Is Pentax DA 35 mm f2.4 AL best "normal" lens for new prime user?

Since converting to digital from my old film Pentax SV SLR film camera by purchasing the K10D, and the K-x, all of my lenses have been zoom lenses. I have now purchased, though I have not yet received, the new Pentax SMC DA 35mm f2.4 AL lens.

So this is my first adventure into prime lenses in the digital age with AF and full auto f stop.

Before I made this purchase I did a (not extensive) but reasonable amount of research. From what I have been able to find out this new lens, though manufactured with less expensive materials (read-- all plastic body) seems to be an excellent lens. And according to several sites that have run extensive tests on it, it seems to perform better than some of the more expensive Pentax "normal" glass.

What has been the experience of members of this form regarding this issue?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

as you stated, this is a great lens, especially for the price. but I feel the consensus is that both the 35mm 2.8 Macro and FA Limited 31mm 1.8 noticeably outperform the 35 2.4.

Runsld; Thanks for the response. But according to this review the FA 31 1.8 limited does not show the same or better results to the new cheaper Pentax 35 in question.

Go Here, http://www.photozone.de/pentax/122-pentax-smc-fa-31mm-f18-al-limited-review--test-report?start=1

and see the "Limited" test and look up the 35 AL and compare.

What am I missing?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

the 31 & 35 m were tested on the 10m sensor so on average you can add 20% to make them equal the 16m k5 sensor ie @ f4 the 31 would yield 2820lw/ph @f4
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation

Hi ozdean. I checked the 31 and it would yield 2814 with a 20 % increase as you have indicated. The 35 AL is at 2723 in the center at f4. Not bad for $188 delivered.

The other figures at Photozone seem good also. Also try this sight in Poland. A very through test of the 35 AL it seems to me .
http://www.lenstip.com/299.1-Lens_review-Pentax_smc_DA_35_mm_f_2.4_AL.html

Read the whole report if you like, but at least check his resolution figures on the 35 AL against other well thought of "normal" camera lenses. I just discovered this site today and was quite impressed with his thoroughness

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

Hi eagle had a quick read and the review seems very fair. I don't own one but those who do, like the lens and I can see why. I have a DA35 2.8 because I really enjoy macro otherwise this lens would certainly do the job for a good normal lens.
2.4 will be fine, I find most fast lenses are soft under f2 anyway.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation

ozdean: I would love to afford the Pentax DA35 f2.8 macro limited, but $590.00 is a whole lot more than $188.00. $402.00 difference is more than my wallet will take, or the wife for that matter. That will buy a lot of hamburger.

I would love to do some macro work, but I guess I will try and find some good close up lens for the 35 AL.

Anyway, I will get back to something other than a zoom lens. I love zooms, but the fixed focal lens is what I broke into photography with. It will be good to get back to one of them.

Thank you for your response.

Don
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

eagle2a said:

ozdean: I would love to afford the Pentax DA35 f2.8 macro limited, but $590.00 is a whole lot more than $188.00. $402.00 difference is more than my wallet will take, or the wife for that matter. That will buy a lot of hamburger.

I would love to do some macro work, but I guess I will try and find some good close up lens for the 35 AL.

Anyway, I will get back to something other than a zoom lens. I love zooms, but the fixed focal lens is what I broke into photography with. It will be good to get back to one of them.

Thank you for your response.

Click to expand...

hahahaha....dude, whatever keeps the peace at home is THE BEST LENSE!! hahaha...

I mean you ask a question then later after the fact reveal the decision was made before you asked the question...domestic tranquility is worth it's weight in Pentax Limited Silver.

Go with the 35/2.4 and you'll enjoy it no end. Be warned though that these newer primes are addictive and like Lay's --"nobody can eat just one" -- welcome to back to prime shooting but better....welcome to the "new" LBA.

--

"...know the difference between photographers and puppies? Puppies eventually stop whining!!!..."

The question was "Is Pentax DA 35 mm f2.4 AL best "normal" lens for new prime user ? ", and not if that DA 35 f 2.4 is good for the money.

DA 35 f 2.4 is good for the money, but in terms of gradations rendering and bokeh, FA 31 f 1.8 Limited is galaxy apart better for APS-C, and FA 35 f 2 is better for FF35.

