DA35/2.4 AL and FA35/2 AL are the sisters.

ogl · 09-09-2010, 04:40 AM

DA35/2.4 AL
Aperture Range f/2.4 ~ f/22
Lens Construction 6 elements in 5 groups
Minimum Focusing Distance 0.3m (0.98 ft.)
Maximum Magnification 0.17x
Filter Diameter 49mm
Number of Diaphragm Blades 6
Maximum Diameter 63.0mm
Minimum Length 45.0mm
Weight 124g

+ SP (Super Protect) Coating + Plastic Mount
Incorporating a hybrid aspherical optical element

FA35/2 AL
Optical Formula 6 elements in 5 groups
Aperture Range f/2 ~ f/22
Number of Aperture Blades 6
Minimum Focusing Distance 0.3 m (0.98 ft.)
Maximum Magnification 0.17 X
Special Features aspherical element(s), ghostless coating
Filter Diameter 49 mm
Maximum Diameter 64 mm
Length 45 mm
Weight 195 g

Where did DA35/2.4 lost f/0.4

Asahiflex · 09-09-2010, 04:43 AM

The DA is in fact F/2 and T/2.4

**Ash** · 09-09-2010, 04:45 AM

Looks like the same formula - the devil's in the detail.
Let's just see how f/2.4 performs between these two 'sisters'...

tomele · 09-09-2010, 04:50 AM

Maybe Pentax were not so happy with the performance at f/2,0 which they thought fine for 35mm film but more challenged on 14+ Mpx sensors - and made the marketing decision to limit the maximum aperture to f/2,4 ? I think they historically did the same with Ltd lenses : no extreme apertures (eg "only" f/1,8 for the 77mm), but great IQ even wide open.

Last edited by tomele; 09-09-2010 at 04:52 AM. Reason: typo

ogl · 09-09-2010, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by tomele

Maybe Pentax were not so happy with the performance at f/2,0 which they thought fine for 35mm film but more challenged on 14+ Mpx sensors - and made the marketing decision to limit the maximum aperture to f/2,4 ? I think they historically did the same with Ltd lenses : no extreme apertures (eg "only" f/1,8 for the 77mm), but great IQ even wide open.

FA35/2 was very sharp at f/2.

**ManuH** · 09-09-2010, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Where did DA35/2.4 lost f/0.4

If it's true it's the FA 35mm reloaded then it's an obvious attempt at crippling a feature for the sake of protecting their other lenses. Very short sighted IMHO.

shadmanaj · 09-09-2010, 05:48 AM

IMHO, nobody would buy the FA 35 f/2 if the DA 35 f/2.4 provides images of equal quality.But it's still to expensive.

ogl · 09-09-2010, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by shadmanaj

IMHO, nobody would buy the FA 35 f/2 if the DA 35 f/2.4 provides images of equal quality.But it's still to expensive.

FA35 is stopped. Selling the last lenses.

teogin · 09-09-2010, 06:13 AM

Here is the Pentax policy...

First of all, every other company improves and presents flagship bodies. Pentax improves the entry level bodies, giving the impression of a small camera company. This is very nice for most of simple amateur photographers. But, I think that at last we have to see what Canon, Nikon and Sony gave to their customers. A FULL FRAME BODY.

Second, I cannot understand the plastic mount for the new lens. At least the quality was the strong point of Pentax. When people buy compact cameras give 100-300 euros or dollars and have a nice little camera. But when some of us prefer the DSLR section, where Pentax can take thousands of dollars or euros from everyone of us, it is not so kind to give us "plastic" mounts. Pentax gives colours instead of quality products, continuing being in its toy story world, tending to be a cheap toy story.

Third, they didn't tell us about the new lens, if it is an APS or a Full Frame lens. I prefer the FA 35/f2.0 lens, not only for the more open aperture, but for the construction quality, and the mechanical aperture, in order to use with older Pentax bodies, as well, including the analog ones.

