Former Canon users: which Pentax lenses are better than the 35 f2

drwho9437 · 10-18-2008, 12:04 AM

I'm a Canon user that has a K10D kicking around, though I may be parting with it, I only tried it with one lens. I like the 35mm f2 on my 400D, and I'm wondering to people who have used that lens which lens you think are better that Pentax makes optically (not build wise). Other than the 31mm 1.8 ltd

fearview · 10-18-2008, 12:43 AM

fa 50 1.4 or da 40 2.8

suro · 10-18-2008, 03:21 AM

Pentax FA 35mm /2.0 AL, Pentax FA 43mm /1.9 Limited

ogl · 10-18-2008, 04:06 AM

Pentax FA35/2 is better than Canon 35/2.

roentarre · 10-18-2008, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by drwho9437

I'm a Canon user that has a K10D kicking around, though I may be parting with it, I only tried it with one lens. I like the 35mm f2 on my 400D, and I'm wondering to people who have used that lens which lens you think are better that Pentax makes optically (not build wise). Other than the 31mm 1.8 ltd

Hi there.

If you are happy with EF 35mm f2, you are really easy to please. I think that canon lens is a blooper that it is no way worth its cost at all according to the current standard of lens making.

Even pentax Fa 35mm f2 will beat that lens so easily without a doubt. Of course, it is the person behind the camera that matters. This canon lens is a way to push all the canon users to buy L lenses. So older series do not get updated to prompt users going to the L series. L series are often on the same par as sigma EX series. The difference is minor and sigma charges less in terms of pricing.

Speaking of pentax lens selection, go for EF 35mm f2 if you are already happy with Canon EF 35mm f2. Any lens you can think of in the lens line-up of Pentax will be at least as good as that particular canon EF lens.

Not Registered · 10-18-2008, 08:50 AM

I would also say that you havent use a good example. Had you say the Canon 35 f1.4 and the answer would be different. BUt pretty much every pentax from 24 to 50 beats the Canon 35 f2 by a long margin.

Jonson PL · 10-18-2008, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by roentarre

Hi there.

If you are happy with EF 35mm f2, you are really easy to please. I think that canon lens is a blooper that it is no way worth its cost at all according to the current standard of lens making.

Even pentax Fa 35mm f2 will beat that lens so easily without a doubt. Of course, it is the person behind the camera that matters. This canon lens is a way to push all the canon users to buy L lenses. So older series do not get updated to prompt users going to the L series. L series are often on the same par as sigma EX series. The difference is minor and sigma charges less in terms of pricing.

Speaking of pentax lens selection, go for EF 35mm f2 if you are already happy with Canon EF 35mm f2. Any lens you can think of in the lens line-up of Pentax will be at least as good as that particular canon EF lens.

Hi James, thanks for your evaluations.
It is nice for the rest of us, in the process of building up a kit, to have the thoughts from some of the ones with vast experience.

What are your thoughts on the standard Canon 50/1.8 ?

roentarre · 10-18-2008, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Jonson PL

Hi James, thanks for your evaluations.
It is nice for the rest of us, in the process of building up a kit, to have the thoughts from some of the ones with vast experience.

What are your thoughts on the standard Canon 50/1.8 ?

Not so vast experience, Sune. Just got a few strong opinions regarding some partcular lenses where I felt cheated buying into them ...

Canon 50mm f1.8 performs better than than Canon 50mm f1.4 in terms of measurebation using MTF etc. I disliked both lenses and they performed on the same level, hesitant autofocus with severe backfocusing. Both were contructed in flimsy pasticky build while Canon 50mm f1.4 charged a premium!

When lighting is ideal, canon 50mm f1.8 can perform well but its consistency in AG and image quality also varies. The stern defender of all things canon 50mm Joemama admitted the inconsistent image performance even focusing is not a concern.

The bokeh is terrible with spetacular highlight being in crescent shape. Harsh edges and most of background become chalky desaturated lumps. A real frustration.

