Reading mode: Light Dark

Who's Using The FA 35 F2 As Their Only/Primary Lens

Go to last post
S

snake_b

Senior Member
Messages
4,680
Reaction score
3
Location
US
So now I got some great feedback from you guys about the FA43 and sadly, it doesn't appear that it will fit my needs as much as I hoped. Maybe in the future I'll make it a consideration, but for now, I can't do it.

Next to the FA 43, the FA35 f2 has been something of interest for me

Who is using it as their primary? Of course, FL aside, I'm wondering if I can make it work (the FL is something I can make work, especially as part of a two to three prime set). I would shoot wide open quite often, in dark concert conditions, smoky, backlit stages, as well as from the stages.

The FA was removed because it wasn't as sharp as I"d like at wide open (as displayed in the FA 43 thread).

Naturally, it's not as fast as the Sigma 30 1.4, which I am considering and are in similar price ranges on the street (used FA35 vs. new Sigma).
 
Forgot to mention that I plan on using this on a K5.

And it would be interesting if anyone has feedback on this vs. the Sigma 30 1.4. It almost seems a bit crazy to want to pick up a used FA35 for close to what a new Sigma 30 1.4 would cost.

...or is it?
 
Man, that's a big differential.

I figured going by the reviews and examples posted on the pentax forum that can't be linked here would be fairly reliable, no?
RemcoR said:
You must be joking right?

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/145-sigma-af-30mm-f14-ex-dc-pentax-k-review--test-report?start=2

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/123-pentax-smc-fa-35mm-f2-al-photozone-review--test-report?start=2

RemcoR
--
Pentax K-5 K100D Sigma 17-70 F2.8/4.5 DC Macro
Pentax 35mm F2 AL Pentax 55-300mm 4-5.8
http://picasaweb.google.com/RemcoRog
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/RemcoRog
Click to expand...
 
I've looked at alot of images taken with the FA 35 F2 and when they are really really sharp.

Check Flickr for examples.

Can't go wrong with that lens for your application. Surely you can find a good example for an OK price..

--
Reflections, understandings, discoveries and intimations..
 
I couldn't stretch to the 35/2 but picked up a used 35/2.4 plastic fantastic which apart from the loss of 1/2 stop has similar performance with possibly a touch less CA. For day to day shooting believe both Pentax lenses would outperform the Sigma in most aspects when a big aperture isn't required. The 35mm FL is a great 'walk around' FL and I am always torn between this and my 24mm.
 
It's really funny you say this. I've seen nothing but great stuff coming from that lens, to be honest.

I also saw some talk and comparisons somewhere in the past between it and the FA35 and seriously, the output looks pretty much identical. I'm even wondering if there truly is a half-stop of a difference or if it's in reality less than we all have been told. I used one in-shop and it produced quite nice photos with the K5. I also saw that it needs a hood, having used my hand to block some contrast-reducing side lighting.

Even at a half stop on the K5, which can be bumped up in ISO, it's not bad at all, possibly even for the concert shooting.

I just found it quite interesting that it doesn't seem to be so far off from the f2.0. As if it's possible closer to F2 than we think.
bavarius6 said:
I couldn't stretch to the 35/2 but picked up a used 35/2.4 plastic fantastic which apart from the loss of 1/2 stop has similar performance with possibly a touch less CA. For day to day shooting believe both Pentax lenses would outperform the Sigma in most aspects when a big aperture isn't required. The 35mm FL is a great 'walk around' FL and I am always torn between this and my 24mm.
Click to expand...
 
F stops are by definition an inaccurate measure of a lens speed.

Being the focal length / entrance pull diameter its a purely physical number and makes no measure of the light absorbed by the glass.

T-stop on the other hand are f-stop correct to the efficiency of the light transmission.

It is quite possible for an f2.4 lens to be as fast or faster than an F2 lens if its glass transmits more light.

T-stops are the f-stop of the lens corrected for its absorbency and reflectance. The T-stop is the true speed of the lens.
snake_b said:
It's really funny you say this. I've seen nothing but great stuff coming from that lens, to be honest.

I also saw some talk and comparisons somewhere in the past between it and the FA35 and seriously, the output looks pretty much identical. I'm even wondering if there truly is a half-stop of a difference or if it's in reality less than we all have been told. I used one in-shop and it produced quite nice photos with the K5. I also saw that it needs a hood, having used my hand to block some contrast-reducing side lighting.

Even at a half stop on the K5, which can be bumped up in ISO, it's not bad at all, possibly even for the concert shooting.

