| Author: | | Veteran Member Registered: April, 2012 Location: Melbs Posts: 1,240 | | Review Date: September 14, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | that magical fov in crop land | | Cons: | zilch | |
LOVE IT!!!
I kind of collected this just because I had the 28 M, and a 50 M at either end, turns out the (on a crop) the 50 feels to portraity, and the 28 a little fickle to focus. (Slowly developing a lens collecting persuasion here..)
Can't explain it, why the 28mm feels fickle that is, but in regards for general use, the 35mm just feels good.
I suppose it's having started with a 50mm on film, the 35mm covers the same amount of area so here I am in familiar territory
Can't fault it wide open, out of focus areas are clean, its a ripper  | | | | | | | Inactive Account Registered: September, 2011 Posts: 6 | | Review Date: June 27, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | sharpness, contrasty, great on film | | Cons: | none | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-r
| |
Optically identically to the acclaimed A35/2.8. The difference in review score here may just be a matter of sample variations.
I must have a pretty darn good copy of the lens. It's contrasty wide open with excellent sharpness across the frame. Comparable to M50 1.7 in terms of sharpness. It's close to a normal lens, a little bit on the long side, when used on APS-C. Mounted on a film camera, it becomes a wide angle lens. I prefer the FoV it delivers on film more than APS-C. Something to consider if you are also a film shooter.
I've not seen this lens on sale often. The M28s are a lot more common in the used market.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: July, 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Posts: 3,948 | | Review Date: July 23, 2011 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Small sharp and the right focal length | | Cons: | None really | |
This is another one of Pentax's excellent 35mm offerings. On digital it has an appealing focal length, and withthe coatings and general design excels at sharp images wide open and 1 stop down we are into ultra-sharp. Contrast is very good and the size is terrific....very small.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: February, 2010 Location: Eerbeek Posts: 1,857 | | Review Date: January 22, 2011 | Recommended
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | light, small, versatile, attractive FoV | | Cons: | not too sharp, some distortion | |
I used this lens for over 20 years as my main optics. I also used the 2/85mm, but for specific purposes, and while I had the 4/200mm, I rarely used that focal length (all on film).
The field of view is attractive (on film or FF), and the lens is very versatile. I did not have the money for the 1.4 or even 2.0/35mm at the time, although I later acquired the latter as well. Nonetheless, it served its purpose, but in retrospect I can see that it did not shine as some Pentax lenses do. It certainly doesn’t have the wow factor. Not in sharpness, colour rendition, or boqeh.
Mechanically, it has been flawless. Very sturdy and unlikely to give up any time soon, such is the built quality. Yet I would search for another 35mm were I in the market for one today. I'm not, as I now have the Pentax 645-A 3.5/35mm, which is lightyears ahead.
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2011 Location: Minahasa, North Celebes (Sulawesi) Posts: 586 | | Review Date: January 22, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp wide open. Colors are great. Easy to focus | | Cons: | Not so easy to find | |
This is a fun lens to use because it is easy to focus compared to my SMC-M 50mm f/1.4, but still gives quite the same quality. Colors are rich and deep. I can get close enough to capture detail with this lens, a sharp performer too, even wide open. Stepped down it gets sharper. Bokeh is pleasing.
Here's a taste:
 | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2009 Posts: 417 | | Review Date: November 9, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | sharp, short minimum focus distance | | Cons: | large in comparison to the M40, mechanism vulnerable to sticking | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 8
| |
Excellent sharpness, comparable to the 1.7/50mm, slightly less sharp.
On film, the FOV is perfect, and more normal to me than the 50, with a real feel of depth to photos, as if you are there in the scene again. Great for portraits, provided you like faces which are made rounder...photos of my baby are funky with this lens. Starts to be possible to rely upon depth of field and hyper focal focusing.
Practically though, I find that I am more likely to reach for a 28 than the 35 if I want something wider than the 50. Given the 50's are capable of such outstanding bokeh, the 35/2.8 doesn't see that much use. Story might be different on digital I guess...I am using film.
