[Blue]

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.

Pentax should have based this new lens on the F 28/2.8 and they would have a different FL in the line up. Plus it would be of more interest to established enthusiasts as well as entry level enthusiasts. Face, P&S types don't understand primes.

[Blue]

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.

FA 35/2 is good from f2. I'm wondering if the real reason it is slower is because the diameter of the elements have been reduced to make this thing a DA L.

[Michael Barker]

Face, P&S types don't understand primes.

And they never will, if the prime users keep harping on needing a prime for every focal length. Want P&S types to understand primes? You have to start with a cheap general purpose prime (i.e. 50 mm-e) that looks nice and is approachable.

By the way, I think it's just amazingly silly that f/2.4 is considered slow, when the sensor performance improvements have more than made up the difference already. If people are that concerned about DOF, they can always take out a loan for a Nikon 7D or Canon 5D, or go back to film. When I had a K100D and I wanted short DOF, I put on the 50-200 at a proper portrait focal length and I was off to the races. A used Canon 5D, 12 MP full-frame, is $1000 USD, the same price as a K-r with 35mm DA L. Why put the burden of shallow DOF all on the lens?

P.S. the difference between 35mm/1.8 and 35mm/2.4 is a 25% increase in depth of field relative to depth of field, or 2 to 5 % increase in depth of field relative to subject distance. Example - an increase of 0.5 ft at a distance of 10 ft, which would be hard to distinguish in most pictures.

[Blue]

And they never will, if the prime users keep harping on needing a prime for every focal length. Want P&S types to understand primes? You have to start with a cheap general purpose prime (i.e. 50 mm-e) that looks nice and is approachable.

I'm not arguing that point. In fact, I made that same point in another thread. If it turns out to be a optical dog, this approach can backfire. Plus, building a base is only part of a long term strategy. There has to be something beyond it. Furthermore, if people want a 'Normal' lens on the aps-c, the 28mm would be on the money since the diagonal of the sensor is 28.4mm.

[Michael Barker]

I'm not arguing that point. In fact, I made that same point in another thread. If it turns out to be a optical dog, this approach can backfire. Plus, building a base is only part of a long term strategy. There has to be something beyond it. Furthermore, if people want a 'Normal' lens on the aps-c, the 28mm would be on the money since the diagonal of the sensor is 28.4mm.

Okay, to address your point here then, there was a good reason the standard lens was 50mm, not 40mm, and that is a balance between cost and performance parameters. The choice may have been between these two, and I presume they made the right choice:

28mm f/3.2, street price $200, slight distortion and/or vignetting
35mm f/2.4, street price $150, bright viewfinder, perfect quality to the untrained eye, a bit nicer bokeh, much shallower DOF

There's no way to know what the choices were, I grant you. There are still plenty of holes in APS-C lineup, and 28mm is a glaring one. I just think the standard lens was a long time coming. This is it.

[gazonk]

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 even better. When my kids were babies, I used to take shots of them crawling on the floor with LX and Fujichrome 400 and the M-50/1.7. Except in extremely bad light conditions, I always stopped down to at least 2.8, though, because the DoF at 1.7 is so crazy think you could only get one eye (or typically, the tip of the nose or one ear ) in focus at a time.

The K-r is almost certainly better at ISO 3200 than Fujichrome 400 was (it was pretty grainy!), and there will be sufficient DoF for such shots already at f/2.4. So if I were to use the K-r/DA-35/2.4 combo in an equivalent situation now, I could work with more than three stops less light (or even better, with more than three stops faster shutter time).

[Blue]

It's even better. When my kids were babies, I used to take shots of them crawling on the floor with LX and Fujichrome 400 and the M-50/1.7. Except in extremely bad light conditions, I always stopped down to at least 2.8, though, because the DoF at 1.7 is so crazy think you could only get one eye (or typically, the tip of the nose or one ear ) in focus at a time.