I just found it quite interesting that it doesn't seem to be so far off from the f2.0. As if it's possible closer to F2 than we think.
bavarius6 said:
I couldn't stretch to the 35/2 but picked up a used 35/2.4 plastic fantastic which apart from the loss of 1/2 stop has similar performance with possibly a touch less CA. For day to day shooting believe both Pentax lenses would outperform the Sigma in most aspects when a big aperture isn't required. The 35mm FL is a great 'walk around' FL and I am always torn between this and my 24mm.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall
 
So has anyone tried to measure the claims of the 35 2.4 being effectively faster than its claimed f speed rating?
awaldram said:
Being the focal length / entrance pull diameter its a purely physical number and makes no measure of the light absorbed by the glass.

T-stop on the other hand are f-stop correct to the efficiency of the light transmission.

It is quite possible for an f2.4 lens to be as fast or faster than an F2 lens if its glass transmits more light.

T-stops are the f-stop of the lens corrected for its absorbency and reflectance. The T-stop is the true speed of the lens.
snake_b said:
It's really funny you say this. I've seen nothing but great stuff coming from that lens, to be honest.

I also saw some talk and comparisons somewhere in the past between it and the FA35 and seriously, the output looks pretty much identical. I'm even wondering if there truly is a half-stop of a difference or if it's in reality less than we all have been told. I used one in-shop and it produced quite nice photos with the K5. I also saw that it needs a hood, having used my hand to block some contrast-reducing side lighting.

Even at a half stop on the K5, which can be bumped up in ISO, it's not bad at all, possibly even for the concert shooting.

I just found it quite interesting that it doesn't seem to be so far off from the f2.0. As if it's possible closer to F2 than we think.
bavarius6 said:
I couldn't stretch to the 35/2 but picked up a used 35/2.4 plastic fantastic which apart from the loss of 1/2 stop has similar performance with possibly a touch less CA. For day to day shooting believe both Pentax lenses would outperform the Sigma in most aspects when a big aperture isn't required. The 35mm FL is a great 'walk around' FL and I am always torn between this and my 24mm.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall
Click to expand...
 
snake_b said:
And it would be interesting if anyone has feedback on this vs. the Sigma 30 1.4. It almost seems a bit crazy to want to pick up a used FA35 for close to what a new Sigma 30 1.4 would cost.
...or is it?
Click to expand...
Pro FA35:
The FA35 is very light and compact, unlike the Sigma.
The FA35 takes 49mm filters like a lot of other Pentax primes.
The FA35 has "Pentax colours" ? (or does it? I have one and I can't really say)

Con FA35:
The FA35 has severe purple fringing at f/2 in hard sunshine.

Regards,
--Anders.
 
snake_b said:
So has anyone tried to measure the claims of the 35 2.4 being effectively faster than its claimed f speed rating?
Click to expand...
No lens is as fast as its F rating the 35 F2 is not f2 and the 35 f2.4 is not f2.4 but effective t-stops may be close.

The only way I can see for a user to compare would be to lock exposure using manual and swap the f2 for the 2.4 and see whether the image was brighter or darker.

I'm not saying it is the case as I have know idea but is the reason that slower lens can be brighter than their faster cousins.

The Sigma 300 f2.8 is about 1/3 stop faster than the 120-300 F2.8.

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall
 
See, when trying this lens out, by local dealer also said something, translated into english: "This lens is much better at low light than you would expect for f2.4".

I truly don't know. I've even read in various Pentax forums that people are claiming that the internals are very closely related to the FA35. Again, I can't confirm or deny.
awaldram said:
snake_b said:
So has anyone tried to measure the claims of the 35 2.4 being effectively faster than its claimed f speed rating?
Click to expand...
No lens is as fast as its F rating the 35 F2 is not f2 and the 35 f2.4 is not f2.4 but effective t-stops may be close.

The only way I can see for a user to compare would be to lock exposure using manual and swap the f2 for the 2.4 and see whether the image was brighter or darker.

I'm not saying it is the case as I have know idea but is the reason that slower lens can be brighter than their faster cousins.

The Sigma 300 f2.8 is about 1/3 stop faster than the 120-300 F2.8.

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall
Click to expand...
 
snake_b said:
It's really funny you say this. I've seen nothing but great stuff coming from that lens, to be honest.

I also saw some talk and comparisons somewhere in the past between it and the FA35 and seriously, the output looks pretty much identical. I'm even wondering if there truly is a half-stop of a difference or if it's in reality less than we all have been told. I used one in-shop and it produced quite nice photos with the K5. I also saw that it needs a hood, having used my hand to block some contrast-reducing side lighting.
Click to expand...
I have no experience with the 35 f2 but my 35 f2.4 produces sharp results at 2.4 and amazing detail at f3.2-f4. It is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. I printed a b&w landscape of an old oak grove 18x12 and it was so packed full of edge-to-edge detail I had finally had to print it at 30x20 to feel like I was seeing all there was to see. That was taken with my K-x. I love the lens. I got it at $170 but even the current $220 price is a bargain. I wouldn't hesitate to buy it again. I'm very interested to see the 50mm bargain lens when it comes out.

