Pentax M and A 35/2 versus 28/2 opinions

Eyewanders · 04-19-2016, 04:53 PM - **1 Like**

Just lost out on an FA35 ... one of you folks here????!

Oh well. I think I'm gonna go with an A35 seeing as this is for travel/cheap/compact etc etc. When at home I'd just as soon pull out the 31 - I figured this is more sensible.

Now, hope no one here is gunning on the one I'm watching!

**monochrome** · 04-19-2016, 07:36 PM

You'll be happy with the A35.

Eyewanders · 04-19-2016, 07:59 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

You'll be happy with the A35.

Oh I'm certain I will.

Like I mentioned - my M35/2 has been to-date one of the only sales I regret a bit.
Just won the auction. Hoorah.

jeverettfine · 05-09-2016, 10:16 AM

The 35mm focal length has always been for me a must have for film and FF. The 28 has always seemed either too wide or too narrow an angle of view...always have gone to a 24 when I needed wider. Result: with my K-3 I have a SMC-A 24 2.8 (35 FF equivalent) and a DA 15 Limited (between the 24 and a 21). The equivalent for a classic 50 would be the 31 or a 35.

**wtlwdwgn** · 05-09-2016, 10:57 AM

Obviously, 28mm is a compromise FL between 24 and 35mm. I like 28mm on FF. Wider than a 35 but less distortion than a 24. Now that the rain has let up for a little while I'm going to go out and shoot with my A 28 f/2.

**Bonner04** · 05-10-2016, 07:28 AM

Prior to reading this thread I had already planned to take only my "M" 28/2 and 50/1.4 on our South American trip. Both small, 49mm filter thread and sturdy.
I will use ether on my ME Super SE or MZ-3 for the trip. One must have a wide angle for Iguazu Falls, Sugar Loaf and Machu Picchu! Kodak Ektar, only, already packed
in a leaded Domke.

**UncleVanya** · 05-10-2016, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Bonner04

Prior to reading this thread I had already planned to take only my "M" 28/2 and 50/1.4 on our South American trip. Both small, 49mm filter thread and sturdy.
I will use ether on my ME Super SE or MZ-3 for the trip. One must have a wide angle for Iguazu Falls, Sugar Loaf and Machu Picchu! Kodak Ektar, only, already packed
in a leaded Domke.

Are you sure that lead is needed?
How To: Flying With Film | Film Advance

If you read this - from 2013 - the person advises AGAINST lead lined bags and suggests that with modern equipment they just turn up the intensity to punch through those bags or run the film without the protection after they find them. He suggests a zip lock and a request for hand checking.

**gofour3** · 05-10-2016, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Are you sure that lead is needed?
How To: Flying With Film | Film Advance

If you read this - from 2013 - the person advises AGAINST lead lined bags and suggests that with modern equipment they just turn up the intensity to punch through those bags or run the film without the protection after they find them. He suggests a zip lock and a request for hand checking.

I always carry my film in a lead lined pouch. Most airport scanners do not notice it in my camera bag (75%), if they do they just request a visual inspection (25%).

In today's busy airports requesting a hand check with a non English speaking agent, is not possible. I've never had any issues with the lead pouch and my film.

Phil.

**Bonner04** · 05-10-2016, 09:44 PM

Thanks folks for the concern. I weighed the options, read articles and even asked the people at the two labs I use about the problem.
I have 7 flights on this trip and some are in the so called "third world countries" and I have been told that it is highly unlikely that there
would be a problem with fogging in the lead bags. My guess is that there will be many hand inspections after, and past, the scanners.

I will report back here on my return.

Belgarchi · 07-12-2016, 08:42 AM

I owned the M35/2.0 and owns now the A28/2.0. I think that the A35/2.0 is optically identical to the M35/2.0.
At f/2.0, the 28 mm is slightly better in terms of sharpness and vignetting.
At f/2.8, the 28mm is a lot better, especially on the edges.
The 35mm catches up at f/5.6-f/8.0.