DA 35 f 2, a scaled down FA 35 f2, show better bokeh then DA 35 f 2.8 LTD - no MACRO distance involved !, with softer separation, but yet worlds apart from FA 31 f 1.8 LIMITED on APS-C.

Yet I prefer FA 35 f 2 on full frame 35, where FA 31 is way too creamy for my taste.

You may want to consider a used limited?

The 40 & 43 are also great lens. I can vouch for the 43, though a it's little longer than normal at 65mm-ish. I did get mine used. The limiteds have no motor inside, so fewer things to break, which makes them a good long-term investment.

I've never used the 35 f/2.4, so I can't help there.

--
-----------------------------------------------
Miles Green
Corfu

It would seem to me that the true "normal" focal length for a APC-C sensor is 32mm to 35mm. However I see that Canon and Nikon still make new 50mm lenses.

Being a Pentax shooter I very rarely read anything about Canon and Nikon. But in doing my research for this new normal lens that Pentax is now making, and is the subject of this thread, I also came across an interesting characteristic of Canon and Nikon lenses. Namely they do not all have internal shake reduction built-in. And since they do not have any shake reduction built into the camera they have a lot of glass running around out here that cannot aid us, "shaky hand holders".

And since they have a couple of new 50mm lenses on the market that are quite sharp, and fast and looked to be fairly well-built for around $200-$220, for me at least, it makes the new Pentax DA 35 f/2.4 AL look like just that much better a deal.

I am not trying to be argumentative with those who disagree, and the reason I started this thread was to elicit responses from those shooters who have this new Pentax lens, but it just seems to me after reading the various reviews of this lens, that for the money, it is the best normal lens currently on the market. no offense intended for those who feel otherwise.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

eagle2a said:

It would seem to me that the true "normal" focal length for a APC-C sensor is 32mm to 35mm. However I see that Canon and Nikon still make new 50mm lenses.

Being a Pentax shooter I very rarely read anything about Canon and Nikon. But in doing my research for this new normal lens that Pentax is now making, and is the subject of this thread, I also came across an interesting characteristic of Canon and Nikon lenses. Namely they do not all have internal shake reduction built-in. And since they do not have any shake reduction built into the camera they have a lot of glass running around out here that cannot aid us, "shaky hand holders".

And since they have a couple of new 50mm lenses on the market that are quite sharp, and fast and looked to be fairly well-built for around $200-$220, for me at least, it makes the new Pentax DA 35 f/2.4 AL look like just that much better a deal.

I am not trying to be argumentative with those who disagree, and the reason I started this thread was to elicit responses from those shooters who have this new Pentax lens, but it just seems to me after reading the various reviews of this lens, that for the money, it is the best normal lens currently on the market. no offense intended for those who feel otherwise.

Click to expand...

Sony have a 35mm f1.8 and arguably more effective AS built into the body.

Aside from the 35mm f2 which seems to be flying around at inflated prices the 35mm f2.4 is the only choice for a new lens that's affordable.

Personally I just don't find f2.4 and a plastic mount appealing it's cheap but not really cheap enough with those 2 issues.

One thing I hope Ricoh might do is actually be a bit more generous and work out they can make some decent affordable primes that are fast.

If you're aiming for a 50mm equivalent lens from 35mm days then you need to work out that speed is one of the most important factors for such a lens. It's either a more expensive f1.4 or a more affordable f1.7 or f1.8 if you wander outside that you're asking for trouble.

I appreciate your point of view Barry, but what do you mean by this statement.

"If you're aiming for a 50mm equivalent lens from 35mm days then you need to work out that speed is one of the most important factors for such a lens. It's either a more expensive f1.4 or a more affordable f1.7 or f1.8 if you wander outside that you're asking for trouble."

In particular your comment, "if you wander outside that you're asking for trouble." What do you mean?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

eagle2a said:

I appreciate your point of view Barry, but what do you mean by this statement.

"If you're aiming for a 50mm equivalent lens from 35mm days then you need to work out that speed is one of the most important factors for such a lens. It's either a more expensive f1.4 or a more affordable f1.7 or f1.8 if you wander outside that you're asking for trouble."

