DA35 2.4 v FA 35 f/2 and Standard Lens Shootout

[viking79]

I have my initial review up for the standard lenses I have tested on my charts.
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=729

Again, I test mostly image sharpness at this time, and this is one measure of how lenses perform. There are other factors that I don't cover that might need to be taken into consideration when you purchase a lens.

For the fun of it I threw the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 on my Pentax and included that in the results

Sorry, I need better graphs for so many lenses in the list, but it is what I have:

• SMCP-K 35/3.5
• Kiron 28/2
• Sigma 30/1.4 EX DC
• SMCP-A 28/2.8
• SMCP-FA 35/2
• SMCP-DA 35/2.4 AL
• SMCT 28/3.5
• Nikon 35/1.8G AF-S DX

I will add more in as I get them. All tested on the K-7.

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://viking79.blogspot.com/ (Weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

 

[moving_comfort]

I have my initial review up for the standard lenses I have tested on my charts.
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=729

Again, I test mostly image sharpness at this time, and this is one measure of how lenses perform. There are other factors that I don't cover that might need to be taken into consideration when you purchase a lens.

For the fun of it I threw the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 on my Pentax and included that in the results

Sorry, I need better graphs for so many lenses in the list, but it is what I have:

• SMCP-K 35/3.5
• Kiron 28/2
• Sigma 30/1.4 EX DC
• SMCP-A 28/2.8
• SMCP-FA 35/2
• SMCP-DA 35/2.4 AL
• SMCT 28/3.5
• Nikon 35/1.8G AF-S DX

I will add more in as I get them. All tested on the K-7.

Eric

Eric, nice reviews and comparisons! I'm slightly shocked to find the K 35 f/3.5 only performing 'average' in MTF, I found my copy (sold) to have incredible sharpness, sharper even than my FA 35 f/2 - but then, I didn't run tests as robustly as you did here, and sample variation could have played a role... But thanks, and especially for including the Nikon 35 1.8 as a reference point.

Shot from my K 35 f/3.5 wide-open:

.

 

[Copiare]

This image is overdone. It's more an exercise in post processing than in what the average user can attain with the SMC K 35mm 3.5.

You should post the original RAW and let others take a crack at processing it.

 

[Ishpuini]

Great work!!

Shame you seem to be missing the two limiteds in the range, i.e. the FA31/1.8 and the DA35/2.8 macro. Esp since these are reputed to be the best in the range, it would be nice to see to what degree this corresponds with your findings.

Any idea on the relation between the DA35/2.4 and the older FA35/2? Their optical design looks identical to me which lead me to believe (I think I read sth about this as well) that the DA35/2.4 is based on the FA35/2's optical formula. Could the difference you note be related to sample variation, or do you think there's more to it?

kr, Wim

--
Belgium, GMT+1

 

[viking79]

Any idea on the relation between the DA35/2.4 and the older FA35/2? Their optical design looks identical to me which lead me to believe (I think I read sth about this as well) that the DA35/2.4 is based on the FA35/2's optical formula. Could the difference you note be related to sample variation, or do you think there's more to it?

I think they are a similar optic design, only the DA 35/2.4 is scaled down in size for the reduced image circle and smaller aperture. However, they look noticeably different from the front looking into the lens, but they could still have the same lens shapes.

I think the test shows they do perform very similarly. If the DA is scaled down, it is reasonable to assume it trails the FA by half a stop or so in performance (peaks a little later), but I think they are close enough that you aren't going to notice much difference between the two. The distortion and CA is very similar between the two and even the performance above f/2.8.

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://viking79.blogspot.com/ (Weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

 

[moving_comfort]

This image is overdone. It's more an exercise in post processing than in what the average user can attain with the SMC K 35mm 3.5.

You should post the original RAW and let others take a crack at processing it.

.

2nd post! Why such a crabby start to your forum journey?

.

 

[viking79]

Eric, nice reviews and comparisons! I'm slightly shocked to find the K 35 f/3.5 only performing 'average' in MTF, I found my copy (sold) to have incredible sharpness, sharper even than my FA 35 f/2 - but then, I didn't run tests as robustly as you did here, and sample variation could have played a role... But thanks, and especially for including the Nikon 35 1.8 as a reference point.

What camera do you use the K35/3.5 on?

I find it is a very good lens, nice and sharp. It is only when compared side by side on the high resolution K-7 or K-5 that I really noticed a difference. I was out shooting with the DA35 and K35 side by side so I could do similar shots with each lens. Also, if you look at the price you can get the K35/3.5 lens for it is still a good buy (I think they sell for significantly less than the DA 35/2.4).

Looking at central performance, it does perform very well from wide open, among the best of the lenses, but it does have a smaller aperture than the others. Sometimes it is nice to shoot wide open at f/3.5 though (often 1.4 is too shallow of a depth of field, and if you step down to f/3.5 on the Sigma you get polygons in the bokeh if you have highlights out of focus).

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://viking79.blogspot.com/ (Weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Any idea on the relation between the DA35/2.4 and the older FA35/2? Their optical design looks identical to me which lead me to believe (I think I read sth about this as well) that the DA35/2.4 is based on the FA35/2's optical formula.

I saw a post somewhere about the time the DA35/2.4 was announced comparing its optical design (as shown in outline by Pentax) with the FA35/2. They were pretty similar except for one element - I think it was the front one - where the diameters were noticeably different.

Sadly I can't remember where I saw it but the reason it was posted was that the author was cautioning against drawing too much from these ouitline optical diagrams.

Considering that both lenses come from Pentax it would be surprising if the newer one didn't draw from the design of the older; but in 35+ years as an engineer I never saw a case where the next generation of designers didn't change something . The reasons for change were sometimes because of technical advances, sometime simple vanity - but they were always there.

