[Marc Sabatella]

It's way easier to make a lens that distorts than one that doesn't. Not sure where you read that fisheyes are more expensive than other wide angles, but as you are seeing, it isn't really true.

[OregonJim]

I read that it is an awesome lens.

Is that why it is so expensive?

I always thought fisheeyes were among the most expensive wide angle lenses.

I think it's the 35/2 that's the expensive one, not the 35/2.8 macro (relatively speaking). I'm not sure why - would like to know, too. I have a Vivitar 35/1.9 that I picked up for $60 and am wondering if the Pentax 35/2 would perform any better to justify the price...

[Canada_Rockies]

... <snip> ...
But the Pentax 10-17 is way cheaper than the 12-24.

Is it because the 12-24 is a constant aperture and the 10-17 is not?

No, it is because the DA 12-24 is a much more complex design. It is much easier to build a fish-eye lens than a rectilinear lens, and to get the low distortion values of the 12-24 is even more difficult.

[ajuett]

I had the DA14, big mistake selling it. It was used for the majority of my 2 week trip through the Canadian Rockies and area last year, here are some samples; Road Trip 2008 Photo Gallery by ajuett at pbase.com

[Marc Sabatella]

I think it's the 35/2 that's the expensive one, not the 35/2.8 macro (relatively speaking).

The FA35/2 regularly sold for $300; the 35/2.8 Macro sells for considerably more.

I have a Vivitar 35/1.9 that I picked up for $60

Well, OK, but is that an autofocus lens? Was that the price brand new? In today's dollars?

am wondering if the Pentax 35/2 would perform any better to justify the price...

I don't know about the Vivitar, but the FA35/2 is one of the sharpest lenses Pentax has ever made. Outrageously high resolution & MTF scores.

[res3567]

No, it is because the DA 12-24 is a much more complex design. It is much easier to build a fish-eye lens than a rectilinear lens, and to get the low distortion values of the 12-24 is even more difficult.

Ok. Now I get it. It makes a lot of sense per your explanation. Fisheyes do give a lot of distortion because of their design and I have read reviews that the 12-24 has excellent distortion control.

Thanks Albert!

[res3567]

The FA35/2 regularly sold for $300; the 35/2.8 Macro sells for considerably more.



Well, OK, but is that an autofocus lens? Was that the price brand new? In today's dollars?



I don't know about the Vivitar, but the FA35/2 is one of the sharpest lenses Pentax has ever made. Outrageously high resolution & MTF scores.

I think I read a review many years ago about the 35/2 in POP Photo.

They compared it to the 20-35( I think)

It was rated as sharper than the zoom because it is a prime.

I need to look at my vast collection of magazines I have not thrown away to be sure.

[Jewelltrail]

rburgoss: 2) The DA14 f/2.8 is two stops faster than the new DA15.

The Da 14 is only 1 stop faster than the new Da 15.

ajuett I had the DA14, big mistake selling it. It was used for the majority of my 2 week trip through the Canadian Rockies and area last year, here are some samples; Road Trip 2008 Photo Gallery by ajuett at pbase.com

ajuett: Thanks for posting these very nice shots with the Da 14--I was looking for something like these to help me determine my next lens purchase.

[OregonJim]

The FA35/2 regularly sold for $300; the 35/2.8 Macro sells for considerably more.

You're right - a quick search revealed 35/2's going for mid-$200's, and 35/2.8's going for around $400. Guess I had them reversed.

Well, OK, but is that an autofocus lens? Was that the price brand new? In today's dollars?

Today's dollars, yes. New or AF, no. Just (mint condition) MF. Didn't realize there was an AF version of the 35/2.

I don't know about the Vivitar, but the FA35/2 is one of the sharpest lenses Pentax has ever made. Outrageously high resolution & MTF scores.

Good to know - thanks.

[ajuett]

The Da 14 is only 1 stop faster than the new Da 15.

ajuett: Thanks for posting these very nice shots with the Da 14--I was looking for something like these to help me determine my next lens purchase.

1 stop can make all the difference and it's better than bumping up ISO. That's just my personal opinion. Saying that, I used the DA14 at f/9 for the majority of the time, mainly for landscape shots in good weather.