In particular your comment, "if you wander outside that you're asking for trouble." What do you mean?

Click to expand...

It means if you compare Pentax to it's rivals they offer 35mm f1.8 lenses and all offer 50mm f1.8 ones too. Pentax offer neither!

I can see how a 35mm could be more useful for general use than a 50mm lens but I think a lot of folks are looking for "lens speed" above all else as well as many looking for a not that expensive price. Which is one reason these lenses exist in the first place.

Making a 35mm f2.4 lens isn't logical IMO I'm sure it's selling just fine only out of pure desperation from K mount users. Some might not care for my views but Pentax users are being short changed with the 35mm f2.4 lens. Nobody is saying it's bad just it's not going to pull anyone into Pentax who's thinking of the system.

Barry: You make a valid point when you say, and I quote, "Making a 35mm f2.4 lens isn't logical IMO I'm sure it's selling just fine only out of pure desperation from K mount users. Some might not care for my views but Pentax users are being short changed with the 35mm f2.4 lens. Nobody is saying it's bad just it's not going to pull anyone into Pentax who's thinking of the system."

In fact one of the lens reviewers made a similar comment regarding Pentax and taken advantage of their customers because they do not have the level of competition from the independent lens makers.

But I do not feel today that the principle issue is trying to get the very last ounce of speed out of the lens. With today's modern digital sensors able to have very acceptable files at ISO ratings of 1600 and some even at 3200, lens speed does not carry near the value that it once did. I am like all photographers, I prefer to shoot from 800 ISO down rather than up. But I also appreciate having a lens that is lighter, less bulky, and has excellent resolution corner to corner and not just in the center of the lens, and preferably at all apertures. And last, but certainly not least, is price. Now having said this I want to emphasize the fact that I like a fast lens as much as the next person. But when you consider the fact that f/2.4 is approximately only 1.5 f-stops less than a f/1.4 lens, and can be had for considerably less money, less weight and bulk, and gives good resolution figures from corner to corner at all f-stops, then it just seems to me that this is the way to go for folks on a limited budget who like prime shooting.

You have my best regards.

Don
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

I've read through the thread to this point so I'll try to answer some of the questions you've raised.

When you look at sites like Photozone they measure things like resolution, aberrations etc. They do that because tools are available for making such measurements. However, there are aspects of lens performance that can't be measured objectively: for example, "micro contrast" is the way a lens can pick up tiny differences in colour and good contrast makes images look more lifelike.

Lenses like the FA31 (especially) and the DA35/2.8 (to a certain extent) have contrast characteristics that mean their images are nicer to look at than other lenses that have the same resolution. To be fair, though, the differences aren't always that obvious and many people think they are too expensive - I personally was happy to pay the DA35/2.8 price but can't bring myself to pay three times as much for an FA31.

So to your original question "is the DA35/2.4 the best normal lens" the answer is "no"; but ask "is the DA35/2.4 the best value normal lens" and the answer is probably "yes". At least, "yes" in Pentax land. Look at Nikon, for example, and there are people who say the 35/1.8 is better.

But here we reach another tricky issue: although makers quote f-stop, what can be more important is t-stop. Both the DA35/2.4 and Nikkor 38/1.8 have t-stops slower than their f-stops and the Nikkor suffers more, so the difference between the two lenses isn't really very much.

This raises the question of why you want a fast(ish) lens. If it's for low-light work t-stop is the more important measure, but in these days of great high-ISO sensors reaaly fast lenses are less important than they used to be. If you want wide aperture for DOF control, it's true there's a difference between 2.4 and 1.8 (and going further, 1.4) but at 35mm you're unlikely to be shooting subjects where tight DOF is critical.

For tight DOF you're more likely to go to 50mm (75mm eq) where you can get f/1.4. But, of course, you are then out of normal lens territory so you have different needs anyway.

--
---

Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1983, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

Lots. They are tested on two different bodies. Is the DA35/2.4 the best 'normal' lens for the K-mount? No; not in terms of resolution, speed, build, or contrast. Is it the cheapest 'normal' lens (AF) for the K-mount? Yes.

eagle2a said:

Runsld; Thanks for the response. But according to this review the FA 31 1.8 limited does not show the same or better results to the new cheaper Pentax 35 in question.

