DA 35 Limited vs. FA 35 f/2 (Part II)

[xpiotiavos]

Just in case you didn't see it in the forum topic list, Part I of this review is <a href="http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-

forum/00R66r">here</a>. And now that that's out of the way, let's jump right back in:<P>_<P>

 

<b>CA Tests</b><P>

Since CAs are typically worst at wide-open apertures, and since I'm a college student with a limited schedule, I'm only going to post

shots

taken wide open and shots taken at f/8 (in two different scenarios) to give you a sense of the overall CA performance of the lens. At

any

rate, here are the photos:<P>

 

<b>Situation #1: take picture of random wisteria vine and give the folks on the pnet forum a sense of deja vu.</b><P>

 

DA 35 wide-open @ f/2.8 (followed by 100% crop, as the rest of the CA test photos will be):<BR><a

href=" title="IMGP5530-2 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2925303346_cc69dff2a0_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5530-2" /></a>

<a href=" title="IMGP5530 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/2924450343_1fab39b0de_o.jpg" width="623" height="417" alt="IMGP5530" /></a><P>

 

FA 35 wide-open @ f/2.0:<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5522-2 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3242/2924451509_ab086ec009_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5522-2" /></a><a href=" title="IMGP5522 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/2924449959_6a5073eb64_o.jpg" width="616" height="412"

alt="IMGP5522" /></a><P>

 

DA 35 @ f/8:<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5533-2 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/2924452231_2d6f041f65_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5533-2"

/></a><a href=" title="IMGP5533 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/2925301814_dfbaab4324_o.jpg" width="646" height="432" alt="IMGP5533" /></a><P>

 

FA 35 @ f/8:<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5526-2 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2925303162_77dd3af3d4_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5526-2"

/></a><a href=" title="IMGP5526 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3226/2924450135_9fdc57cb60_o.jpg" width="615" height="412" alt="IMGP5526" /></a><P>

 

<b>Situation #2: worst-case scenario for CAs (aka, the decorative steel work outside my apartment against a clear sky in the middle of

the day)</b><P>

 

DA 35 wide-open @ f/2.8:<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5540 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3107/2925302044_8bbe3746bb_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5540" /></a><a href=" title="IMGP5540-2 by adamwilson.photo,

on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3152/2924452383_2beddceb5b_o.jpg" width="613" height="410" alt="IMGP5540-2"

/></a><P>

 

FA 35 wide-open @ f/2.0:<BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2924451123/" title="IMGP5547 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/2924451123_9716b821c8_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5547" /></a><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2924671615/" title="IMGP5547-2 by adamwilson.photo,

on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2924671615_74ff6891d1_o.jpg" width="668" height="447" alt="IMGP5547-2"

/></a><P>

 

DA 35 @ f/8:<BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2924450923/" title="IMGP5543 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/2924450923_1fb4743b8a_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5543"

/></a><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2925303856/" title="IMGP5543-2 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/2925303856_dbfd873359_o.jpg" width="615" height="412" alt="IMGP5543-2" /></a><P>

 

FA 35 @ f/8:<BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2925302664/" title="IMGP5551 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2925302664_faa24a704a_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5551"

/></a><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2924671765/" title="IMGP5551-2 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2924671765_580b72f3a1_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5551-2" /></a><P>

 

<b>CA Test Conclusions:</b><P>

 

I feel like there's not much I need to say about this particular test. The DA 35 Limited beats the heck out of the FA 35 in both situations

(note the absolute lack of CAs in situation #1 even at wide-open). The FA 35, on the other hand, shows quite pronounced CAs wide

open (VERY visible CA on the wisteria leaves in the first situation, even when viewing the un-cropped version), but handles them quite

well at all other apertures.<P>

(two quick notes: 1) sorry that the 100% crops are different between the two lenses in the second situation. I forgot that the AF system

might pick a different point after i changed lenses. 2) don't judge the lenses too much by the apparent softness in the 100% crops of

the leaves. the vine was moving quite a bit in the wind, so the softness is mostly due to being out of focus.)<P>_<P>

 

<b>Bokeh Tests (aka, the reason i call this an incomplete review)</b><P>

 

Let me start this part with an apology: I have no idea how to test for bokeh, and I only have one scene that was taken with both lenses.

