A35 vs FA35 vs 33-55

LA_Photographer · 01-06-2016, 09:29 PM

My bank account an hate me later, but I just ordered the new 35 from Adorama; can't wait to start shooting with it.

revdocjim · 01-06-2016, 11:28 PM

I've only owned the A35 and use it on the 645N and really like it. I'm using it almost exclusively for landscape so it's almost always stopped down and performs quite well. Affordable too!

Here are a few sample shots on RVP50.

bull drinkwater · 01-10-2016, 12:37 AM

given the crop factor, 35mm and 45mm are not that wide. when I want really wide with the 645d, I go with the 35mm plus a .05 or a .30 screw on lens. IQ has been ok to good.

texandrews · 01-10-2016, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by bull drinkwater

given the crop factor, 35mm and 45mm are not that wide. when I want really wide with the 645d, I go with the 35mm plus a .05 or a .30 screw on lens. IQ has been ok to good.

Hmmmm...which ones specifically do you use, and what have the results been like?

bull drinkwater · 01-10-2016, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by texandrews

Hmmmm...which ones specifically do you use, and what have the results been like?

here are samples from the 35 and 45 mm lenses using the .05, .38, and .16.
of course for landscapes I often stitch 2-4 together.

LA_Photographer · 01-10-2016, 06:57 PM

That looks like a pretty heavy drop in image quality to me. Far more than I would consider to be even remotely acceptable.

texandrews · 01-10-2016, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by bull drinkwater

here are samples from the 35 and 45 mm lenses using the .05, .38, and .16.
of course for landscapes I often stitch 2-4 together.

Thank you for posting those, and your quick response. Much appreciated. But you misunderstood me: I meant, what were the specific models of the wide angle conversion lenses, the screw-ins. There are a number available, ranging from very inexpensive to ones over $1000.00. Although I rather agree with LA_Photographer above about the IQ of these specific examples.

bull drinkwater · 01-15-2016, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by LA_Photographer

That looks like a pretty heavy drop in image quality to me. Far more than I would consider to be even remotely acceptable.

in all honesty, I have to agree with you on their IQ. it was my attempt to " skin the cat " lacking 10-15 mm fisheye.

---------- Post added 01-15-16 at 06:01 PM ----------

Originally posted by texandrews

Thank you for posting those, and your quick response. Much appreciated. But you misunderstood me: I meant, what were the specific models of the wide angle conversion lenses, the screw-ins. There are a number available, ranging from very inexpensive to ones over $1000.00. Although I rather agree with LA_Photographer above about the IQ of these specific examples.

mine are " el cheapo's ", I tried one of the more expensive ones with even worse results. I too await imput from someone with better results. a 10 or 15 mm would be nice, but seeing the prices of the newly made 645 lenses, we'd be talking $6000.00 or better.

mikeSF · 01-17-2016, 08:44 PM - **2 Likes**

FWIW, here is the same shot taken with both the A35 vs the DFA 25 to show the difference in field of view between the two on a similar subject.

645D & A35 & DFA25

**Pål Jensen** · 01-27-2016, 06:39 AM - **2 Likes**

The 33-55 isn't a stellar lens optically, but it weights only 500g and are many lenses in one. Here are a few shot on film:

BostonUKshooter · 01-27-2016, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by yurihuta

I was curious, so I threw all the numbers in the very helpful Lens Review (and specifications) section together on one page.

A35, FA35, DFA35 (newest)
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
645 Digital 76 ° / 64 °
645 Film 90 ° / 77 °

FA33-55
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
645 Digital: 80-53 ° / 67-44 °
645 Film: 93-65 ° / 81-54 °

DA28-45
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
645 Digital: 89-63 ° / 76-52 °

DFA25 (same as DA25, except DA does not cover 645 film)
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)
645 Digital: 95.5 ° / 82.6 °
645 Film 109 ° / 96.7 °

...and the new DFA 35mm is 610g vs 1530g for the 28-45mm zoom!

Sarnian · 01-27-2016, 02:31 PM

A DFA 35mm-sized 30mm would be sweet.

brelip · 01-31-2016, 10:05 PM

I had the FA 35. It was good, but not as good as 28-45. In fact, it didn't even catch up at F5.6. 28-45 is super sharp wide open, FA35 needs about F8 to get there.

I sold FA35, eventually got a used A 35 at a good price. I think it's a little better than FA 35 on my copy. But i've not done direct comparisons. The thing is, it's much more compact!

itshimitis · 02-01-2016, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Sarnian

A DFA 35mm-sized 30mm would be sweet.

A DFA 35 sized 21mm would be sweeter!

Sarnian · 02-01-2016, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by itshimitis

A DFA 35 sized 21mm would be sweeter!

24mm equivalent, I mean.

01-06-2016, 11:28 PM	#17
revdocjim Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Mt. Akagi, Gunma Prefecture Posts: 374	I've only owned the A35 and use it on the 645N and really like it. I'm using it almost exclusively for landscape so it's almost always stopped down and performs quite well. Affordable too! Here are a few sample shots on RVP50. Last edited by revdocjim; 01-06-2016 at 11:34 PM.