This is still a great lens (because it is cheap) since it is a lot better than the standard kit lens from canon. Of course, it is the person behind the camera that matters. This lens is certainly a fine lens when a very good photographer is avoiding all the problematic areas to render nice images.

drwho9437 · 10-18-2008, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by roentarre

Hi there.

If you are happy with EF 35mm f2, you are really easy to please. I think that canon lens is a blooper that it is no way worth its cost at all according to the current standard of lens making.

I think it is pretty clear that you had a bad copy or are just wildly bias. The 35 f2 performs as well as the 35 f1.4 L by objective accounts, (slrgear) and many subjective accounts (Fred Miranda for instance has 8.8 vs 9.6 for the f2 vs the L, 8.8 is a very good lens, the 50 1.4 I think is 9, known bad lens are 5-7.5)

I'm curious how many pictures you have shot with the glass in question?

Over all the 35mm macro 2.8 pentax is slightly inferior to the 35mm f2 when processed in RAW in lightroom A/B on the same subject (on my copies). Photozone results would suggest that the lens' corner performance is weak, and that the Pentax flavor is better.

If you are going to suggest a lens, please refrain from snide remarks, and stick to the time of use of both this reference lens or the 35mm 1.4 if you wish and the glass you feel is better (and why in what areas is it better).

Thanks very much.

drwho9437 · 10-18-2008, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by ogl

Pentax FA35/2 is better than Canon 35/2.

That seems quite possible in most respects, other than price.

roentarre · 10-18-2008, 01:44 PM

I will refrain from revealing my opinions.

I have never used a canon lens.

Jonson PL · 10-18-2008, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by roentarre

I will refrain from revealing my opinions.
I have never used a canon lens.

Originally posted by drwho9437

I think it is pretty clear that you had a bad copy or are just wildly bias. The 35 f2 performs as well as the 35 f1.4 L by objective accounts, (slrgear) and many subjective accounts (Fred Miranda for instance has 8.8 vs 9.6 for the f2 vs the L, 8.8 is a very good lens, the 50 1.4 I think is 9, known bad lens are 5-7.5)

I'm curious how many pictures you have shot with the glass in question?

Over all the 35mm macro 2.8 pentax is slightly inferior to the 35mm f2 when processed in RAW in lightroom A/B on the same subject (on my copies). Photozone results would suggest that the lens' corner performance is weak, and that the Pentax flavor is better.

If you are going to suggest a lens, please refrain from snide remarks, and stick to the time of use of both this reference lens or the 35mm 1.4 if you wish and the glass you feel is better (and why in what areas is it better).

Thanks very much.

Before you accuse James of being bias, maybe you should get your facts straight. It wasn't till I saw James' setup that I truly realized all the great options in optics that Canon has available.
And if you follow a bit of discussions here and elsewhere, and check out his sites; I think you'll see that he knows a thing or two about photography.

(I can understand how we loose knowledgeable people like Darren M. and others, if this is the attitude that they're met with).

Edit :
I see that you were the same, asking the question at DPR, in which you stated :
“I had the 35 mm ltd for a short time, and tired it out. It was optically okay but certainly not above the performance of the 35mm f2 on my canon.”

And people couldn’t believe that you were actually writing that. The DA 35/2.8 Macro is a lens that Mike Johnston and Carl Weese from The Online Photographer, have compared to the legendary Leica Summarit. But you came to a different conclusion after two days of use.
If you don’t wanna appear completely clueless, please understand the basic framework of the discussions.

You're asking the questions, if you can't handle the answers, then don't ask. James' reply is the same, as the evaluation from all the others in the thread.

Photomaximum · 10-18-2008, 02:10 PM

I used to own the Canon 35/2 and I think its a pretty good lens for the money. Its small, light weight, and fast. It offers great performance for the money. It is one of the early EF designs, so the focusing is not as smooth, quick or as quiet as some of the newer lenses.

With regards to the Canon L lenses: sure some are better than others, but to say they are on par with the Sigmas is not telling the full story. Canon makes some of the best lenses in the industry. Some of the L lenses are legendary.

I think the first couple of responses to the OP's question are probably right on. There are many, many great lenses in the 28mm-90mm arena. Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Minolta, Olympus and others all made/make great fixed lenses here.