I think that DSLR section owes more to its customers as they need to buy a lot of lenses and flashes, in order to have a thoroughness equipment in conjunction to those who get a compact camera with a very low cost and have e.g. the macro ability, when we need to give 500 $ in order to get a macro lens. As you understand the sensor of a DSLR must be 10 times better than a compact camera, as it costs 10 times more and a good and fair solution is to become Full Frame.

ghelary · 09-09-2010, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by ogl

DA35/2.4 AL
Aperture Range f/2.4 ~ f/22
Lens Construction 6 elements in 5 groups
Minimum Focusing Distance 0.3m (0.98 ft.)
Maximum Magnification 0.17x
Filter Diameter 49mm
Number of Diaphragm Blades 6
Maximum Diameter 63.0mm
Minimum Length 45.0mm
Weight 124g

+ SP (Super Protect) Coating + Plastic Mount
Incorporating a hybrid aspherical optical element

FA35/2 AL
Optical Formula 6 elements in 5 groups
Aperture Range f/2 ~ f/22
Number of Aperture Blades 6
Minimum Focusing Distance 0.3 m (0.98 ft.)
Maximum Magnification 0.17 X
Special Features aspherical element(s), ghostless coating
Filter Diameter 49 mm
Maximum Diameter 64 mm
Length 45 mm
Weight 195 g

Where did DA35/2.4 lost f/0.4

FA50/1.4 and F50/1.7 share the same optical formulas. Unless you put in the same glass elements, the caracteristics won't be the same.

I wouldn't be surprised that the DA35/2.4 is sharper at 2.4 than the FA35/2 just like the 50/1.7 is at 1.7 compared to 50/1.4 (@ 1.7)

However, I find it extremelly silly to try to compare 2 lenses "on paper". We will see some tests poping up around the internet soon enough to make our mind on "real" data.

Is it because my FA31ltd and my 18-55 zoom closes both at f22 that they are the same lenses ?

**ManuH** · 09-09-2010, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by ghelary

I wouldn't be surprised that the DA35/2.4 is sharper at 2.4 than the FA35/2

It would be a feat as the FA 35 has very high resolution from wide open.

Blue · 09-09-2010, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by shadmanaj

IMHO, nobody would buy the FA 35 f/2 if the DA 35 f/2.4 provides images of equal quality.But it's still to expensive.

The FA 35mm was $299 shipped here when the canceled production of it. That's what caused the current high prices on the used and "new old stock" market.

Blue · 09-09-2010, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by ghelary

FA50/1.4 and F50/1.7 share the same optical formulas. Unless you put in the same glass elements, the caracteristics won't be the same.

I wouldn't be surprised that the DA35/2.4 is sharper at 2.4 than the FA35/2 just like the 50/1.7 is at 1.7 compared to 50/1.4 (@ 1.7)

However, I find it extremelly silly to try to compare 2 lenses "on paper". We will see some tests poping up around the internet soon enough to make our mind on "real" data.

Is it because my FA31ltd and my 18-55 zoom closes both at f22 that they are the same lenses ?

The FA 50 1.4 and 1.7 DO NOT share the same optical formula.

The FA 1.4 is 7/7

The f1.7 is 6/5

Furthermore, you always start evaluating something objectively by looking at it on paper at some point. At present, that is all we have. That said, I expect the optical performance to be similar with the DA L and FA 35 lenses. The one curve could be if Pentax used Ghostless coating on the DA L or redesigned the rear element.

bdery · 09-09-2010, 06:59 AM

Quote:

If it's true it's the FA 35mm reloaded then it's an obvious attempt at crippling a feature for the sake of protecting their other lenses. Very short sighted IMHO.

It's an attempt at cutting the price by using less glass. It's also an attempt at satisfying people whining that Canikon have inexpensive primes while Pentax only offers limiteds. Come on, it's an excellent product for Pentax, very well positionned.

ogl · 09-09-2010, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by ghelary

FA50/1.4 and F50/1.7 share the same optical formulas. Unless you put in the same glass elements, the caracteristics won't be the same.

I wouldn't be surprised that the DA35/2.4 is sharper at 2.4 than the FA35/2 just like the 50/1.7 is at 1.7 compared to 50/1.4 (@ 1.7)

However, I find it extremelly silly to try to compare 2 lenses "on paper". We will see some tests poping up around the internet soon enough to make our mind on "real" data.

Is it because my FA31ltd and my 18-55 zoom closes both at f22 that they are the same lenses ?

I don't think that it's silly. Of course, FA35 and DA35/2.4 have different sorts of optical glass and DA35 could be sharper, but...
DA35 has no absolutely NEW optical design. It's a fact.
Minimum Focusing Distance 0.3 m +
Maximum Magnification 0.17 X + Number of Diaphragm Blades 6 + Filter diameter +
Length and + Optical formula are the same.

All this specs = important data to compare. Because, all this info can say us about optical performance before test shots...

All 50/1.4 lenses have very close end pictures. It could be the same with DA and FA35.