01-15-2016, 03:55 PM	#23
bull drinkwater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: pontiac mi. Posts: 392	Originally posted by LA_Photographer That looks like a pretty heavy drop in image quality to me. Far more than I would consider to be even remotely acceptable. in all honesty, I have to agree with you on their IQ. it was my attempt to " skin the cat " lacking 10-15 mm fisheye. ---------- Post added 01-15-16 at 06:01 PM ---------- Originally posted by texandrews Thank you for posting those, and your quick response. Much appreciated. But you misunderstood me: I meant, what were the specific models of the wide angle conversion lenses, the screw-ins. There are a number available, ranging from very inexpensive to ones over $1000.00. Although I rather agree with LA_Photographer above about the IQ of these specific examples. mine are " el cheapo's ", I tried one of the more expensive ones with even worse results. I too await imput from someone with better results. a 10 or 15 mm would be nice, but seeing the prices of the newly made 645 lenses, we'd be talking $6000.00 or better. Last edited by bull drinkwater; 01-15-2016 at 04:02 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Little test: Helios 44-3 vs 44M-7 and ST 55/1.8 vs 44M-7 vs SMC-A 50/1.7	malenisjaj	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	05-02-2015 01:01 PM
DA 35mm/2.4 - A Plastic Wonder! -- DAL35 vs FA35 vs DA35m vs A35 (many photos!)	frank	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	141	01-10-2013 10:26 AM
30 vs 43 vs 55 vs 77 Christmas Bokeh Shoot-out Special!	TOUGEFC	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	51	12-16-2011 04:56 PM
K7+FA35 or DA*55 VS KX+DA 40	surfmanjoe	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	06-30-2010 01:28 PM
77ltd vs Cosina 55 1.2 vs Helios 58 vs Vivitar 28 CF vs DA 35	jsherman999	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	04-26-2009 12:32 PM

01-06-2016, 09:29 PM	#16
LA_Photographer Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 37 Original Poster	My bank account an hate me later, but I just ordered the new 35 from Adorama; can't wait to start shooting with it.

01-10-2016, 12:37 AM	#18
bull drinkwater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: pontiac mi. Posts: 392	given the crop factor, 35mm and 45mm are not that wide. when I want really wide with the 645d, I go with the 35mm plus a .05 or a .30 screw on lens. IQ has been ok to good.

01-10-2016, 08:31 AM	#19
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,390	Originally posted by bull drinkwater given the crop factor, 35mm and 45mm are not that wide. when I want really wide with the 645d, I go with the 35mm plus a .05 or a .30 screw on lens. IQ has been ok to good. Hmmmm...which ones specifically do you use, and what have the results been like?

01-10-2016, 06:57 PM	#21
LA_Photographer Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 37 Original Poster	That looks like a pretty heavy drop in image quality to me. Far more than I would consider to be even remotely acceptable.

01-10-2016, 07:57 PM	#22
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,390	Originally posted by bull drinkwater here are samples from the 35 and 45 mm lenses using the .05, .38, and .16. of course for landscapes I often stitch 2-4 together. Thank you for posting those, and your quick response. Much appreciated. But you misunderstood me: I meant, what were the specific models of the wide angle conversion lenses, the screw-ins. There are a number available, ranging from very inexpensive to ones over $1000.00. Although I rather agree with LA_Photographer above about the IQ of these specific examples.

01-17-2016, 08:44 PM - 2 Likes	#24
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	FWIW, here is the same shot taken with both the A35 vs the DFA 25 to show the difference in field of view between the two on a similar subject. 645D & A35 & DFA25

01-27-2016, 06:39 AM - 2 Likes	#25
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	The 33-55 isn't a stellar lens optically, but it weights only 500g and are many lenses in one. Here are a few shot on film:

01-27-2016, 01:36 PM	#26
BostonUKshooter Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 338	Originally posted by yurihuta I was curious, so I threw all the numbers in the very helpful Lens Review (and specifications) section together on one page. A35, FA35, DFA35 (newest) Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.) 645 Digital 76 ° / 64 ° 645 Film 90 ° / 77 ° FA33-55 Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.) 645 Digital: 80-53 ° / 67-44 ° 645 Film: 93-65 ° / 81-54 ° DA28-45 Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.) 645 Digital: 89-63 ° / 76-52 ° DFA25 (same as DA25, except DA does not cover 645 film) Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.) 645 Digital: 95.5 ° / 82.6 ° 645 Film 109 ° / 96.7 ° ...and the new DFA 35mm is 610g vs 1530g for the 28-45mm zoom!

01-27-2016, 02:31 PM	#27
Sarnian Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 101	A DFA 35mm-sized 30mm would be sweet.

01-31-2016, 10:05 PM	#28
brelip Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Albums Posts: 71	I had the FA 35. It was good, but not as good as 28-45. In fact, it didn't even catch up at F5.6. 28-45 is super sharp wide open, FA35 needs about F8 to get there. I sold FA35, eventually got a used A 35 at a good price. I think it's a little better than FA 35 on my copy. But i've not done direct comparisons. The thing is, it's much more compact!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-01-2016, 04:24 AM	#29
itshimitis Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: All over the place Posts: 3,535	Originally posted by Sarnian A DFA 35mm-sized 30mm would be sweet. A DFA 35 sized 21mm would be sweeter!

02-01-2016, 02:11 PM	#30
Sarnian Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 101	Originally posted by itshimitis A DFA 35 sized 21mm would be sweeter! 24mm equivalent, I mean.