So I'll post that first, then post a string of random images in different situations and different apertures.<P>

 

<b>Situation #A: weird red flower with green leaves in the background</b><P>

 

DA 35 @ f/2.8, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, and 22, respectively:<BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923481926/"

title="IMGP5590 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3245/2923481926_dfcf5b0118_o.jpg"

width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5590" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922630853/"

title="IMGP5592 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2922630853_0d1c43b7a3_o.jpg"

width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5592" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923482274/"

title="IMGP5593 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3078/2923482274_40cf00455b_o.jpg"

width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5593" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922631167/"

title="IMGP5595 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/2922631167_27506ea90b_o.jpg"

width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5595" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923482686/"

title="IMGP5596 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/2923482686_69c7a4c9c8_o.jpg"

width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5596" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922631603/"

title="IMGP5597 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/2922631603_c4a79668e2_o.jpg"

width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5597" /></a><P>

 

FA 35 @ f/2, 2.8, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, and 22:<BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2924765877/" title="IMGP5582 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3210/2924765877_921a89fe9c_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5582" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922629621/" title="IMGP5583 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3092/2922629621_4d00674978_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5583" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922629789/" title="IMGP5585 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/2922629789_589430fbc0_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5585" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923481138/" title="IMGP5586 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/2923481138_ddd29d423f_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5586" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922630125/" title="IMGP5587 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/2922630125_5218f88146_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5587" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922630323/" title="IMGP5588 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/2922630323_d40d46c0b0_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5588" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922630559/" title="IMGP5589 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3083/2922630559_2ddcf7d3cf_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5589" /></a><P>

 

<b>Situation #B: randomness (aka, the reason my friends will kill me if they ever find out that i posted these pictures on the

internet)</b><P>

 

DA 35 at various apertures and scenes:<BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923477306/"

title="IMGP5620 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/2923477306_879495dfd1_o.jpg"

width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5620" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923477150/"

title="IMGP5608 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3271/2923477150_7c5604571d_o.jpg"

width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5608" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923476872/"

title="IMGP1815 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2923476872_3bc9085126_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1815" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922625729/"

title="IMGP1802 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/2922625729_f32b3bce9f_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1802" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923476402/"

title="IMGP1793 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2923476402_8eeec49b68_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1793" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923476212/"

title="IMGP1775 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3204/2923476212_3299ab8820_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1775" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922625295/"

title="IMGP1771 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/2922625295_f76a824ab2_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1771" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922625153/"

title="IMGP1765 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/2922625153_f1bd19a488_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1765" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922624969/"

title="IMGP1760 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2922624969_cfb0e5c252_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1760" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923475658/"

title="IMGP1757 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/2923475658_077a58fe64_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1757" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922624629/"

title="IMGP1747 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/2922624629_83331e3e10_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1747" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923475304/"

title="IMGP1744 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3254/2923475304_19eb289813_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1744" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923475076/"

title="IMGP1741 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2923475076_0f5efdbb43_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1741" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923474688/"

title="IMGP1735 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/2923474688_4391329359_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1735" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2923474456/"

title="IMGP1734 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2923474456_8468706051_o.jpg"

width="700" height="467" alt="IMGP1734" /></a><P>

 

And, finally, the FA 35 in various situations at various apertures (unfortunately, almost all of my shots with the FA 35 were taken near

the wide-open end of the aperture range. while most of my shooting with the DA has been with testing in mind, most of the stuff i've

shot with the FA has been with the photos themselves in mind, and that typically means low-light situations and small apertures.

sorry!):<BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2924816309/" title="IMGP6051 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3103/2924816309_a0e2a77969_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP6051"

/></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2924816155/" title="IMGP5880 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/2924816155_94f326612c_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5880"