I have not used any of the fast DA, FA or Limited lenses but I bet I have owned and used more high end Pentax glass than 95% of the folks on this forum.

I would not be that surprised that the FA 35/2 ($300) or the 43mm /1.9 Limited ($470) or the 31/1.8 LT ($870) outperforms the EF 35/2 which only costs $230. For reference the mighty Canon EF 35/1.4 L costs $1180.

A nice image test would be the Pentax FA 35/2 vs the Canon EF 35/2. Of course doing such a test is difficult due to the differences in the camera bodies. It would be great to see the results of both on a FF capture. But alas Pentax does not make a FF camera, which for me is a deal breaker as far as investing in a new system goes (but that's another discussion...)

Tom S. · 10-18-2008, 02:54 PM

Why not compare the Pentax 35mm F2 against the Canon 35mm F2?

Pentax:
Pentax SMC-FA 35mm f/2 AL - Review / Test Report

Canon:
Canon EF 35mm f/2 - Test Report / Review

Here's a hint - the Pentax is better...

**barondla** · 10-18-2008, 06:21 PM

Photomaximum, it would be quite easy to compare Canon & Pentax 35 f2 lenses FF. Put them on a film body! The right film easily beats any FF digital for resolution (think Tech Pan here).
Wouldn't deal Sigma out so soon. Bet the Sigma 70 macro will take any canon macro! All companies make good lenses. There are even some good Canon ones.

thanks
barondla

Check out POINT & SHOOT CONTEST #11 WINNERS in P&S forum. Enter #12. Any brand camera. Any subject. Enter now!

10-18-2008, 02:02 PM	#12
Jonson PL Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,842	Originally posted by roentarre I will refrain from revealing my opinions. I have never used a canon lens. Originally posted by drwho9437 I think it is pretty clear that you had a bad copy or are just wildly bias. The 35 f2 performs as well as the 35 f1.4 L by objective accounts, (slrgear) and many subjective accounts (Fred Miranda for instance has 8.8 vs 9.6 for the f2 vs the L, 8.8 is a very good lens, the 50 1.4 I think is 9, known bad lens are 5-7.5) I'm curious how many pictures you have shot with the glass in question? Over all the 35mm macro 2.8 pentax is slightly inferior to the 35mm f2 when processed in RAW in lightroom A/B on the same subject (on my copies). Photozone results would suggest that the lens' corner performance is weak, and that the Pentax flavor is better. If you are going to suggest a lens, please refrain from snide remarks, and stick to the time of use of both this reference lens or the 35mm 1.4 if you wish and the glass you feel is better (and why in what areas is it better). Thanks very much. Before you accuse James of being bias, maybe you should get your facts straight. It wasn't till I saw James' setup that I truly realized all the great options in optics that Canon has available. And if you follow a bit of discussions here and elsewhere, and check out his sites; I think you'll see that he knows a thing or two about photography. (I can understand how we loose knowledgeable people like Darren M. and others, if this is the attitude that they're met with). Edit : I see that you were the same, asking the question at DPR, in which you stated : “I had the 35 mm ltd for a short time, and tired it out. It was optically okay but certainly not above the performance of the 35mm f2 on my canon.” And people couldn’t believe that you were actually writing that. The DA 35/2.8 Macro is a lens that Mike Johnston and Carl Weese from The Online Photographer, have compared to the legendary Leica Summarit. But you came to a different conclusion after two days of use. If you don’t wanna appear completely clueless, please understand the basic framework of the discussions. You're asking the questions, if you can't handle the answers, then don't ask. James' reply is the same, as the evaluation from all the others in the thread. Last edited by Jonson PL; 10-18-2008 at 02:20 PM.

