scene you'll normally need more than paper thin DOF, so you'll end up stopping a 1.8 lens down anyway.

Those who buy just a brand name or from numbers on spec sheets will go Canikon anyway. People who want shallow DOF lenses and are on a budget should just get an M50/1.7. Want AF and 35, this DA35/2.4 fits the bill nicely IMO.

On a medium budget, get the FA43, money no issue, get the FA31.

Plenty of choice.
09-09-2010, 03:53 AM   #48
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
The difference between being able to shoot at f/1.8 and f/2.4 is quite noticeable. That's about 1 stop difference and if we go by the rule of thumb that for most lenses the optimal aperture is two stops down from the maximum aperture, that means the range of usable apertures for maximum sharpness is gonna be more limited. Add to the fact that that 1 stop difference affects viewfinder brightness and the ability for the camera to lock focus in low light plus light fall off in the corners, that really adds up. One may feel shooting at f/1.8 may yield weak image quality but having that capability opens up more creative options than a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.4 (soft OOF backgrounds, better subject isolation, even reversing the lens for macro purposes).

It is just like the comparison between the FA 77mm f/1.8 versus the DA 70mm f/2.4... both are sharp lenses but most who own both clearly find the FA 77mm offers a lot more options in shooting aperture and in controlling the background blur...
It's possible to design and build a lens that is absolutely sharp at max aperture. Many Leica lenses advertise that feature.

So we may be looking at a 2.4 that has no softness wide open one would see in a 1.8. Maybe.

I've owned the Nikon and it is 1.8 soft wide open, noticeably.

We'll have to see the value of this lens through tests. Maybe Pentax has simply said you get pretty colours but slower aperture. Canikon hasn't pretty colours.

The DAL 35/2.4 is, as afar as I know, the first "fashion prime" on the market.
09-09-2010, 04:20 AM   #49
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mainz
Posts: 20
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
The DAL 35/2.4 is, as afar as I know, the first "fashion prime" on the market.
Very well seen. I just hope it'd be priced closer to the 18-55 kit lens so you can get comparable offers for zoom or prime kits. Maybe they are orienting to the four/thirds market where the entry level primes are also not that open.

As per colors: I did buy a white camera, and I think it's awesome. Would go for olive green now. That doesn't interfere with my appreciation of the optical and technical qualities of my k-x and lenses

09-09-2010, 04:36 AM   #50
Veteran Member
VaughnA's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,363
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve Beswick Quote
But what you aren't factoring in are the people who run a 50mm because before today they couldn't justify to themselves the cost of any of the available 35's on the market, nor are you considering those that simply refuse to buy used.
I'm one of those people and I'm interested. The one stop slower isn't a big deal to me, the K-x high ISO helps offset that to some extent compared to other bodies. And I had a 50 that I sold because of the long focal length. I never use quick shift and just want a 35ish AF prime. I think we need to wait and see with the IQ. My thought on that is look at the 55-300, it's a cheap lens compared to the competitions mid-high offerings and expensive compared to their cheap ones (sigma,tamron 70-300) but for overall value of dollar vs IQ it's a killer.
09-09-2010, 04:38 AM   #51
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
Why is everyone saying the DA L 35 is based on the FA 35mm design? It looks nothing like the FA 35 and looks almost the same as a DA 35 Ltd. Surely it's a DA 35mm Ltd with a plastic mount & body, no quick-shift, optimized for extra speed instead of macro.

Pentax did what they needed to do, offered a cheap normal prime. I still want my 30mm 1.4 or preferably 28mm 2.0.
09-09-2010, 04:39 AM   #52
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
It's possible to design and build a lens that is absolutely sharp at max aperture. Many Leica lenses advertise that feature.

So we may be looking at a 2.4 that has no softness wide open one would see in a 1.8. Maybe.

I've owned the Nikon and it is 1.8 soft wide open, noticeably.
I'm willing to be that's exactly the reason for the oddball speed - good image quality from f2.4 rather than good image quality from f5.6. (Actually, I'd go so far as to say that it'd probably have excellent quality, knowing Pentax.)

The venerable Pentax kit zoom has often proved to be better than its competitors. And I've heard many people complain about the quality of Nikon's f1.8 35mm.

So it won't surprise me if this lens kicks arse.
09-09-2010, 04:41 AM   #53
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,509
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Why is everyone saying the DA L 35 is based on the FA 35mm design?
Similar optical design. The DA35 Ltd is a different beast (9 elements in 8 groups vs. 6-5).

09-09-2010, 05:04 AM   #54
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 60
I'm happy with the announcement

I have a tamron 17-50 f2.8. Would half a stop and (maybe better image quality wide open) be worth 200 dollars?