/></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2925668934/" title="IMGP5698 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2925668934_c57213af11_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5698"

/></a><BR>(the above picture is of me, proving to my friends that i'm not afraid to get my picture taken! ha. i think they were tired of

being the only subjects.)<BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2924815689/" title="IMGP5690 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2924815689_84be036714_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5690" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2924815525/" title="IMGP5674 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2924815525_bbc785098c_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5674" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2925668348/" title="IMGP5650 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2925668348_ef80c0893b_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5650" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2925668122/" title="IMGP5634 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/2925668122_8541043a5c_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5634" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2924814751/" title="IMGP5343 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2924814751_006922ffb7_o.jpg" width="469" height="700"

alt="IMGP5343" /></a><BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2925667720/" title="IMGP5340 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/2925667720_ca524930dd_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

alt="IMGP5340" /></a><P>

 

<b>Bokeh Test Conclusions:</b><P>

 

I'm pretty much amazed by both, and, considering that this clearly does NOT constitute a thorough test of the bokeh of each lens, I

can't really pick one over the other for bokeh quality alone.<P>_<P>

 

<b><u>Overall Conclusions (aka, the pros and cons of each):</u></b><P>

 

<b>DA 35 Pros and Cons:</b><P>

 

Pros:<P>

 

1) BUILD QUALITY. I don't care if people say the value of build quality is overstated, it makes this lens an absolute joy to use. I know

there was some comments on the lack of weather sealing, but, frankly, I wouldn't hesitate to take this thing out in LIGHT rain or foggy

conditions. The tight mechanical tolerances alone make me think that the DA would stand up just fine to a little water and dust.<BR>

2) OPTICAL QUALITY. I know that it's close, but I've got to hand this one to the DA over the FA. When viewing the photos, I

repeatedly found myself saying "geez... it's like this thing has no flaws whatsoever...". The resolving power is higher than that of the

sensor on my K10D at almost every setting, CAs only show up when you force them (and are pleasingly absent when you think they

might show up), the contrast is wonderful, and the color-rendition is absolutely outstanding, and it handles flare as well as any lens I've

ever seen. It's been called an optical paragon, and I agree completely.<BR>

3) MACRO. Obviously. But I don't think that should be downplayed. Few macro shooters will prefer the short focal length of 35mm, but

the ability to focus as close as you want to is a serious advantage when you only want to take one lens with you wherever you're

going.<BR>

4) MF ABILITY. Manually focusing with this thing is a dream. It's well damped, smooth, and the focus path is long enough to let you

fine-tune.<P>

 

Cons:<P>

1) AF SPEED. and I only list that as a con with serious reservation. the AF speed of this lens has not hindered any of the day-to-day

shooting that I've done with it. The lens is clearly not designed for sports shooting, and in all other situations, the AF speed is fast

enough. Still, the FA 35 is as quick as you could ask for, especially in low-light settings, so the FA wins and the DA loses the auto

focus speed competition, unsurprisingly.<BR>

2) IT'S NOT FULL FRAME <i>MAYBE</i>. I'm still waiting to finish the roll of film in my K1000, which includes a few test shots with

the DA Limited, so I can't claim that it covers the frame. I CAN say, however, that i noticed no corner-darkening whatsoever in the

viewfinder (checked against my 18-55mm kit, which shows serious vignetting on the K1000, even in the viewfinder).<P>

 

<b>FA 35 Pros and Cons:</b><P>

 

Pros:<P>

 

1) AF SPEED. I said this already, but the FA wins the speed competition. It really is lightning fast in the daylight and faster than any

lens I've used in low-light situations (AF lenses I've used included the 18-55, the Sigma 70-300mm, and, um, that's all. so that's not

saying much. but still. it's fast!)<BR>

2) SIZE AND WEIGHT. It's only marginally smaller than the DA (by a few tenths of an inch), but it's considerably lighter. This isn't

surprising for a plastic lens, but for those (myself included) who have an affinity for travel and backpacking, less weight is a

considerable advantage.<BR>

3) THE REMOVABLE LENS HOOD. Ok, this might just be me being anal, but I really like to have the ability to mount the lens hood

backwards when I don't need it. After all, the hood is easy to replace, and a scratched up hood is much easier on the mind than a

scratched up lens.<P>

 