I love the A28mm/2.0 (above average I.Q., very light for its focal and aperture, still convenient on digital cameras); I never liked the 35mm.
I do have the FA35/2.0, it is a lot better than the previous 35mm. I.Q. slightly better than the A28/2.0!

As for the M 35mm f/2.8, it is poor at f/2.8, but really good at f/4.0 and above.

**Bonner04** · 07-12-2016, 01:56 PM - **1 Like**

Turns out the lens stayed on my ME Super for almost all of the 20 rolls of Ektar I shot on our trip. It really is a fine lens
and gets everything "in" for your shooting. Here it is at work on the MZ-3 with Superia 200 and it is hard to not think this
is a digital image.

Eyewanders · 07-13-2016, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Bonner04

Turns out the lens stayed on my ME Super for almost all of the 20 rolls of Ektar I shot on our trip. It really is a fine lens
and gets everything "in" for your shooting. Here it is at work on the MZ-3 with Superia 200 and it is hard to not think this
is a digital image.

Ektar shot with a good lens is superior to digital IMO.

I've been using my A35/2 quite a bit, but even moreso lately a lens I picked up after this discussion, the K 24/2.8. It is EXCEPTIONAL to me. A bit wider and just a stop slower - I've been using it nearly exclusively on one of my MXs and the LX the past couple of months. I think it's what I'd pack with a fast 50 on a trip such as yours next time. Still though, the 35/2 is what might come along if it were the only lens I'd bring.

Too many good lenses, not enough money for film.

The K24/2.8 is quite versatile...

**gofour3** · 07-14-2016, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by chickentender

the K 24/2.8. It is EXCEPTIONAL to me

Yep a beauty, I use mine a lot for travelling due to its smaller size.

I also recently picked up a nice FA24/2AL. The design of the lens is rather ugly, but it's got great optics as well.

Phil.

07-12-2016, 08:42 AM	#25
Belgarchi Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Texas Posts: 32	M35/2.0 and A28/2.0 I owned the M35/2.0 and owns now the A28/2.0. I think that the A35/2.0 is optically identical to the M35/2.0. At f/2.0, the 28 mm is slightly better in terms of sharpness and vignetting. At f/2.8, the 28mm is a lot better, especially on the edges. The 35mm catches up at f/5.6-f/8.0. I love the A28mm/2.0 (above average I.Q., very light for its focal and aperture, still convenient on digital cameras); I never liked the 35mm. I do have the FA35/2.0, it is a lot better than the previous 35mm. I.Q. slightly better than the A28/2.0! As for the M 35mm f/2.8, it is poor at f/2.8, but really good at f/4.0 and above.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Classics - Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5, M 50/1.7, Vivitar 28/2.8 PK/A, Sigma 90/2.8 M	stillshunter	Sold Items	14	03-14-2010 01:19 PM

04-19-2016, 04:53 PM - 1 Like	#16
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343 Original Poster	Just lost out on an FA35 ... one of you folks here????! Oh well. I think I'm gonna go with an A35 seeing as this is for travel/cheap/compact etc etc. When at home I'd just as soon pull out the 31 - I figured this is more sensible. Now, hope no one here is gunning on the one I'm watching!

04-19-2016, 07:36 PM	#17
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	You'll be happy with the A35.

04-19-2016, 07:59 PM - 1 Like	#18
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343 Original Poster	Originally posted by monochrome You'll be happy with the A35. Oh I'm certain I will. Like I mentioned - my M35/2 has been to-date one of the only sales I regret a bit. Just won the auction. Hoorah.

05-09-2016, 10:16 AM	#19
jeverettfine Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Austin, Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 328	The 35mm focal length has always been for me a must have for film and FF. The 28 has always seemed either too wide or too narrow an angle of view...always have gone to a 24 when I needed wider. Result: with my K-3 I have a SMC-A 24 2.8 (35 FF equivalent) and a DA 15 Limited (between the 24 and a 21). The equivalent for a classic 50 would be the 31 or a 35.