Jewelltrail, np, I really do regret selling the lens it was a beauty. Oh well, you live and learn.

[Marc Sabatella]

Today's dollars, yes. New or AF, no. Just (mint condition) MF. Didn't realize there was an AF version of the 35/2.

Yes, that's the one that gets discussed in these forums often, usually as people try to figure out whether to get the FA35 or the DA35 or the DA40 as their "normal" lens. There has been more discussion lately regarding the FA35 as it seems it may have been discontinued and is becoming harder and harder to find new.

I hadn't realized you were talking about one of the older MF versions. As I understand it, those actually weren't nearly as good. Unlike some lenses where they took the existing lens design, slapped on a AF mechanism and some electronics and called it good, the FA35 was a totally new design. Definitely not worth paying hundreds for one of the older 35's when the best one is about the same price.

[Marc Sabatella]

1 stop can make all the difference and it's better than bumping up ISO. That's just my personal opinion. Saying that, I used the DA14 at f/9 for the majority of the time, mainly for landscape shots in good weather.

Well, yeah, and you're not alone in that. That's kind of the point - for "most" people in "most" situations, a 14mm or 15mm lens just isn't likely to be used at f/2.8 very often. Not that you couldn't come up with creative uses for large apertures, but if you're going out of your way to use a wide angle lens to get a lot of "stuff" into the scene, most of the time, you'd want as much as that stuff to be in focus as possible - and handholdability is seldom a big concern at those focal lengths either, even in fairly dim light.

FWIW, I keep going back and forth on whether my next major lens purchase with be the DA15 or DA21. I'm leaning back toward 21 now. Not because I'm not sufficiently impressed by what I've seen of the 15 or the reviews it has received, but just because I am pretty sure I'd find 21mm a more useful FOV more often. The only thing that makes me a little sad about that thought is the idea that it would probably replace my M28/2.8 in my bag; with the 15mm, I'd have more incentive to carry both. What I'd really want is a "pancake" 17mm or 18mm, though.

[NaClH2O]

*snip*
FWIW, I keep going back and forth on whether my next major lens purchase with be the DA15 or DA21. I'm leaning back toward 21 now. Not because I'm not sufficiently impressed by what I've seen of the 15 or the reviews it has received, but just because I am pretty sure I'd find 21mm a more useful FOV more often. The only thing that makes me a little sad about that thought is the idea that it would probably replace my M28/2.8 in my bag; with the 15mm, I'd have more incentive to carry both. What I'd really want is a "pancake" 17mm or 18mm, though.

Marc, is there a reason you're not considering the FA 20mm F2.8? Is it because of the relatively slow F2.8? I own this lens and it's rapidly becoming a favorite, especially since graduating to the K20D. On a digital camera, it's a moderately wide lens with excellent contrast and color rendition. And like most pentax primes it's got good bokeh.

NaCl(it's a good garden lens...high praise from me)H2O

[Marc Sabatella]

Marc, is there a reason you're not considering the FA 20mm F2.8?

Because it isn't much smaller than my DA18-55 II (it's shorter but just as wide - wider at the front element - and somewhat heavier). For the few wide angle shots I take, I'm happy perfectly happy with the performance of the kit lens at 18mm. It's just way bigger than I really want to have in my bag just for the very occasional use it would get when I am otherwise shooting with primes. So I tend to use the 18-55 & 50-200 on hikes and so forth where I know I'll appreciate the wide angle and telephoto and don't care about speed and have the luxury of stopping down. But more often, I carry the 28, 40, and 70 (and/or perhaps the 100 or 135 at the long end), and having a real wide angle lens is really something of an afterthought. I want something I can have with my "just in case" but not have to make room for.

The M20/4 is another one I am considering. I've bid on a couple, but never followed through to win. One went the other day for only $168. No idea what it would have taken to to beat out whoever got that, but they sure got a good deal!

If I got the 15, I might consider replacing the 28 with a 24.

[Jewelltrail]

ajuette: Jewelltrail, np, I really do regret selling the lens it was a beauty. Oh well, you live and learn.

Well then, go buy another. I saw this recently at our Marketplace:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographers-marketplace/59014-sale-pent...2-8-ed-if.html