Return of the FA 35/2

**BigMackCam** · 09-03-2016, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by a5m

FAs are ugly and have more plastic than metal. IMO in terms of build quality they are plastic rubbish.

I think that's extreme. By definition the term "rubbish" suggests they are worthless, useless, fit only for disposal. Surely that's not what you really mean? "Poor quality" I could accept (though I'd disagree). Are they worthless optically? Have you had any of them fail on you because of the build quality?

a5m · 09-03-2016, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

I think that's extreme. By definition the term "rubbish" suggests they are worthless, useless, fit only for disposal. Surely that's not what you really mean? "Poor quality" I could accept (though I'd disagree). Are they worthless optically? Have you had any of them fail on you because of the build quality?

It was more of a hyperbole. Build quality wise they're like the plastic fantastics, except that they were not classified as such.

I didn't have any fall apart, but all of the FA50s I had the barrels were wobbly, some more than others. I remember reading a thread where someone's FA50 literally came apart while they were using it. Optically they're good but for the price they should have been better.

**BigMackCam** · 09-03-2016, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by a5m

Optically they're good but for the price they should have been better.

On this, we agree

D1N0 · 09-03-2016, 06:11 AM

My FA 50 1.7 has a metal barrel. As far as I can tell only the aperture ring is plastic.

**BigMackCam** · 09-03-2016, 06:32 AM

My FA50 f/1.4 has a metal inner barrel but the body is some kind of heavy duty plastic, as is the aperture ring. All very solid, with absolutely no wobble or play in the barrel or aperture ring. It's not a pretty lens, I'll admit, but it's well built. As @a5m said, though, it should be somewhat better considering the retail price. It's no Limited, that's for sure

a5m · 09-03-2016, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

On this, we agree

That's a relief

. Just my personal opinion that I've seen the insides of a couple of them that were taken apart and I wasn't impressed. I wonder what @dcshooter would have to say about this.

At the end of the day it's all about the images they produce. If you and others are happy that's all that matters.

**BigMackCam** · 09-03-2016, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by a5m

At the end of the day it's all about the images they produce. If you and others are happy that's all that matters 😊.

I'd be happier still if my FA50 f/1.4 was built like the FA43

Having said that, I think we've had reports of barrel wobble on several of the FA and DA Limited primes, so ...

D1N0 · 09-03-2016, 07:06 AM

The outer FA barrel feels like (thin) metal to me. The focus ring is rubberised so I can't tell what is underneath. aperture ring is plastic and Inner barrel metal. On zooms the zoom ring is plastic..

a5m · 09-03-2016, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

I'd be happier still if my FA50 f/1.4 was built like the FA43

Having said that, I think we've had reports of barrel wobble on several of the FA and DA Limited primes, so ...

Yea that's true we have. Didn't the early FA77s even fall apart because of a faulty design of the cams? Old manual lenses will always be difficult (or impossible) to beat.

**BigMackCam** · 09-03-2016, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by a5m

Yea that's true we have. Didn't the early FA77s even fall apart because of a faulty design of the cams? Old manual lenses will always be difficult (or impossible) to beat.

I recall some reports of the FA77, DA40 and DA21 falling apart, and these plus others (inc. the FA43) developing wobble. I suspect it's a requirement for AF that the mechanisms are more lightly built, but therefore are more susceptible to wear...

Nothing compares to the feel of the old M42 and M-series lenses... <sigh>

thibs · 09-03-2016, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

I don't agree. The materials aren't as solid as the FA lenses, but optically both lenses are little gems. I've been using my DA35 f/2.4 for several years and, amongst all the lenses I own, it's one of my favourites (possibly my overall favourite). The DA50 f/1.8 is serving me well too. Plastic, yes - rubbish, no.

I should have been more clear, I was strictly speaking about mechanics.
I have both and optically very good (e.g. the 50/1.8 is sharper than FA50/1.4).

thibs · 09-03-2016, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by a5m

It was more of a hyperbole. Build quality wise they're like the plastic fantastics, except that they were not classified as such.

No way (IMO). DA 50/35 though...
My brother's (mine now) FA50/1.4 is fine, thanks, bought new with his Z1, not exactly yesterday. Still no wobble at all.

A couple of cheap FA zooms though...

**monochrome** · 09-03-2016, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by a5m

FAs are ugly and have more plastic than metal. IMO in terms of build quality they are plastic rubbish. It's obvious Pentax skimped on them. The Fs have more metal. FA50/1.7 weighs 170g vs 205g of the F50/1.7.