05-09-2016, 10:57 AM	#20
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,838	Obviously, 28mm is a compromise FL between 24 and 35mm. I like 28mm on FF. Wider than a 35 but less distortion than a 24. Now that the rain has let up for a little while I'm going to go out and shoot with my A 28 f/2.

05-10-2016, 07:28 AM	#21
Bonner04 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Ventura, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 685	Prior to reading this thread I had already planned to take only my "M" 28/2 and 50/1.4 on our South American trip. Both small, 49mm filter thread and sturdy. I will use ether on my ME Super SE or MZ-3 for the trip. One must have a wide angle for Iguazu Falls, Sugar Loaf and Machu Picchu! Kodak Ektar, only, already packed in a leaded Domke.

05-10-2016, 08:14 AM	#22
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by Bonner04 Prior to reading this thread I had already planned to take only my "M" 28/2 and 50/1.4 on our South American trip. Both small, 49mm filter thread and sturdy. I will use ether on my ME Super SE or MZ-3 for the trip. One must have a wide angle for Iguazu Falls, Sugar Loaf and Machu Picchu! Kodak Ektar, only, already packed in a leaded Domke. Are you sure that lead is needed? How To: Flying With Film \| Film Advance If you read this - from 2013 - the person advises AGAINST lead lined bags and suggests that with modern equipment they just turn up the intensity to punch through those bags or run the film without the protection after they find them. He suggests a zip lock and a request for hand checking.

05-10-2016, 09:19 AM	#23
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by UncleVanya Are you sure that lead is needed? How To: Flying With Film \| Film Advance If you read this - from 2013 - the person advises AGAINST lead lined bags and suggests that with modern equipment they just turn up the intensity to punch through those bags or run the film without the protection after they find them. He suggests a zip lock and a request for hand checking. I always carry my film in a lead lined pouch. Most airport scanners do not notice it in my camera bag (75%), if they do they just request a visual inspection (25%). In today's busy airports requesting a hand check with a non English speaking agent, is not possible. I've never had any issues with the lead pouch and my film. Phil.

05-10-2016, 09:44 PM	#24
Bonner04 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Ventura, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 685	Thanks folks for the concern. I weighed the options, read articles and even asked the people at the two labs I use about the problem. I have 7 flights on this trip and some are in the so called "third world countries" and I have been told that it is highly unlikely that there would be a problem with fogging in the lead bags. My guess is that there will be many hand inspections after, and past, the scanners. I will report back here on my return.

07-12-2016, 01:56 PM - 1 Like	#26
Bonner04 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Ventura, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 685	Turns out the lens stayed on my ME Super for almost all of the 20 rolls of Ektar I shot on our trip. It really is a fine lens and gets everything "in" for your shooting. Here it is at work on the MZ-3 with Superia 200 and it is hard to not think this is a digital image.

07-13-2016, 03:59 PM	#27
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343 Original Poster	Originally posted by Bonner04 Turns out the lens stayed on my ME Super for almost all of the 20 rolls of Ektar I shot on our trip. It really is a fine lens and gets everything "in" for your shooting. Here it is at work on the MZ-3 with Superia 200 and it is hard to not think this is a digital image. Ektar shot with a good lens is superior to digital IMO. I've been using my A35/2 quite a bit, but even moreso lately a lens I picked up after this discussion, the K 24/2.8. It is EXCEPTIONAL to me. A bit wider and just a stop slower - I've been using it nearly exclusively on one of my MXs and the LX the past couple of months. I think it's what I'd pack with a fast 50 on a trip such as yours next time. Still though, the 35/2 is what might come along if it were the only lens I'd bring. Too many good lenses, not enough money for film. The K24/2.8 is quite versatile...

07-14-2016, 08:39 AM	#28
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by chickentender the K 24/2.8. It is EXCEPTIONAL to me Yep a beauty, I use mine a lot for travelling due to its smaller size. I also recently picked up a nice FA24/2AL. The design of the lens is rather ugly, but it's got great optics as well. Phil.