--

---

Gerry


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

 

[steephill]

On both the edge resolution/sharpness graphs the DA35 appears to perform better wide open (f2.4) than stopped down slightly to f2.8. Is this a mistake and do I win a prize for spotting it?

--
Steve

http://www.pbase.com/steephill

 

[Lor]

I love my 35 2.4....don't think I've taken it off my camera since I got it. Fun.

 

[viking79]

On both the edge resolution/sharpness graphs the DA35 appears to perform better wide open (f2.4) than stopped down slightly to f2.8. Is this a mistake and do I win a prize for spotting it?

I noticed it too, and it might just be how the lens is corrected. I ran the lens a couple times as well, and I think the same behavior showed both times, but I will verify when I get home. It isn't a mistake in how I presented the data, it really was that way.

When I had my K-5 I tested the lens too, and it didn't exhibit exactly the same behavior as the K-7, although the edges staid level between f/2.4 and f/2.8. However, I think the K-5 might perform slightly better in the corners than the K-7, but I didn't run enough lenses to know for sure.

I notice with all of the tests I ran with the 35mm 2.4 that the corners don't improve a whole lot. They are good wide open, and a tad better at their peak. It might be measurement error with the results, but will confirm when I look at my other test data.

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://viking79.blogspot.com/ (Weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

 

[viking79]

I have my initial review up for the standard lenses I have tested on my charts.
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=729

Again, I test mostly image sharpness at this time, and this is one measure of how lenses perform. There are other factors that I don't cover that might need to be taken into consideration when you purchase a lens.

For the fun of it I threw the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 on my Pentax and included that in the results

Sorry, I need better graphs for so many lenses in the list, but it is what I have:

• SMCP-K 35/3.5
• Kiron 28/2
• Sigma 30/1.4 EX DC
• SMCP-A 28/2.8
• SMCP-FA 35/2
• SMCP-DA 35/2.4 AL
• SMCT 28/3.5
• Nikon 35/1.8G AF-S DX

I will add more in as I get them. All tested on the K-7.

I have an M 28/3.5 and M 40/2.8 coming from eBay I am excited to test. If anyone wants to loan me a 31mm or 35mm limited I would be happy to test those too, but I would want to do a more thorough test on those lenses (more than just a test chart).

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://viking79.blogspot.com/ (Weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

 

[JensR]

Focus shift when stopping down?

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de

 

[JensR]

Hi Eric!

That explains at least in part why I never liked the SMCT 28/3.5 - apparently very different from the K 28/3.5.
I do have a Tokina 28/2, which I should probably use a bit more...
Pity about the SMCT - it is a very beautiful and small lens.
I might just give it a try anyway...

Thanks for your tests!!
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de

 

[fotobert]

Hi,

Thx for this test. Just one thing I'd like to ask you for: I really have problems with the lots of blue tones :-|, could you possibly use some green, red, yellow instead next time.

Maybe I'm getting old...

 

[viking79]

Hi,

Thx for this test. Just one thing I'd like to ask you for: I really have problems with the lots of blue tones :-|, could you possibly use some green, red, yellow instead next time.

Maybe I'm getting old...

For the bar graphs? Yeah, I will see what I can do. I think it was whatever Word picked for me I will try to make them larger too.

Really what I need to do is enter the data into a database and have it generate the graphs automatically (so you could select two lenses to compare).

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://viking79.blogspot.com/ (Weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

 

[audiobomber]

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

The reasons for change were sometimes because of technical advances, sometime simple vanity - but they were always there.

More often than not a design change benefits the manufacturer's pocketbook. In this case though I think the reasoning was to make the lens more affordable.
--
Dan

 

[audiobomber]

Great work!!

Shame you seem to be missing the two limiteds in the range, i.e. the FA31/1.8 and the DA35/2.8 macro. Esp since these are reputed to be the best in the range, it would be nice to see to what degree this corresponds with your findings.

That's a bit controversial. The FA 35mm is a stop faster than the DA 35 Ltd, which makes it better for me. The DA 35 gets high praise because of its contrasty rendering but the FA 35 has slightly higher resolution according to Photozone.

--
Dan

 

[audiobomber]

Thanks for the shootout Eric.

I have a Kiron f2 and an FA 35mm. I believe my Kiron is sharper than what you've shown here... when I nail focus, which is far less often than I'd like. Bokeh is pretty wild, but can create some interesting effects. It has a blue colour cast that is a problem in daylight but works to good effect in tungsten light.

The FA 35mm is just a solid performer. It does everything it needs to do. My only beef is, it's not a 28mm f2. If Pentax would make one of those, I'd sell the others.

--
Dan

 

[viking79]

Thanks for the shootout Eric.

I have a Kiron f2 and an FA 35mm. I believe my Kiron is sharper than what you've shown here... when I nail focus, which is far less often than I'd like. Bokeh is pretty wild, but can create some interesting effects. It has a blue colour cast that is a problem in daylight but works to good effect in tungsten light.

It is sharper in the center, but when averaged out (center and partway, where this is a majority of the frame), it isn't quite as sharp. That is because the Kiron drops off fairly quickly towards the edges. The Kiron is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used for central sharpness.

The FA 35mm is just a solid performer. It does everything it needs to do. My only beef is, it's not a 28mm f2. If Pentax would make one of those, I'd sell the others.

Agreed. It really is a nice lens. A 28 or 30 f/2 would be a great lens. I guess we do have the 31/1.8, but make an APS-C only f/1.4 lens and it probably wouldn't be any larger.

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://viking79.blogspot.com/ (Weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)