Issues with Pentax DA 35mm f2.4?

I'm thinking about getting this lens and I would like to know if there are any known issues with it? Decentering, QC issues or anything else? I plan to buy the lens online so checking it first hand is not a possibility.

Nope: opinion seems to be very favourable and I haven't seen any moans about quality control. (If there was a problem, believe me there would be plenty of threads about it). It's good value and excellent optical quality by all accounts. Any item can have an unexpected fault of course so just get it from a reputable dealer who won't argue in the unlikely event that it does need returning.

Best wishes
--
Mike

Thanks for the reply Mike. You are probably right. I haven't seen any threads about possible problems and that probably speaks for itself.

I still thought it was worth asking.

My opinion is only based on a sample size of one, but I've had no trouble at all with my copy of this lens. (Not sure I'm a good enough photographer to recognize every minute problem, though.) I just wish Pentax would offer a similar inexpensive option in the 20-to-24mm range to tide me over until I can afford the 21 Ltd.

--
-- Joe S.

"We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/josephschmitt

especially for its moderate price tag the 35/2.4 is nearly perfect. It focuses fast, has hardly any issues with straylight, also not wide open. The one and only downside from my point of view is the number of only 6 diaphragm blades which sometimes leads to a more "nervous" rendering of the out-of-focus areas.
--
Joachim

Well, given the price and what all of you have just told me, I guess I can't go wrong with buying this lens, even if it's an online purchase.

I just remembered to ask. Would the lens focus equally fast with K10D as it does with newer bodies? I'm still with my faithful K10, never bothered to upgrade.

DeepThrust said:

Well, given the price and what all of you have just told me, I guess I can't go wrong with buying this lens, even if it's an online purchase.

I just remembered to ask. Would the lens focus equally fast with K10D as it does with newer bodies? I'm still with my faithful K10, never bothered to upgrade.

Click to expand...

The main improvement in focus with the newer bodies is in lower light. In normal light there shouldn't be much difference and it is a fast focusing lens (very short focus throw).

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

DeepThrust said:

Decentering ... ?

Click to expand...

Mine's pretty good and I'm a decentering obsessive.
--
tim

I have had mine for a almost a year and it's perfect. It focusses fast and is sharp. You should get it, it's a fun lens to play with.

I've only seen replies or comments wishing it had features it currently doesn't but nothing about quality control thus far.

I love mine, I forget it doesn't have a metal mount, focus scale, or quick shift focus every time I review an image from it.

C
--

http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/

"Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude; nothing can help the man with wrong one."
-Thomas Jefferson

I just got my copy of this lens this past weekend. I didn't check the production date prior to paying - it turns out that mine was manuactured in Nov. of last year! I was worried when I discovered this because of the QC stories you hear about other lenses, but mine seems to be fine aside from having some back focus (though this is probably the fault of my K20D, and can be corrected).

I've only done some preliminary shooting, so I can't give a detailed review yet. I'll just say that it's a good lens for the price, but don't expect miracles. FWIW, my DA16-45 @35mm is sharper, but of course the DA16-45 doesn't go down to f2.4 (which is why I got the DA35). Also, the review on the other forum (pentaxforums) seems to closely match my initial impressions.

Thanks for the replies guys.

photogerald said:

I've only done some preliminary shooting, so I can't give a detailed review yet. I'll just say that it's a good lens for the price, but don't expect miracles. FWIW, my DA16-45 @35mm is sharper, but of course the DA16-45 doesn't go down to f2.4 (which is why I got the DA35).

Click to expand...

I suppose it could vary depending on how good your 16-45mm is, my DA 35mm f/2.4 was noticeably sharper in the corners at all apertures. Center was probably comparable. The f/stop and a half larger aperture is useful as you point out

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

Hi,

I have the second DA 35/2.4 now as I sold nearly my whole Pentax gear in late spring and came "fully" back to Pentax in late summer. My first one I bought in February, it was the one which was tested at photozone.de ( http://www.photozone.de/pentax/598-pentax_35_24 ), my current one I bought in August - both were/are equal.
--
Joachim

viking79 said:

photogerald said:

I've only done some preliminary shooting, so I can't give a detailed review yet. I'll just say that it's a good lens for the price, but don't expect miracles. FWIW, my DA16-45 @35mm is sharper, but of course the DA16-45 doesn't go down to f2.4 (which is why I got the DA35).

Click to expand...

I suppose it could vary depending on how good your 16-45mm is, my DA 35mm f/2.4 was noticeably sharper in the corners at all apertures. Center was probably comparable. The f/stop and a half larger aperture is useful as you point out

Click to expand...