Go Here, http://www.photozone.de/pentax/122-pentax-smc-fa-31mm-f18-al-limited-review--test-report?start=1

and see the "Limited" test and look up the 35 AL and compare.

What am I missing?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

Click to expand...

--
My Website
http://www.andrewallenphoto.com

My Pentax Street Gallery - Arranged By Lens Used
http://photobucket.com/andy_allen

My DA 35/2.8 is optically just slightly better than my DA 16-45. By better I mean it has less CA. Resolution and contrast are almost identical. So, DA 35/2.4, even if it was let’s say 10% optically worse (if it was possible to make such quantitative comparison), at its 2.5 times lower price is a “perfect” lens. And a plastic mount at such low lens weight shouldn’t cause any problems. Something else is, if you insist on having macro capability.

Gerry: Thank you very much for the informed response.

For those forum members, who are like me, and had no idea of what a T. stop was I will include this explanation from Wikipedia.org.

"T-stops

Since all lenses absorb some portion of the light passing through them (particularly zoom lenses containing many elements), T-stops are sometimes used instead of f-stops for exposure purposes, especially for motion picture camera lenses. The T in T-stop stands for transmission.[6] The practice became popular in cinematographic usage before the advent of zoom lenses, where fixed focal length lenses were calibrated to T-stops: This allowed the turret-mounted lenses to be changed without affecting the overall scene brightness. Lenses were bench-tested individually for actual light transmission and assigned T stops accordingly. Modern cinematographic lenses now usually tend to be factory-calibrated in T-stops. T-stops measure the amount of light transmitted through the lens in practice, and are equivalent in light transmission to the f-stop of an ideal lens with 100% transmission. Since all lenses absorb some quantity of light, the T-number of any given aperture on a lens will always be greater than the f-number. Consequently, the depth of field for a given T-number will be slightly less than that when the f-number is set to the same value, since the aperture diameter is slightly greater. In recent years, advances in lens technology and in film and sensor exposure latitude have reduced the need for T-stop values, although T-stops are still considered industry standard for cinematographic lenses."

Again thank you for leading me on a quest for "Greater photographic mental illumination".

Best regards,

Don

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26289929@N05/

Don

eagle2a said:

But I do not feel today that the principle issue is trying to get the very last ounce of speed out of the lens. With today's modern digital sensors able to have very acceptable files at ISO ratings of 1600 and some even at 3200, lens speed does not carry near the value that it once did.

Click to expand...

Problem is we have good sensor performance across the board from other makers so all things being equal an 35mm f1.8 Nikon or Sony user is going to have an edge on a 35mm f2.4 one you could argue the speed difference is not massive and you're right. But out of principle I would not buy such a lens as this

Pentax users should expect the same or similar to other makers.

eagle2a said:

I am like all photographers, I prefer to shoot from 800 ISO down rather than up. But I also appreciate having a lens that is lighter, less bulky, and has excellent resolution corner to corner and not just in the center of the lens, and preferably at all apertures. And last, but certainly not least, is price. Now having said this I want to emphasize the fact that I like a fast lens as much as the next person. But when you consider the fact that f/2.4 is approximately only 1.5 f-stops less than a f/1.4 lens, and can be had for considerably less money, less weight and bulk, and gives good resolution figures from corner to corner at all f-stops, then it just seems to me that this is the way to go for folks on a limited budget who like prime shooting.

Click to expand...

In some situations a stop or more of light can be a problem for very low light shooters. But my position is one of "Pentax users deserve equal treatment" Even with the slower 35mm to have a plastic mount and no hood is penny pinching to the extreme.

I would rather pay more for a 35mm f1.8 with a metal mount and a hood gladly pay more as it is.

I hope Ricoh discontinue this lens and replace it with a more competitive model. This was Hoya at their penny pinching worse. Trying to protect limited lenses by not making it too fast. The only reason it's f2.4 is because if it were f2.8 it would get laughed out of the building.

It's the way to go because there is nothing else on offer!