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: October, 2010 Location: Baltimore Posts: 2,542 | | Review Date: November 4, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $52.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | color, sharpness, easy focus | | Cons: | none | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
I own a Pentax SMC-M 50 1.7 and a 28 2.8 and this 35 2.8 is just as sharp as either wide open. I am really surprised this lens is only rated 7ish.
It seems to focus easier than either of the others using manual focus on a DSLR. This, IMHO is the i perfect walking around lens...
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: October, 2008 Location: Great Plain, Hungary Posts: 204 | | Review Date: October 27, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $45.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Optical quality, built | | Cons: | Nothing for me... | |
I just want to point out that while many rave about its A version and pay 2-3 times more for that the two lenses are actually the same lens design only in different bodies. It seems that Pentax only renewed its physical design but left everything untouched.
So if you do not mind the lack of A setting and you can live without the plastic exterior of the P-A 2.8/35mm then get this one instead. It is as good optically as the A version but better built. I have both so believe me.
The "A" might have had a touch of upgrade coating-wise but it is not obvious on the pictures taken (at least on film).
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: November, 2006 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,202 | | Review Date: May 7, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Sharp w/ good bokeh, value for money | | Cons: | Shutter blades get sticky easily due to the lubricant "leak" on to the blades holder | |
This is one of those forgotten lenses - a great performer but seldom got mentioned or recommended anywhere. I've used all 35mm prime lenses by Pentax except the 35/1.4, this M35/2.8 can easily perform as well as any other 35mm lenses, other than the K35/3.5 which is really a great performer.
If you happen to get a good copy (no oily sticky blade), and if you are confident w/ using full manual lenses, just enjoying using it don't need to look for another better one.
| | | | | | | | Review Date: April 18, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $76.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Good build quality. It has the "M" feel. 49mm Filter | | Cons: | It's a "M" short for manual everything. | |
I have only had the lens a few weeks and have been using it on my K100D. The pictures have been sharp with good color saturation. It makes a nice standard lens for the digital camera. My opinion is that it's sharper and has better contrast then Pentax's DA 18-55mm. I would say it is on par with my M-28mm f3.5 for overall picture quality. This is being said without doing a formal test.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 423 | | Review Date: September 10, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $120.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | small, relatively fast | | Cons: | nothing outstanding | |
M35/2.8 is one of those quiet performers that nobody seems to rave about.
It is a solid performer. It is sharp enough wide open and very sharp by f4. Very good contrast.
That said, it doesn't seem to have any point that "stands out", everything seems to be in the good to very-good area but no one single outstanding point.
So if you are looking for a good solid, no non-sense performer, I can recommend M35/2.8.
By the way I have only used this lens on dSLR.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: North Idaho Posts: 696 | | Review Date: January 8, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $109.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | inexpensive and plentiful | | Cons: | none | |
I purchased this lens rated in LN- condition from KEH in January of 2005. At the time, in the late '70s and early '80s, it was the 'standard' wide angle lens that people purchased if they didn't have the budget to get the more expensive 28/2.8 wide angle lens. As such, they are plentiful and readily available and are fairly inexpensive on the used market.
Construction quality is outstanding, as are all M series lenses. Optical quality is certainly quite acceptable.
I haven't used this lens much because most of my shooting opportunities and interests tend more to the telephoto than wide-angle. In the subsequent time frame, I also purchased the FA35/2.0, so have little need for the M35/2.8 these days.
It is a good little lens, and perfectly acceptable for those on a limited budget. You won't be shortchanged using the M35 rather than the newer versions. Your only limitation is that you will have to use the lens in manual exposure mode (or Av if shooting at f/2.8). And of course, you will have to manual focus. Just like the good old days.
Recommended. Only given a 5 rating because while it isn't really outstanding, neither is it inadequate in any way. It is a 'good' lens, nothing more, nothing less.
| | |
;)
;)