10-18-2008, 02:10 PM	#13
Photomaximum Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 108	I used to own the Canon 35/2 and I think its a pretty good lens for the money. Its small, light weight, and fast. It offers great performance for the money. It is one of the early EF designs, so the focusing is not as smooth, quick or as quiet as some of the newer lenses. With regards to the Canon L lenses: sure some are better than others, but to say they are on par with the Sigmas is not telling the full story. Canon makes some of the best lenses in the industry. Some of the L lenses are legendary. I think the first couple of responses to the OP's question are probably right on. There are many, many great lenses in the 28mm-90mm arena. Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Minolta, Olympus and others all made/make great fixed lenses here. I have not used any of the fast DA, FA or Limited lenses but I bet I have owned and used more high end Pentax glass than 95% of the folks on this forum. I would not be that surprised that the FA 35/2 ($300) or the 43mm /1.9 Limited ($470) or the 31/1.8 LT ($870) outperforms the EF 35/2 which only costs $230. For reference the mighty Canon EF 35/1.4 L costs $1180. A nice image test would be the Pentax FA 35/2 vs the Canon EF 35/2. Of course doing such a test is difficult due to the differences in the camera bodies. It would be great to see the results of both on a FF capture. But alas Pentax does not make a FF camera, which for me is a deal breaker as far as investing in a new system goes (but that's another discussion...) Last edited by Photomaximum; 10-18-2008 at 02:15 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Switching to Canon 5D, advice needed on adapting Pentax lenses on canon camera	hangu	Photographic Technique	4	08-19-2010 09:09 PM
Canon Printer Users ....	roscot	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	0	04-20-2008 08:30 AM
K10D opinion needed from canon 300d (Digital Rebel) users	Andrews	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	03-04-2008 10:16 PM
Surprise...What Canon users think of K20D!	HermanLee	Pentax News and Rumors	26	01-26-2008 10:07 AM
Photozone needs Lenses from EU Pentax Users	Wethphotography	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	09-29-2007 02:00 PM

10-18-2008, 12:04 AM	#1
drwho9437 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 31	Former Canon users: which Pentax lenses are better than the 35 f2 I'm a Canon user that has a K10D kicking around, though I may be parting with it, I only tried it with one lens. I like the 35mm f2 on my 400D, and I'm wondering to people who have used that lens which lens you think are better that Pentax makes optically (not build wise). Other than the 31mm 1.8 ltd

10-18-2008, 12:43 AM	#2
fearview Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Jakarta Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,067	fa 50 1.4 or da 40 2.8

10-18-2008, 03:21 AM	#3
suro Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Ekaterinburg Posts: 344	Pentax FA 35mm /2.0 AL, Pentax FA 43mm /1.9 Limited

10-18-2008, 04:06 AM	#4
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Pentax FA35/2 is better than Canon 35/2.

10-18-2008, 05:49 AM	#5
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Originally posted by drwho9437 I'm a Canon user that has a K10D kicking around, though I may be parting with it, I only tried it with one lens. I like the 35mm f2 on my 400D, and I'm wondering to people who have used that lens which lens you think are better that Pentax makes optically (not build wise). Other than the 31mm 1.8 ltd Hi there. If you are happy with EF 35mm f2, you are really easy to please. I think that canon lens is a blooper that it is no way worth its cost at all according to the current standard of lens making. Even pentax Fa 35mm f2 will beat that lens so easily without a doubt. Of course, it is the person behind the camera that matters. This canon lens is a way to push all the canon users to buy L lenses. So older series do not get updated to prompt users going to the L series. L series are often on the same par as sigma EX series. The difference is minor and sigma charges less in terms of pricing. Speaking of pentax lens selection, go for EF 35mm f2 if you are already happy with Canon EF 35mm f2. Any lens you can think of in the lens line-up of Pentax will be at least as good as that particular canon EF lens.

10-18-2008, 08:50 AM	#6
Not Registered Guest	I would also say that you havent use a good example. Had you say the Canon 35 f1.4 and the answer would be different. BUt pretty much every pentax from 24 to 50 beats the Canon 35 f2 by a long margin.