For people complementing their kit lens, this is perfect, although why Pentax in their infinite wisdom chose 2.4 instead of 2 beats my intellect.

Hopefully, the prices on used FA35s will drop a bit, and I can pick one up sometime.
09-09-2010, 05:34 AM   #55
Veteran Member
ghelary's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 617
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Similar optical design. The DA35 Ltd is a different beast (9 elements in 8 groups vs. 6-5).
F50/1.7 & FA50/1.4 have also same optical design. But if you use different elements you get different performance.

F50/1.7 is better at 1.7 than the FA50/1.4 (on resolution), hope this will be the same for the DA35/2.4 compared to the FA35/2.

Anyway, when you get usable 3200 iso and more, one stop more luminous at the cost of DOF is not that critical. K-r + DA35/2.4 promise to be a fantastic combo for casual shooting.
09-09-2010, 05:55 AM   #56
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by hal_a Quote
I have a tamron 17-50 f2.8. Would half a stop and (maybe better image quality wide open) be worth 200 dollars?

For people complementing their kit lens, this is perfect, although why Pentax in their infinite wisdom chose 2.4 instead of 2 beats my intellect.

Hopefully, the prices on used FA35s will drop a bit, and I can pick one up sometime.
I have the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as well.

It's 6x heavier than the DAL 35/2.4, and about 8x the volume!

They chose F/2.4 to cut costs and weight. I expect "street price" to pop in at US$150 within 6 months. at that point it is a compulsion buy, and I will certainly feel compelled if it tests well. It's all about value.

The DA35/2.8 Macro is a resolution monster. I suspect they pinched the aperture on the DAL35/2.4 in small part to preserve some sales of the DA 35 Macro. The latter is simply too amazing a lens to get lost in the pursuit of cheap.

It's a good looking "fashion prime", that's for sure.
09-09-2010, 05:58 AM   #57
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 27
QuoteOriginally posted by ghelary Quote
F50/1.7 & FA50/1.4 have also same optical design. But if you use different elements you get different performance.

F50/1.7 is better at 1.7 than the FA50/1.4 (on resolution), hope this will be the same for the DA35/2.4 compared to the FA35/2.
Unfortunately, not.
FA50/1.4 is 7/6

F50/1.7 is 6/5


F50/1.7 has definitely higher contrast @f1.7, but with resolution I'm not so sure. At least with my copies of both lenses. I think, that FA50/1.4 has better microcontrast overall.
09-09-2010, 06:14 AM   #58
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I've owned the Nikon and it is 1.8 soft wide open, noticeably.
Bad copy? On Photozone the Nikon looked as good as the FA 35mm f/2. The center at f/1.8 is in the "excellent" range, what could you ask more?
09-09-2010, 06:19 AM   #59
Senior Member
Michael Barker's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 164
This release gives me hope that I may someday go back to a DSLR.

This lens is the functional equivalent of the 50mm/1.7 for film, i.e. it will provide handheld shots in similar light conditions on digital, it's a size/weight that is easy to handle and portable, and it meets a demanding price point. Some of us, who treat picture taking as a hobby, not gear collecting, are unwilling to spring $500 to get an extra half a stop on the lens, extra magic bokeh or supreme ruggedness.

It is a great alternative to the kit lens - it is close to the price, size/weight, and flexibility of a kit lens. It's what I thought they always should have had, from the beginning of APS-C.
Pentax has stated low vignetting and low flare in the press release. It will be interesting to see how good the image quality is with this lens. Most likely it will blow away the kit lens.

It's about making compromises and delivering the right tools for the beginner/novice/casual shooter. Unlike the FA 35mm/2, this lens has a look that matches the K-r, is lightweight, and has a wide manual focus ring. This is great news because it means people will enter the world prime lenses, and manual focus, much sooner. Manual focus through an optical viewfinder is one of the key benefits of using a DSLR vs an EVIL, IMHO, YMMV

If I see a used copy of this with a K-x on Craigslist in a couple years, I'm sure my film SLR will get very scared.

(My kit: Canon G11 digital rangefinder, and Pentax ME Super + 50mm/1.7)

Last edited by Michael Barker; 09-09-2010 at 06:25 AM.
09-09-2010, 06:20 AM   #60
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
Most lenses have plastic elements. If it was f2, i'd be all over it. I'll stick with my DA40...
Name a Pentax lens that has plastic elements.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lenses with Quickshift jaieger Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 07-20-2010 05:05 AM
For Sale - Sold: DA 55-300mm/4-5.8 (w/ metal mount, hood and quickshift) (Worldwide) dgaies Sold Items 2 03-25-2010 06:54 PM
Samsung 12-24mm Quickshift Focus omega leader Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 10-07-2009 11:57 AM
Woah... Something weird with quickshift lens GLXLR Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 09-04-2009 04:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:05 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top