Cons:<P>

 

1) BUILD QUALITY. I know, I know, I'm beating a dead horse here, but I can't help but feeling that, were I inclined to try and smash the

FA using the DA as a hammer, I would be able to do so easily, and the DA probably wouldn't have any scratches on it.<BR>

2) CA WIDE OPEN. This is really not a big deal, because i'm assuming any scene you're shooting where CAs are going to be a

problem, you're probably not going to want the shallow DOF given by f/2.0, but the CAs are rather annoying nonetheless.<P>_<P>

 

<b><u>Recommendations (aka, why you should transfer money to my paypal account):</u></b><P>

Yes, they both cover the same focal length, but they really are very different animals. The DA, on the one hand, excels at difficult

lighting and contrast situations and gives you a true flat-field macro that's never going to break and could double as an all-around-

shooting lens that will only ever struggle if you try to make it AF in extreme low light situations. The FA, on the other hand, makes a

fantastic general shooting lens that's super lightweight and really shows its merit in low-light situations because of it's wide aperture.<P>

So, since I'm not a macro guy, and I do 90% of my shooting in low light, I'll be selling the DA 35, albeit reluctantly, because dang it, it's

beautiful. And I want it. But I also want to eat and buy some christmas presents this year, so I have no choice... ;) The lens is,

naturally, still in perfect condition, and since I'm slowly but surely coming to HATE eBay, I figure I'll offer it to you guys first. Email me

if you're interested. wilsoad@auburn.edu.<div></div>

[a few images]

Wow. The DA Limited seems to handle it well. I wonder how it also handles the subtleness between mid-tones.

 

Thinking out loud; If a coating or design can so efficiently squelch the effects of PF or CF on hard contrasts, What does

it do to the expected gradations within non-fringe yet contrasting areas of the photo? Does it mute the vibrancy and

subtleness in gradation? I feel like saying yes to that question. I also think that coatings could be too effective, possibly.

 

You all know that if you snap three quick photos of the same subject, there's a good chance one will be better than the

rest. Angles, lights, paths,... the most minuscule corrections make the the most profound changes.

 

Is working with a lens that allows less light array to hit the sensor better than working with a lens that allows more? I'm

not convinced it is. Each correction we make to the collector is an attempt at rectifying the incompetencies of the

receiver. - i.e. the eye needs to see better and be sharper and be more correct in color reproduction

[mountainvisions]

Adam, this was a great review, really well done. Both analytical and subjective aspects of IQ and handling of the lenses was addressed.

 

I'd like to see the FA tested for CA at 2.8 rather than wide open after all, it's like using oranges to bake an apple pie.

 

Since the FA compares pretty favorably at smaller apertures, it's kind of a unfair testing method. And no, I'm not being unfair, if I was I'd say, " does anyone really shoot super high contrast scenes (like a dark leaf on a bright sky) wide open (oh crap, you raised this point further down)?

 

That said, it seems reasonable that the DA would be better at fringing because this is more a problem on digital sensors than film. I remember and still see all the complaints about the FA limiteds fringing on digital that no one complained about when they were being used on film. Of course fringing is easy to fix in post processing assuming it's not too bad.

 

So it looks like you and I are waiting for Pentax to put the FA 35mm into a limited lens? And yeah, Ebay sucks, after fees you can sell that DA 35 on here for a good price where everyone benefits, Ebay benefits Ebay IMO.

 

(oh, and I loved the comment that you could smash a FA lens with a Limited and keep using the Limited, it's my only complaint about FA lenses, great optics, average build which would seem ok if you didn't have modern limiteds to compare them against)

[shots worth sharing]

That was quite a treatise, Adam--well done!