09-09-2010, 04:40 AM	#1
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	DA35/2.4 AL and FA35/2 AL are the sisters. DA35/2.4 AL Aperture Range f/2.4 ~ f/22 Lens Construction 6 elements in 5 groups Minimum Focusing Distance 0.3m (0.98 ft.) Maximum Magnification 0.17x Filter Diameter 49mm Number of Diaphragm Blades 6 Maximum Diameter 63.0mm Minimum Length 45.0mm Weight 124g + SP (Super Protect) Coating + Plastic Mount Incorporating a hybrid aspherical optical element FA35/2 AL Optical Formula 6 elements in 5 groups Aperture Range f/2 ~ f/22 Number of Aperture Blades 6 Minimum Focusing Distance 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) Maximum Magnification 0.17 X Special Features aspherical element(s), ghostless coating Filter Diameter 49 mm Maximum Diameter 64 mm Length 45 mm Weight 195 g Where did DA35/2.4 lost f/0.4

09-09-2010, 04:43 AM	#2
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	The DA is in fact F/2 and T/2.4 Last edited by Asahiflex; 09-09-2010 at 04:50 AM.

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

09-09-2010, 04:45 AM	#3
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Looks like the same formula - the devil's in the detail. Let's just see how f/2.4 performs between these two 'sisters'...

09-09-2010, 04:50 AM	#4
tomele Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Paris, France Posts: 33	Maybe Pentax were not so happy with the performance at f/2,0 which they thought fine for 35mm film but more challenged on 14+ Mpx sensors - and made the marketing decision to limit the maximum aperture to f/2,4 ? I think they historically did the same with Ltd lenses : no extreme apertures (eg "only" f/1,8 for the 77mm), but great IQ even wide open. Last edited by tomele; 09-09-2010 at 04:52 AM. Reason: typo

09-09-2010, 04:53 AM	#5
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by tomele Maybe Pentax were not so happy with the performance at f/2,0 which they thought fine for 35mm film but more challenged on 14+ Mpx sensors - and made the marketing decision to limit the maximum aperture to f/2,4 ? I think they historically did the same with Ltd lenses : no extreme apertures (eg "only" f/1,8 for the 77mm), but great IQ even wide open. FA35/2 was very sharp at f/2.

09-09-2010, 05:35 AM	#6
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by ogl Where did DA35/2.4 lost f/0.4 If it's true it's the FA 35mm reloaded then it's an obvious attempt at crippling a feature for the sake of protecting their other lenses. Very short sighted IMHO.

09-09-2010, 05:48 AM	#7
shadmanaj Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: NYC Posts: 82	IMHO, nobody would buy the FA 35 f/2 if the DA 35 f/2.4 provides images of equal quality.But it's still to expensive.

09-09-2010, 06:03 AM	#8
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by shadmanaj IMHO, nobody would buy the FA 35 f/2 if the DA 35 f/2.4 provides images of equal quality.But it's still to expensive. FA35 is stopped. Selling the last lenses.

09-09-2010, 06:13 AM	#9
teogin Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Thessaloniki, Greece Photos: Gallery Posts: 74	Here is the Pentax policy... First of all, every other company improves and presents flagship bodies. Pentax improves the entry level bodies, giving the impression of a small camera company. This is very nice for most of simple amateur photographers. But, I think that at last we have to see what Canon, Nikon and Sony gave to their customers. A FULL FRAME BODY. Second, I cannot understand the plastic mount for the new lens. At least the quality was the strong point of Pentax. When people buy compact cameras give 100-300 euros or dollars and have a nice little camera. But when some of us prefer the DSLR section, where Pentax can take thousands of dollars or euros from everyone of us, it is not so kind to give us "plastic" mounts. Pentax gives colours instead of quality products, continuing being in its toy story world, tending to be a cheap toy story. Third, they didn't tell us about the new lens, if it is an APS or a Full Frame lens. I prefer the FA 35/f2.0 lens, not only for the more open aperture, but for the construction quality, and the mechanical aperture, in order to use with older Pentax bodies, as well, including the analog ones. I think that DSLR section owes more to its customers as they need to buy a lot of lenses and flashes, in order to have a thoroughness equipment in conjunction to those who get a compact camera with a very low cost and have e.g. the macro ability, when we need to give 500 $ in order to get a macro lens. As you understand the sensor of a DSLR must be 10 times better than a compact camera, as it costs 10 times more and a good and fair solution is to become Full Frame.