10-18-2008, 11:30 AM	#7
Jonson PL Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,842	Originally posted by roentarre Hi there. If you are happy with EF 35mm f2, you are really easy to please. I think that canon lens is a blooper that it is no way worth its cost at all according to the current standard of lens making. Even pentax Fa 35mm f2 will beat that lens so easily without a doubt. Of course, it is the person behind the camera that matters. This canon lens is a way to push all the canon users to buy L lenses. So older series do not get updated to prompt users going to the L series. L series are often on the same par as sigma EX series. The difference is minor and sigma charges less in terms of pricing. Speaking of pentax lens selection, go for EF 35mm f2 if you are already happy with Canon EF 35mm f2. Any lens you can think of in the lens line-up of Pentax will be at least as good as that particular canon EF lens. Hi James, thanks for your evaluations. It is nice for the rest of us, in the process of building up a kit, to have the thoughts from some of the ones with vast experience. What are your thoughts on the standard Canon 50/1.8 ?

10-18-2008, 01:05 PM	#8
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Originally posted by Jonson PL Hi James, thanks for your evaluations. It is nice for the rest of us, in the process of building up a kit, to have the thoughts from some of the ones with vast experience. What are your thoughts on the standard Canon 50/1.8 ? Not so vast experience, Sune. Just got a few strong opinions regarding some partcular lenses where I felt cheated buying into them ... Canon 50mm f1.8 performs better than than Canon 50mm f1.4 in terms of measurebation using MTF etc. I disliked both lenses and they performed on the same level, hesitant autofocus with severe backfocusing. Both were contructed in flimsy pasticky build while Canon 50mm f1.4 charged a premium! When lighting is ideal, canon 50mm f1.8 can perform well but its consistency in AG and image quality also varies. The stern defender of all things canon 50mm Joemama admitted the inconsistent image performance even focusing is not a concern. The bokeh is terrible with spetacular highlight being in crescent shape. Harsh edges and most of background become chalky desaturated lumps. A real frustration. This is still a great lens (because it is cheap) since it is a lot better than the standard kit lens from canon. Of course, it is the person behind the camera that matters. This lens is certainly a fine lens when a very good photographer is avoiding all the problematic areas to render nice images.

10-18-2008, 01:08 PM	#9
drwho9437 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 31 Original Poster	Originally posted by roentarre Hi there. If you are happy with EF 35mm f2, you are really easy to please. I think that canon lens is a blooper that it is no way worth its cost at all according to the current standard of lens making. I think it is pretty clear that you had a bad copy or are just wildly bias. The 35 f2 performs as well as the 35 f1.4 L by objective accounts, (slrgear) and many subjective accounts (Fred Miranda for instance has 8.8 vs 9.6 for the f2 vs the L, 8.8 is a very good lens, the 50 1.4 I think is 9, known bad lens are 5-7.5) I'm curious how many pictures you have shot with the glass in question? Over all the 35mm macro 2.8 pentax is slightly inferior to the 35mm f2 when processed in RAW in lightroom A/B on the same subject (on my copies). Photozone results would suggest that the lens' corner performance is weak, and that the Pentax flavor is better. If you are going to suggest a lens, please refrain from snide remarks, and stick to the time of use of both this reference lens or the 35mm 1.4 if you wish and the glass you feel is better (and why in what areas is it better). Thanks very much.

10-18-2008, 01:25 PM	#10
drwho9437 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 31 Original Poster	Originally posted by ogl Pentax FA35/2 is better than Canon 35/2. That seems quite possible in most respects, other than price.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2008, 01:44 PM	#11
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	I will refrain from revealing my opinions. I have never used a canon lens.

10-18-2008, 02:54 PM	#14
Tom S. Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 4,317	Why not compare the Pentax 35mm F2 against the Canon 35mm F2? Pentax: Pentax SMC-FA 35mm f/2 AL - Review / Test Report Canon: Canon EF 35mm f/2 - Test Report / Review Here's a hint - the Pentax is better...

10-18-2008, 06:21 PM	#15
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	Photomaximum, it would be quite easy to compare Canon & Pentax 35 f2 lenses FF. Put them on a film body! The right film easily beats any FF digital for resolution (think Tech Pan here). Wouldn't deal Sigma out so soon. Bet the Sigma 70 macro will take any canon macro! All companies make good lenses. There are even some good Canon ones. thanks barondla Check out POINT & SHOOT CONTEST #11 WINNERS in P&S forum. Enter #12. Any brand camera. Any subject. Enter now!