Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2010, 12:23 PM   #46
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by sweetpapa Quote
I think that Pentax factored in the fact that ISO sensitivity is increasing so the loss of f/.4 is such a big deal if you purchase a modern body. This lens is probably a great match for the k-r.

I bought the FA35 f/2 for my K10D where having f/2 was pretty important as I'm limited to shooting at ISO800.
Actually, the loss from f/2 is -f/1.67, not -f/0.4. Because the FA35 was meant for full frame using more of the captured light. An APSC DA standard prime should have been a DAL 35/1.4. SHouldn't be more expensive in glass than a 55/2.1 because both have the same diameter.

As I see it, it's to be able to compete in the entry level market. The FA35/2 was probably somewhat stripped down to reduce manufacturing cost (lens element diameters, mounts, tolerances) which made it f/2.4 despite the fact that the optical formula probably still is f/2.0 and probably still is full frame.

If primes are part of Pentax unique selling point, then Pentax may have wanted to make a prime as cheap as their current kit lens.

09-09-2010, 12:31 PM   #47
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,687
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
As I see it, it's to be able to compete in the entry level market. The FA35/2 was probably somewhat stripped down to reduce manufacturing cost (lens element diameters, mounts, tolerances) which made it f/2.4 despite the fact that the optical formula probably still is f/2.0 and probably still is full frame.

If primes are part of Pentax unique selling point, then Pentax may have wanted to make a prime as cheap as their current kit lens.
Finally some sense in the matter....
I do wonder though, if there is another version to be released with the K-5, will it be the same formula and thus still be f/2.4? I can see how a DA 35/2 with metal mount and WR would turn more heads towards the K-5...
09-09-2010, 12:47 PM   #48
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
I do wonder though, if there is another version to be released with the K-5, will it be the same formula and thus still be f/2.4?
AFAIK, Pentax is well aware of the resale market for FA lenses. IMHO, they won't compete with what is already available 2nd hand. And anyway, a K-5 should be paired with a FA31, shouldn't it?
09-09-2010, 01:00 PM   #49
Veteran Member
mattdm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,964
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
AFAIK, Pentax is well aware of the resale market for FA lenses. IMHO, they won't compete with what is already available 2nd hand. And anyway, a K-5 should be paired with a FA31, shouldn't it?
With a weather-sealed FA 31mm.

I'm sorry, am I getting a little bit repetitive?

09-09-2010, 01:18 PM   #50
Veteran Member
glasbak's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 344
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
An APSC DA standard prime should have been a DAL 35/1.4. SHouldn't be more expensive in glass than a 55/2.1 because both have the same diameter.
Did you just forget that a 35mm will be retrofocus, and the 55 not ?
09-09-2010, 01:32 PM   #51
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,859
QuoteOriginally posted by mattdm Quote
With a weather-sealed FA 31mm.

I'm sorry, am I getting a little bit repetitive?
That would compete with the 16-50.

They want you to buy both, reasoning the 31will less likely be used in adverse environments.
09-09-2010, 01:36 PM   #52
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,687
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
That would compete with the 16-50.

They want you to buy both, reasoning the 31will less likely be used in adverse environments.
Yes that's true. If only the 16-50 had a good track record, that might have been enough. A WR normal prime might still be the way to go, as it would attract more new users (not having to fish around for second hand discontinued gear) and be a good selling point.
09-09-2010, 08:56 PM   #53
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,156
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Actually, the loss from f/2 is -f/1.67, not -f/0.4. Because the FA35 was meant for full frame using more of the captured light. An APSC DA standard prime should have been a DAL 35/1.4. SHouldn't be more expensive in glass than a 55/2.1 because both have the same diameter.

As I see it, it's to be able to compete in the entry level market. The FA35/2 was probably somewhat stripped down to reduce manufacturing cost (lens element diameters, mounts, tolerances) which made it f/2.4 despite the fact that the optical formula probably still is f/2.0 and probably still is full frame.

If primes are part of Pentax unique selling point, then Pentax may have wanted to make a prime as cheap as their current kit lens.
No any info that DA35/2.4 covers only APS-C.

09-09-2010, 09:10 PM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 672
All this talk of a lens being release with the K5 is getting my hopes up again.
09-09-2010, 11:34 PM   #55
Veteran Member
philippe's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Flanders Fields
Posts: 463
Sisters

And this one?

Last edited by philippe; 01-14-2011 at 01:09 AM.
09-09-2010, 11:56 PM   #56
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
AFAIK, Pentax is well aware of the resale market for FA lenses. IMHO, they won't compete with what is already available 2nd hand. And anyway, a K-5 should be paired with a FA31, shouldn't it?
Speaking of the FA limiteds: did you notice that the K-r simulator has the FA43 as one of the lens alternatives?
09-10-2010, 12:11 AM   #57
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,156
Original Poster
I see smart marketing trick from Pentax like that.

FA35/2 was removed - but first, Pentax raised the price, because it broke sales IMHO.

the general consumer choice now is:
compact 40/2.8, but more expensive than 35/2.4 and slightly slower.
31/1.8 and 43/1.9 - fast and cool made, but very expensive. but the difference between 1.8/1.9 and 2.4 is not huge.
35/2.8 Limited - a cheaper than FA LIMITED, but also cool made, but only 2.8 and more expensive than 35/2.4.

Who do not have much money, and who only came up with the first DSLR and who wants to use fixed lens is likely to pay their 190 euro (and then - even a bit less) for the 35/2.4.

The customer is crammed into a certain limits of Pentax marketers.

And I think that 35/2.4 is very fast. It is lightweight and small.
09-10-2010, 12:12 AM   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,104
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Actually, the loss from f/2 is -f/1.67, not -f/0.4. Because the FA35 was meant for full frame using more of the captured light. An APSC DA standard prime should have been a DAL 35/1.4. SHouldn't be more expensive in glass than a 55/2.1 because both have the same diameter.
I doubt we can compare manufacturing costs by a crude estimation of diameters, for lenses with different design (btw, the 35mm must be a retrofocus design, unlike a 55mm).
About the light "loss": by mounting a large format lens on my camera, how many stops would I gain? It doesn't matter what was meant for, if we'd use it on an APS-C camera.
09-10-2010, 12:59 AM   #59
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 23
No reason why a plastic mount cannot be just as strong and durable as a metal one. Some plastics are much tougher than metal.
09-10-2010, 01:09 AM   #60
Veteran Member
ghelary's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 617
Double thinking of the reason behind an aperture of 2.4 instead of 2, I came to the following reasoning.

2.4 provides a bigger DOF than 2, that means that the system will be more tolerant to assembly issues. Given the fact that this lens is targeted to be the cheapest possible, therefore the quality checks and the quality of material and assembly are on the lower side (compared with the DA ltd) the 35/2.4 will have more likely defaults, limiting maximal aperture to 2.4 is maybe a way to minimize such faults.
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!
aperture, blades, da35/2.4, diameter, filter, length, mm, pentax news, pentax rumors, range, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
People Sisters and Daughter thatguyyoulove Post Your Photos! 6 06-21-2010 11:16 AM
The three sisters switch Monthly Photo Contests 0 08-22-2009 02:58 AM
The brothers and sisters hamidlmt Post Your Photos! 2 04-20-2009 03:08 PM
Maple Sisters Jimbo Post Your Photos! 21 10-06-2008 04:37 PM
Sisters named Lilly Jimbo Post Your Photos! 11 09-22-2008 06:09 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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