I personally prefer the Fs way more than the FAs. In terms of build quality, looks and performance. I had two FA50/1.7's and after testing for sharpness I kept the F50/1.7. So what if they're grey, I actually like that.

I got rid of two FA35/2s. I wish they made a F35/2.

My opinion is 180 degrees from your. I was disappointed with the build quality of my F50's. I've enjoyed the handling and solid construction of my FA35/2 and FA50/1.4 for over a decade; though just recently I've sold them and moved on to K-1 and Limiteds.

**BigMackCam** · 09-03-2016, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by thibs

I have both and optically very good (e.g. the 50/1.8 is sharper than FA50/1.4).

Agreed - I prefer the DA50 f/1.8 unless the shallower depth of field / greater light-gathering of f/1.4 is needed. Plus, shooting wide open with the FA50 requires a bit of care regarding backgrounds - the bokeh can look somewhat busy and unattractive if you're not careful...

HopelessTogger · 09-03-2016, 09:16 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by a5m

FAs are ugly and have more plastic than metal. IMO in terms of build quality they are plastic rubbish. It's obvious Pentax skimped on them. The Fs have more metal. FA50/1.7 weighs 170g vs 205g of the F50/1.7.

I personally prefer the Fs way more than the FAs. In terms of build quality, looks and performance. I had two FA50/1.7's and after testing for sharpness I kept the F50/1.7. So what if they're grey, I actually like that.

I got rid of two FA35/2s. I wish they made a F35/2.

I think they're kind of rugged. I have all metal lenses, the FA Limited's and Zeiss ZK's and wotnot. But I'm always fearful of scratching the damn things. With the FA 1.4/50 I'm not. I don't have to care and can just get on and shoot.

I wish the FA Limited's had been built in the same manner as the FA's, albeit with better manual focus control etc and AW sealing (not WR, full AW). I don't care what stuff looks and feels like, I just want to shoot and concentrate on the results.

Pentax is sold as a rugged brand, but few of their lenses are.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Return of the hummers.	normhead	Post Your Photos!	32	06-12-2016 01:30 PM
Winter, and the return of the sun	Quartermaster James	Monthly Photo Contests	5	01-11-2016 05:08 PM
Nature Return of the Redpolls	normhead	Post Your Photos!	8	01-21-2015 09:33 AM
FA 35/2.0 & FA 20-35/4.0 Listed As In Stock	iCrop	Ask B&H Photo!	4	04-28-2011 11:40 PM
FA 35/2 instead of Macro	monochrome	Post Your Photos!	3	03-31-2009 04:38 AM

09-03-2016, 05:39 AM	#61
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by a5m FAs are ugly and have more plastic than metal. IMO in terms of build quality they are plastic rubbish. I think that's extreme. By definition the term "rubbish" suggests they are worthless, useless, fit only for disposal. Surely that's not what you really mean? "Poor quality" I could accept (though I'd disagree). Are they worthless optically? Have you had any of them fail on you because of the build quality?

09-03-2016, 05:57 AM	#62
a5m Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 576	Originally posted by BigMackCam I think that's extreme. By definition the term "rubbish" suggests they are worthless, useless, fit only for disposal. Surely that's not what you really mean? "Poor quality" I could accept (though I'd disagree). Are they worthless optically? Have you had any of them fail on you because of the build quality? It was more of a hyperbole. Build quality wise they're like the plastic fantastics, except that they were not classified as such. I didn't have any fall apart, but all of the FA50s I had the barrels were wobbly, some more than others. I remember reading a thread where someone's FA50 literally came apart while they were using it. Optically they're good but for the price they should have been better.

09-03-2016, 06:01 AM	#63
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by a5m Optically they're good but for the price they should have been better. On this, we agree

09-03-2016, 06:11 AM	#64
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	My FA 50 1.7 has a metal barrel. As far as I can tell only the aperture ring is plastic.

09-03-2016, 06:32 AM	#65
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	My FA50 f/1.4 has a metal inner barrel but the body is some kind of heavy duty plastic, as is the aperture ring. All very solid, with absolutely no wobble or play in the barrel or aperture ring. It's not a pretty lens, I'll admit, but it's well built. As @a5m said, though, it should be somewhat better considering the retail price. It's no Limited, that's for sure

09-03-2016, 06:59 AM	#66
a5m Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 576	Originally posted by BigMackCam On this, we agree That's a relief . Just my personal opinion that I've seen the insides of a couple of them that were taken apart and I wasn't impressed. I wonder what @dcshooter would have to say about this. At the end of the day it's all about the images they produce. If you and others are happy that's all that matters.

