https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dphoto&field-keywo...5mm+f%2F2.0+AL

[pathdoc]

Oh wow. That rare beast in its native habitat!

If I didn't already have several other 35mm lenses (including the 35/2.8 Limited Macro) I'd pounce on this just to show Pentax there's a demand for it, but I can't justify $500 for one extra stop when my current 35mm AF lens is so flexible and top-class. No, not even for the full-frame capability. Let a current K-1 user have it; they're the ones who need it most!

[pres589]

Only $20 more than the DA HD 35 f2.8 Macro! What a steal!

[pathdoc]

Yep. If you're going full-frame/shoot K-mount film and the price isn't a problem and you don't have any other 35mm AF primes and you don't need the macro, I suspect this is the way to go.

[pres589]

Yep. If you're going full-frame/shoot K-mount film and the price isn't a problem and you don't have any other 35mm AF primes and you don't need the macro, I suspect this is the way to go.

Would the FA 35 f2.0 really be much better than the DA 35 f2.4, all things considered, including how soft the FA is wide open?

I'd be seriously looking at getting the DA 35 and the 40 XS and pocket the savings if I was interested in that focal length. Looking at pictures taken with the 40 XS on full frame & film, I really like what I see there.

[UncleVanya]

Would the FA 35 f2.0 really be much better than the DA 35 f2.4, all things considered, including how soft the FA is wide open?

I'd be seriously looking at getting the DA 35 and the 40 XS and pocket the savings if I was interested in that focal length. Looking at pictures taken with the 40 XS on full frame & film, I really like what I see there.

I have the da 40 limited, I have the FA 35 and previously had the da 35. The FA 35 is better in many ways than the da but it isn't a 4x delta.

[stevebrot]

Would the FA 35 f2.0 really be much better than the DA 35 f2.4, all things considered, including how soft the FA is wide open?

There is continuing discussion regarding the FA 35/2 and the DA 35/2.4. Some are of the strong opinion that the optics in the DA 35 are identical to the FA except that the maximum aperture has been throttled down 1/2 stop. Others say nay. I don't own the DA 35, but my experience on both APS-C and 35mm film is that the FA 35/2 is no laggard on either format and has few weak points. I don't have a lot of wide open shots to share as examples, but here are a few (all hand-held in dim light). Sorry they are fairly low resolution:










Steve

[Adam]

This lens isn't actually discontinued, it's just not being marketed in the US at the moment Hence the high prices.

[UncleVanya]

Test results I have seen for both DA and FA 35 do not match. I would say the FA is sharper particularly in the corners but the DA coatings can be useful. In any case the FA feels nicer - more solid - and yet both are compact and do the job well.

Here's a couple of collections of shots from the FA 35:
Single In July 2016 (FA 35) | Flickr
Single In December 2015 (FA 35 f/2) | Flickr

I also own the FA 31 - I'm on the fence about how much I like one vs. the other.

[monochrome]

Two observations:

• At the current US retail price why wouldn't we step up to the 31 Limited during deals?
• At the current US retail price why wouldn't we buy the DA35/2.8 Ltd. Macro?

In my experience the FA35/2 is a remarkably sharp lens with good bokeh and absolutely beautiful color rendering. There's a reason we call FA35/2 the Poor Man's 31. That being said, since I now own a 31 and the 35 hasn't been used in 2 years I recently sold my copy.

[pathdoc]

At the current US retail price why wouldn't we buy the DA35/2.8 Ltd. Macro?

Because, and only because, we want to be able to use the lens on any K-mount film body (and in that case we really do need the extra stop) and/or because we have no need for macro at that focal length but wish to be able to shoot full-frame, all apertures, no-questions-asked on a K-1.

If you are thinking about an exclusively APS-C lens at all, then with costs neck-and-neck the 35/2.8 Macro wins (again, unless you are working in really low light and want to keep your ISO down and/or shutter speed up).

[monochrome]

Because, and only because, we want to be able to use the lens on any K-mount film body (and in that case we really do need the extra stop) and/or because we have no need for macro at that focal length but wish to be able to shoot full-frame, all apertures, no-questions-asked on a K-1.

If you are thinking about an exclusively APS-C lens at all, then with costs neck-and-neck the 35/2.8 Macro wins (again, unless you are working in really low light and want to keep your ISO down and/or shutter speed up).

Valid reasons, certainly. They're why I purchased mine in 2006.

In reality I'll bet the vast majority of Pentax dSLR owners will be APSc body owners for quite some time. It so happens I have a second hand 35/2.8. So far it seems to be pretty good in FF mode on K-1.

[Venom3300]

I have the FA 35/2. Its definitely no slouch. Sure its not a tack wide open, but it's perfectly useable.

As stated above, it has very nice color rendering. Very classic looking if you will.

[oscaletrains]

I got the 35mm FA just to use as a "normal" lens on my crop mode cameras. I really like it on the K1, especially indoors.

[a5m]

My understanding was that it was still in production. I know I saw it listed new at B&H last December and maybe again a while after that. I remember asking them if it was a MIJ or AIV copy (sorry to bring that up, but I'm one of those people).

I took these wide open on a K-5 IIs sometime after midnight. I'll mirror what the others have said; it is plenty sharp with typical FA color and rendering.