 

I'm resisting the temptation of a 35mm but don't know how long I'll be able to hold out. Quite frankly, I'm using indecision about these options (and throw the FA 31mm Ltd into that mix) as a way of not getting around to buying. So far, it's working and your review--while highly instructive--didn't upset that delicate balance ;~)

[markus maurer]

Very well done Adam, I wish I could read more lens and other Pentax equipment reviews like this here in the Pentax

forum, thanks!

[kfrog]

Well done Adam. An interesting and fair review. I had an opportunity to use the DA35mm on my K10D and I can say it's one of the nicest lenses I've ever used. A complete joy to use. I put it to use for two weeks and thoroughly enjoyed it. Great feel, smooth control, solid construction right down to the lens cap. I will have one of these Limited lenses one day (DA70mm?) for my very own but in the meantime I have to wait.

[frygge]

What a nice read, Adam.

 

Since I use my lenses on both my k10d and a ME super, I have avoided the DA's. That said, a "normal" walk around

lens with the ability to do macro is fairly tempting. And I know what you mean by the build quality of the limiteds. A

joy to use as you put it.

 

I tried the FA 35mm f.2 for a very short period of time, and it seems to be a great lens. The build quality annoyed me,

and the AF was alot noisier than my 31mm. Optically though, it's a great buy.

 

I hope you continue to be pleased with your decision.

 

Cheers

 

Fredrik

[rose_duclos]

Douglas, Not that I live anywhere near LA - but, there are a few DA lenses posted to the Craigslist there that if you are really interested in beginning a collection - may be worth looking at.

[andrewg_ny]

Adam, thanks for going to the effort to share this comparison that I'm sure more than a few Pentaxians have been pondering. I was going to make the same point that we might want to see a comparison at the same aperture--it is highly likely that the FA35's performance in terms of CA and otherwise are somewhat improved at f/2.8 vs. f/2. Still, a pretty impressive performance for the DA35 Limited. I've found the FA35 to be a lens that I've wanted to like but on digital its focal length just isn't one of my favorites. Also, at its price point one might also consider the DA40 f/2.8 for a similar application as well which offers top build quality and good optics from f/2.8 at a pretty similar focal length.

[xpiotiavos]

Yeah, I thought about the different aperture issue after i was done with it, but i was already so far into the review it wasn't

practical for me to change it at the time. But it's a new day! So here ya go:<P>

 

<b>Situation #1</b><P>

 

FA 35 @ 2.8 <BR><a href=" title="IMGP5523 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3292/2926494531_61bee7dbfc_o.jpg" width="685"

height="459" alt="IMGP5523" /></a><BR>(proof that it the vine was moving in and out of the focus plane)<P>

 

DA 35 @ 2.8 <BR><a href=" title="IMGP5530 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2927349110_876c9489e2_o.jpg" width="681"

height="456" alt="IMGP5530" /></a><P>

 

<b>Situation #2</b>

 

FA 35 @ 2.8<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5548 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3139/2927349178_9dd134b86c_o.jpg" width="692"

height="464" alt="IMGP5548" /></a><P>

 

DA 35 @ 2.8<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5540 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/2926494623_da67bcd8b0_o.jpg" width="613"

height="410" alt="IMGP5540" /></a><BR>(again, sorry for the different focus points here.<P>_<P>

 

Hope this helps!

[rparmar]

I think you're selling the wrong lens. The quality of the images from the DA35 is noticeably better than that from the FA35, even at the reduced web sizes on display here. I looked at a lot of photos before buying my DA35 and my own shots have proven the thesis. Never mind CA and flare, it is in the details and micro-contrast that the Limited lens really shines. And for me the macro ability is great. It's like having an FA43 that's actually useful. :-)

 

I might wish for another stop of speed, but at least the lens is extremely useful from its open aperture, unlike many I could point to.

 

That said, I am sure the FA35 is fine also.

[pavelt]

Thanks so much for your time, this has been a really useful post!