09-09-2010, 06:20 AM	#10
ghelary Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 613	Originally posted by ogl DA35/2.4 AL Aperture Range f/2.4 ~ f/22 Lens Construction 6 elements in 5 groups Minimum Focusing Distance 0.3m (0.98 ft.) Maximum Magnification 0.17x Filter Diameter 49mm Number of Diaphragm Blades 6 Maximum Diameter 63.0mm Minimum Length 45.0mm Weight 124g + SP (Super Protect) Coating + Plastic Mount Incorporating a hybrid aspherical optical element FA35/2 AL Optical Formula 6 elements in 5 groups Aperture Range f/2 ~ f/22 Number of Aperture Blades 6 Minimum Focusing Distance 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) Maximum Magnification 0.17 X Special Features aspherical element(s), ghostless coating Filter Diameter 49 mm Maximum Diameter 64 mm Length 45 mm Weight 195 g Where did DA35/2.4 lost f/0.4 FA50/1.4 and F50/1.7 share the same optical formulas. Unless you put in the same glass elements, the caracteristics won't be the same. I wouldn't be surprised that the DA35/2.4 is sharper at 2.4 than the FA35/2 just like the 50/1.7 is at 1.7 compared to 50/1.4 (@ 1.7) However, I find it extremelly silly to try to compare 2 lenses "on paper". We will see some tests poping up around the internet soon enough to make our mind on "real" data. Is it because my FA31ltd and my 18-55 zoom closes both at f22 that they are the same lenses ?

09-09-2010, 06:23 AM	#11
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by ghelary I wouldn't be surprised that the DA35/2.4 is sharper at 2.4 than the FA35/2 It would be a feat as the FA 35 has very high resolution from wide open.

09-09-2010, 06:43 AM	#12
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by shadmanaj IMHO, nobody would buy the FA 35 f/2 if the DA 35 f/2.4 provides images of equal quality.But it's still to expensive. The FA 35mm was $299 shipped here when the canceled production of it. That's what caused the current high prices on the used and "new old stock" market.

09-09-2010, 06:47 AM	#13
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by ghelary FA50/1.4 and F50/1.7 share the same optical formulas. Unless you put in the same glass elements, the caracteristics won't be the same. I wouldn't be surprised that the DA35/2.4 is sharper at 2.4 than the FA35/2 just like the 50/1.7 is at 1.7 compared to 50/1.4 (@ 1.7) However, I find it extremelly silly to try to compare 2 lenses "on paper". We will see some tests poping up around the internet soon enough to make our mind on "real" data. Is it because my FA31ltd and my 18-55 zoom closes both at f22 that they are the same lenses ? The FA 50 1.4 and 1.7 DO NOT share the same optical formula. The FA 1.4 is 7/7 The f1.7 is 6/5 Furthermore, you always start evaluating something objectively by looking at it on paper at some point. At present, that is all we have. That said, I expect the optical performance to be similar with the DA L and FA 35 lenses. The one curve could be if Pentax used Ghostless coating on the DA L or redesigned the rear element.

09-09-2010, 06:59 AM	#14
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Quote: If it's true it's the FA 35mm reloaded then it's an obvious attempt at crippling a feature for the sake of protecting their other lenses. Very short sighted IMHO. It's an attempt at cutting the price by using less glass. It's also an attempt at satisfying people whining that Canikon have inexpensive primes while Pentax only offers limiteds. Come on, it's an excellent product for Pentax, very well positionned.

09-09-2010, 06:59 AM	#15
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by ghelary FA50/1.4 and F50/1.7 share the same optical formulas. Unless you put in the same glass elements, the caracteristics won't be the same. I wouldn't be surprised that the DA35/2.4 is sharper at 2.4 than the FA35/2 just like the 50/1.7 is at 1.7 compared to 50/1.4 (@ 1.7) However, I find it extremelly silly to try to compare 2 lenses "on paper". We will see some tests poping up around the internet soon enough to make our mind on "real" data. Is it because my FA31ltd and my 18-55 zoom closes both at f22 that they are the same lenses ? I don't think that it's silly. Of course, FA35 and DA35/2.4 have different sorts of optical glass and DA35 could be sharper, but... DA35 has no absolutely NEW optical design. It's a fact. Minimum Focusing Distance 0.3 m + Maximum Magnification 0.17 X + Number of Diaphragm Blades 6 + Filter diameter + Length and + Optical formula are the same. All this specs = important data to compare. Because, all this info can say us about optical performance before test shots... All 50/1.4 lenses have very close end pictures. It could be the same with DA and FA35.