No major CA issues so far. The bokeh is a little nervous above 3.2 though but not bad. I have read that it's mainly foreground bokeh that gets nervous while the background remains smoother. Haven't really tested it that specifically yet. Curved aperture blades would have been great in this lens but Pentax isn't stupid.

Certainly worth your consideration and in any case a great backup lens.

--

Any government that has the power to correct any injustice and level any inequality also has the power to do ANYTHING it wants.
 
Thanks. It's cheap enough where I can always try it out, but likely too slow for the concert pics I want to make in that FL range.

If I'm really indecisive, I could always just get a Fuji X100 ;)
SRT201 said:
snake_b said:
It's really funny you say this. I've seen nothing but great stuff coming from that lens, to be honest.

I also saw some talk and comparisons somewhere in the past between it and the FA35 and seriously, the output looks pretty much identical. I'm even wondering if there truly is a half-stop of a difference or if it's in reality less than we all have been told. I used one in-shop and it produced quite nice photos with the K5. I also saw that it needs a hood, having used my hand to block some contrast-reducing side lighting.
Click to expand...
I have no experience with the 35 f2 but my 35 f2.4 produces sharp results at 2.4 and amazing detail at f3.2-f4. It is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. I printed a b&w landscape of an old oak grove 18x12 and it was so packed full of edge-to-edge detail I had finally had to print it at 30x20 to feel like I was seeing all there was to see. That was taken with my K-x. I love the lens. I got it at $170 but even the current $220 price is a bargain. I wouldn't hesitate to buy it again. I'm very interested to see the 50mm bargain lens when it comes out.

No major CA issues so far. The bokeh is a little nervous above 3.2 though but not bad. I have read that it's mainly foreground bokeh that gets nervous while the background remains smoother. Haven't really tested it that specifically yet. Curved aperture blades would have been great in this lens but Pentax isn't stupid.

Certainly worth your consideration and in any case a great backup lens.

--

Any government that has the power to correct any injustice and level any inequality also has the power to do ANYTHING it wants.
Click to expand...
 
DxOMark measures T stops. The DA35 f2.4 AL comes out at 2.6 which is a common sort of difference for consumer grade lenses. If you want accurate lens speeds look at the new Zeiss cinema lenses which are specified in T stops.

--
Steve

http://www.pbase.com/steephill
 
awaldram said:
snake_b said:
So has anyone tried to measure the claims of the 35 2.4 being effectively faster than its claimed f speed rating?
Click to expand...
No lens is as fast as its F rating the 35 F2 is not f2 and the 35 f2.4 is not f2.4 but effective t-stops may be close.

The only way I can see for a user to compare would be to lock exposure using manual and swap the f2 for the 2.4 and see whether the image was brighter or darker.
Click to expand...
I just did that test with my 35 f/2.4 and my 18-135. Using a grey card as a target, the images with the 18-135 were between 0.3 and 0.4 stops darker than those from the 35. Since f-stops and T-stops tend to be closer in prime lenses, I'd guess that the difference between the 35 f/2.4 and the 35 f/2 would be less than that.

Of course, a direct test of the two 35mm lenses would be much better.

Another consideration when comparing the two 35s is weight. Before I sold my Pentax gear a few years ago, I used the 35 f/2 on a K100D for street photography, and I really liked that kit. Based on published weights, the K-5 with the 35 f/2.4 weighs only 6 grams more than the K100D with the f/2. The newer kit combines a much more capable camera, with a lens that's arguably just as good, at similar weight, and slightly smaller size.
--
Jeff
 
The 35/2 is special. I have it and although it was OK to use on a DSLR, it especiallyworks well with the K 01.
--
Variance is Evil!
 
As an update, I just bought a used FA 35 after missing my chance (which I would have won without technical issues) to buy an FA 43. Yes, I know there is little to compare with them. They are both extremely expensive, used and new, on the Euro market, though reasonable used. The FA 35 new is usually about 700 Euros new, with price gougers starting to dominate and sending prices higher. Some are even selling used examples for 600+ euros, which I don't understand, unless the lens is simply that good. In fact, the place I got it from priced this used example at 500 euros and I simply sent my price to him, got a rejection and counteroffer to 400, still refused, then got mine for 365. It's about 30 euros higher than recent ones, but not the highest I've seen for used. Additionally, prices here have gone up SIGNIFICANTLY since the panic of rising Pentax prices has begun. Even Sigmas have gone up by 20%.

Anyhow, I think I can make the FL work for street shooting and some of my wider-end concert shots. I'm hoping this lens works out as my primary lens for most shooting. The FL I can adapt to, but I hope the rest of the lens' characteristics are good and complements the K5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top