09-03-2016, 07:01 AM	#67
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by a5m At the end of the day it's all about the images they produce. If you and others are happy that's all that matters 😊. I'd be happier still if my FA50 f/1.4 was built like the FA43 Having said that, I think we've had reports of barrel wobble on several of the FA and DA Limited primes, so ...

09-03-2016, 07:06 AM	#68
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	The outer FA barrel feels like (thin) metal to me. The focus ring is rubberised so I can't tell what is underneath. aperture ring is plastic and Inner barrel metal. On zooms the zoom ring is plastic..

09-03-2016, 07:08 AM	#69
a5m Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 576	Originally posted by BigMackCam I'd be happier still if my FA50 f/1.4 was built like the FA43 Having said that, I think we've had reports of barrel wobble on several of the FA and DA Limited primes, so ... Yea that's true we have. Didn't the early FA77s even fall apart because of a faulty design of the cams? Old manual lenses will always be difficult (or impossible) to beat.

09-03-2016, 07:22 AM	#70
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by a5m Yea that's true we have. Didn't the early FA77s even fall apart because of a faulty design of the cams? Old manual lenses will always be difficult (or impossible) to beat. I recall some reports of the FA77, DA40 and DA21 falling apart, and these plus others (inc. the FA43) developing wobble. I suspect it's a requirement for AF that the mechanisms are more lightly built, but therefore are more susceptible to wear... Nothing compares to the feel of the old M42 and M-series lenses... <sigh>

09-03-2016, 09:01 AM	#71
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by BigMackCam I don't agree. The materials aren't as solid as the FA lenses, but optically both lenses are little gems. I've been using my DA35 f/2.4 for several years and, amongst all the lenses I own, it's one of my favourites (possibly my overall favourite). The DA50 f/1.8 is serving me well too. Plastic, yes - rubbish, no. I should have been more clear, I was strictly speaking about mechanics. I have both and optically very good (e.g. the 50/1.8 is sharper than FA50/1.4).

09-03-2016, 09:03 AM	#72
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by a5m It was more of a hyperbole. Build quality wise they're like the plastic fantastics, except that they were not classified as such. No way (IMO). DA 50/35 though... My brother's (mine now) FA50/1.4 is fine, thanks, bought new with his Z1, not exactly yesterday. Still no wobble at all. A couple of cheap FA zooms though...

09-03-2016, 09:06 AM	#73
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by a5m FAs are ugly and have more plastic than metal. IMO in terms of build quality they are plastic rubbish. It's obvious Pentax skimped on them. The Fs have more metal. FA50/1.7 weighs 170g vs 205g of the F50/1.7. I personally prefer the Fs way more than the FAs. In terms of build quality, looks and performance. I had two FA50/1.7's and after testing for sharpness I kept the F50/1.7. So what if they're grey, I actually like that. I got rid of two FA35/2s. I wish they made a F35/2. My opinion is 180 degrees from your. I was disappointed with the build quality of my F50's. I've enjoyed the handling and solid construction of my FA35/2 and FA50/1.4 for over a decade; though just recently I've sold them and moved on to K-1 and Limiteds.

09-03-2016, 09:09 AM	#74
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by thibs I have both and optically very good (e.g. the 50/1.8 is sharper than FA50/1.4). Agreed - I prefer the DA50 f/1.8 unless the shallower depth of field / greater light-gathering of f/1.4 is needed. Plus, shooting wide open with the FA50 requires a bit of care regarding backgrounds - the bokeh can look somewhat busy and unattractive if you're not careful...

09-03-2016, 09:16 AM - 1 Like	#75
HopelessTogger Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Roi-et, Thailand Posts: 773	Originally posted by a5m FAs are ugly and have more plastic than metal. IMO in terms of build quality they are plastic rubbish. It's obvious Pentax skimped on them. The Fs have more metal. FA50/1.7 weighs 170g vs 205g of the F50/1.7. I personally prefer the Fs way more than the FAs. In terms of build quality, looks and performance. I had two FA50/1.7's and after testing for sharpness I kept the F50/1.7. So what if they're grey, I actually like that. I got rid of two FA35/2s. I wish they made a F35/2. I think they're kind of rugged. I have all metal lenses, the FA Limited's and Zeiss ZK's and wotnot. But I'm always fearful of scratching the damn things. With the FA 1.4/50 I'm not. I don't have to care and can just get on and shoot. I wish the FA Limited's had been built in the same manner as the FA's, albeit with better manual focus control etc and AW sealing (not WR, full AW). I don't care what stuff looks and feels like, I just want to shoot and concentrate on the results. Pentax is sold as a rugged brand, but few of their lenses are.