The K-r is almost certainly better at ISO 3200 than Fujichrome 400 was (it was pretty grainy!), and there will be sufficient DoF for such shots already at f/2.4. So if I were to use the K-r/DA-35/2.4 combo in an equivalent situation now, I could work with more than three stops less light (or even better, with more than three stops faster shutter time).

You could do the same thing with the FA 35/2 which is known to be sharp at f2.

[Lincolnatus]

So this lens is marked as a DA lens and the official Pentax press releases refer to it as a DA lens. It's wearing the green stripe of a DA lens. But pentaximaging.com refers to it as a DA L lens and it is clearly mechanically and construction-wise a DA L lens. Why is Pentax deliberately confusing their lens line-up? I guess most ordinary consumers wouldn't necessarily notice or care if they're buying a Pentax for the first time. I just can't figure out why they would do this.

[Michael Barker]

F2.4 when Nikon is offering f1.8 in the same price range/focal length?!?

Not VR (stabilized), though

[Aristophanes]

Face, P&S types don't understand primes.

That's far too generalizing a statement. They buy p because they want to understand. Give credit because it underwrites the market for higher end gear.

I just question a 2.4 coming in at the same price as Nikon's 1.8. There must be some competitive advantage (30% less weight and about 20% less volume) to justify.

Maybe the mass and size and pretty colours justify a 2.4?

[Blue]

That's far too generalizing a statement. They buy p because they want to understand. Give credit because it underwrites the market for higher end gear.

I just question a 2.4 coming in at the same price as Nikon's 1.8. There must be some competitive advantage (30% less weight and about 20% less volume) to justify.

Maybe the mass and size and pretty colours justify a 2.4?

Quiz people that only have backgrounds with P&S and you will find that the general statement holds up the majority of the time. The lack of a zoom lens blows their minds. That's why this lens could be in part to lure in a new user base with the idea that a percentage of them will want to investigate prime lenses. That is actually a good strategy.

[macTak]

So this lens is marked as a DA lens and the official Pentax press releases refer to it as a DA lens. It's wearing the green stripe of a DA lens. But pentaximaging.com refers to it as a DA L lens and it is clearly mechanically and construction-wise a DA L lens. Why is Pentax deliberately confusing their lens line-up? I guess most ordinary consumers wouldn't necessarily notice or care if they're buying a Pentax for the first time. I just can't figure out why they would do this.

Agreed. In the pictures, it clearly says DA on the barell, not DA-L. I'm not sure what Pentax is thinking. It makes me wonder if they are going planning to switch to the following progression: DA (no quickshift, poly mount), DA WR (quickshift, metal mount, sealing), DA Ltd (quickshift, metal mount, Limited quality), DA* (quickshift, metal mount, full sealing, *optics). But how bizzare to do so now and have confused specs for the DA's. Perhaps the final production run will actually say DA-L?

[Rees]

It is being called a DA L 35/2.4 AL. If it had quickshift, they would be touting it on the Pentax Imaging site. The only thing this lens has on the FA 35/2 is the SP. It is a down grade in every other way, slower, no aperture ring, and plasti-mount.

Plastic Mount? Oh dear, I think Pentax should start making car bumpers there plastic are they not, insane coloured camera bodies, now plastic lens mounts!

[Blue]

Plastic Mount? Oh dear, I think Pentax should start making car bumpers there plastic are they not, insane coloured camera bodies, now plastic lens mounts!

Even those plastic bumpers have steel backing them, especially on my Jeep Wrangler.

[civiletti]

So, this is not a lens for most experienced gear-heads. From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense. It offers a new relatively inexpensive prime to K-r buyers who were attracted by the colors and positive buzz. It's small, light, and likely with good IQ. Many who get one may next lust for one of the limiteds.

Me, I'm happy with the K35 f3.5. It's metal and small and has very high IQ and all the relevant scales.

Now...if you are upset by the death of the FA35 f2, you do not lack justification.