Originally posted by Uluru That's your problem. Plastic DA35 and DA50 have just decent image quality, sufficient for primary- to high-school projects.
Not for serious photography.
I wish I could say what I really think of you and your moronic posts, but I would get in trouble with the mods... again.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what makes a good photograph, otherwise you would know that a lot of pros use lenses, often zooms, that fall short of the quality of the two primes you are deriding. Some even shoot with *gasp* pretty old cameras and lenses. Yet they get paid the big bucks and take great pictures.
You have no idea what serious photography even means.
I'll give you just one name: Terry Richardson. Go look it up. Most of his famous work was taken with a Panasonic GF1 and the 14-45mm lens. What is that, a kindergarten setup?
Quote: Pentax users have no idea what a good 35mm or 50mm may produce because they never had a really good one. When folks come and say, "we have Takumars, we have 6-blade FA50, cheapo DA50", that is for kids today. For example, today's Tamron 35/1.8 and 45/1.8 lenses are miles ahead of Pentax offer. Tamron 45/1.8 dwarfs FA 43/1.9 in all respects. Simply because Tamron never stopped improving and always positively reacted to feedback. I won't even write about even more serious Zeiss and Leica stuff, Nikkor 35/1.4, etc. because it's embarrassing.
You know, you might be bitter at Pentax for whatever reason, and have moved on to something else. But you don't need to be so rude, condescending and wrong. First of all because you obviously don't know how many people here shoot multiple systems - many do.
Second because you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Comparing 100 dollar lenses to 600 ones? Seriously? Are you even aware that you should be comparing them to the Pentax DA*55 1.4 because that is the lens that is in that price range? You should be comparing the DA 35 to the Nikon 35 1.8, for example. I've had both (I had my brother in law's D7000 for a few months before I got my Pentax) and they both have their positives and negatives, but I personally prefer the color and rendering of the Pentax DA 35, which costs about half what the Nikon costs. And sharpness wise to me they are the same.
Also, the 43 you mention is an older lens but it is by no means bad by today's standards for actual photography. I have to say I am unimpressed with the color rendering and the bokeh of the new Tamron lenses. Resolution tests don't say the whole story, and Pentax was never about them. I would rather use the DA 35 Limited (or even the DA 35 2.4!!!) and the FA 43 Limited than either of the Tamrons, any day of the week, because I like the colors and rendering better.
The philosophy of Pentax has never been to please the measurebators, it was always to work well in the context that people take pictures. If you don't like that, and obviously you don't, just hit the road, will you? I'm tired of your whining and talking down and bashing Pentax. Just move on, if you haven't already. Pentax is obviously not for you. Go join the people who like lenses that test oh-so-well on newspapers in basement while in real life being so over corrected that the bokeh is nervous and full of frog egg highlights.
Just go away instead of trying to turn Pentax into something it is not, while pissing of those of us who actually like the Pentax philosophy.