Well the 16-45mm is f4. I will say this since getting the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 unless you really wanted a light/compact lens like the 35mm f2.4 the Tamron pretty much makes the 35mm f2.4 a not that urgent buy. For a bit more cash you can have a bigger zoom range and still a fast f2.8 well fast for a zoom

You could also scrub off the 21mm f3.2 limited and the 40mm f2.8 as well. ;-) And save a bundle of cash..course those limited lenses are nice and compact but hey that's how I think 3/4 lenses in one zoom.

Real low light demons will hunt out a fast 50mm though you can't argue with f1.4

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Well the 16-45mm is f4. I will say this since getting the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 unless you really wanted a light/compact lens like the 35mm f2.4 the Tamron pretty much makes the 35mm f2.4 a not that urgent buy. For a bit more cash you can have a bigger zoom range and still a fast f2.8 well fast for a zoom

Click to expand...

Isn't the Tamron around $450? Also, the extra 1mm on the wide end is desireable to some folks (and the DA16-45 is very good at 16mm).

Member said:

You could also scrub off the 21mm f3.2 limited and the 40mm f2.8 as well. ;-) And save a bundle of cash..course those limited lenses are nice and compact but hey that's how I think 3/4 lenses in one zoom.

Click to expand...

No argument here, that's another way to look at it.

Member said:

Real low light demons will hunt out a fast 50mm though you can't argue with f1.4

Click to expand...

All I can say is, good luck with the AF.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Well the 16-45mm is f4. I will say this since getting the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 unless you really wanted a light/compact lens like the 35mm f2.4 the Tamron pretty much makes the 35mm f2.4 a not that urgent buy. For a bit more cash you can have a bigger zoom range and still a fast f2.8 well fast for a zoom

You could also scrub off the 21mm f3.2 limited and the 40mm f2.8 as well. ;-) And save a bundle of cash..course those limited lenses are nice and compact but hey that's how I think 3/4 lenses in one zoom.

Click to expand...

A bit more cash is about 200-300% more and about 300-400% more weight. The 35mm f/2.4 is also much more compact. This has been a question on the Pentax primes for a long time. Do you buy and f/2.8 zooms, or a bunch of primes with about the same aperture. Comes down to personal taste and the size on the primes is not to be overlooked.

Looking at photozone the 2.4 has maybe slightly better performance up until f/4, but both lenses are very good and have similar characteristics at that focal length.

I agree with you though, having both 17-50 and the 35 are a bit redundant.

Member said:

Real low light demons will hunt out a fast 50mm though you can't argue with f1.4

Click to expand...

Then autofocus starts to become problematic. Nothing quite like an f/1.4 to f/2 lens though

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

viking79 said:

A bit more cash is about 200-300% more and about 300-400% more weight. The 35mm f/2.4 is also much more compact. This has been a question on the Pentax primes for a long time. Do you buy and f/2.8 zooms, or a bunch of primes with about the same aperture. Comes down to personal taste and the size on the primes is not to be overlooked.

Click to expand...

Well I paid £250 for the 17-50mm the 35mm f2.4 is about £140 I believe and the other limited primes I mentioned cost more.

I can see your points fair enough weight and size are very valid though the Tamron is fairly compact v say a 16-50mm Pentax which is pretty bulky

Really depends on what you look for in primes I'm looking for a bit more speed. If the 40mm f2.8 was f2 it would be well worth getting in addition to the Tamron as I gain a stop in speed. As it is I gain only size and weight

Ditto on the 35mm f2.4 a little faster but at f2 it would seal the deal plastic mount or not.

The 21mm f3.2 is one lens I don't understand I guess some folks are ok with it though.

I think what I'm saying is Pentax could bag more fast zoom users if they had faster primes I'd be all over some of those if they were faster. On the other hand a 35 or 40mm isn't giving me a wide end either so that's why I went for the fast zoom route. If size is the reason I get that but I like speed with primes or at least a bit more speed than the ones mentioned.

viking79 said:

Looking at photozone the 2.4 has maybe slightly better performance up until f/4, but both lenses are very good and have similar characteristics at that focal length.

Click to expand...

It could well be.

viking79 said:

I agree with you though, having both 17-50 and the 35 are a bit redundant.

Click to expand...

But not at f2 ;-)

viking79 said:

Then autofocus starts to become problematic. Nothing quite like an f/1.4 to f/2 lens though

Click to expand...

It can be a problem some lenses have focus shift when you stop it down, some are not that good wide open.

My copy is good. No issues with it, though I'm hunting for a lens hood.

My normal walk around kit is my 12-24mm and 50-150mm, and I add this to a pocket to it.

Not used all that often, but good for indoors and such. Just wish it was a little wider.