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

[xpiotiavos]

Sorry that this review can't be more thorough, but I haven't been able to find time to do really extensive tests of both lenses (nevermind

my

lack of ability to do so) and my school semester is only going to get busier from here, so i'm calling it done and showing you guys all i've

got so far. hopefully it will be moderately helpful.<P>_<P>

 

<b><u>First Impressions (aka, first thoughts when taking it out of the box)</u></b><P>

 

<b>DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited Macro: </b> "HOLY CRAP IT'S BEAUTIFUL." Seriously. Everything about the aesthetics of lens is done

right. The jet-black metal finish, the metal lens cap with felt interior, the white name engraving contrasted with the red "Limited"

designation, the bright-green band near the mount, the finger grips at the base, the pull-out hood, the buttery smooth and well-damped

focus ring, the oddly pretty front element (yeah, i'm weird. get over it.), and the overall solid feel of the lens combine to let you know

that

you're dealing with one of the highest-quality pieces of equipment in the world.<P>

 

<b>FA 35mm f/2 AL</b> "Hmmmm.... it looks exactly like you would expect an FA lens to look." My first impression of this one, after

being wow-ed by the DA limited, was decidedly unenthusiastic. It's made of almost-black-but-closer-to-grey-with-a-hint-of-brown plastic

just

like the rest of the FA line, has a little plastic window that lets you see the distance markings, and has an aperture ring at the base...

just

like the rest of the FA line...<P>_<P>

 

<b><u>Lens Tests (aka, the fun part)</u></b><P>

 

<b>Sharpness</b><BR>I'm not even going to bother posting photos for this category. Both lenses are absolutely as sharp as you can

get

(as measured from my K10D) at all apertures. From wide open to f/22, both remain sharp from center to corner. This is perhaps

expected

based on their reputations, but it's rather a lot of fun to shoot at any setting and know that you're going to get sharp pictures (so long as

YOU don't screw anything up!) Both lenses win this category.<P>

 

<b>Flare control</b><BR>This is where things get slightly more interesting. But before we get to that, let's post some photos:<P>

 

<b>Situation #1: Point lens at sun</b><P>

 

DA 35 @ f/5.6 (note: apertures wider than f/5.6 were impossible in this situation because at ISO 100, f/5.6 gives a shutter speed of

1/4000 sec, the fastest available on the K10D):<BR><a href="

title="IMGP5570 by adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/2923561752_eee11dbb95_o.jpg"

width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5570" /></a><P>

 

FA 35 @ f/5.6:<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5575 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3175/2922711123_24958ed253_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5575"

/></a><P>

 

DA 35 @ f/11:<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5572 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/2922710785_8db44146f7_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5572"

/></a><P>

 

FA 35 @ f/11:<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5577 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2923562392_88f57cd12d_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5577"

/></a><P>

 

DA 35 @ f/22:<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5574 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3094/2923562038_46d4591c54_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5574"

/></a><P>

 

FA 35 @ f/22:<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5579 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/2923562544_bf2cd295b3_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5579"

/></a><P>

 

<b>Situation #2: Take picture of random wisteria vine with front element in direct sunlight</b><P>

 

DA 35mm @ f/2.8 (wide open)<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5530 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3036/2923478818_2785441b9a_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

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

 

FA 35mm @ f/2.0 (wide open)<BR><a href=" title="IMGP5522 by

adamwilson.photo, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2923477468_6e68dcf2a4_o.jpg" width="700" height="469"

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

 

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

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2923478988_bc8351bb17_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5533"

/></a><P>

 

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

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2923478494_e8484759c7_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5526"

/></a><P>

 

DA 35mm @ f/16<BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922628159/" title="IMGP5535 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2922628159_36cb69d769_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5535"

/></a><P>

 

FA 35mm @ f/16<BR><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamwilsonphoto/2922627663/" title="IMGP5528 by adamwilson.photo, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/2922627663_26e7834e57_o.jpg" width="700" height="469" alt="IMGP5528"

/></a><P>

 

<b>Flare Control Conclusions</b> The most obvious difference is in the star-pattern observed at smaller apertures. I suppose this is

just a matter of

taste, but I actually prefer the 6-point look rendered by the FA 35 to the 9-point look rendered by the DA 35mm. However, the FA 35

does tend to show a bit more green and purple flare (ghosting maybe?), especially in the first situation. The DA 35 displays a rather-

obvious purple speck in the f/5.6 to f/11 range, but it's small enough so as to be easily corrected in PP.<P>_<P>

Well, this is taking quite a bit longer to present than I thought, so I'm gonna have to split this up into two parts. We'll call this part one

and let part two include the CA tests, Bokeh tests, and overall conclusions. I'll post part II tomorrow afternoon.

[snik75]

Woo woo! This is fun, thanks for your efforts Adam. Can't wait to see part II

[laur1]

These are rather extreme shots, but from a quick look at them, I'd also prefer the FA.

 

I also looked at the photozone reviews and, unless macro is a key point, I'd pick the FA over the DA - it

seems to have slightly better resolution in the corners and is significantly cheaper as well.

 

In the first set, there seems to be a sudden outburst of dust spots in the shots at f/22 - what happened?

I can count 8 of them.

 

Thanks for posting these and I'm looking forward to your next sets.

[xpiotiavos]

"In the first set, there seems to be a sudden outburst of dust spots in the shots at f/22 - what happened?"

 

ha. yeah. i did a lot of lens changing that day (trying different shots with different lenses) and i figured i'd get some dust

on the sensor. i'm sure they'll show up in more photos then those, but don't worry, i've since cleaned them off! ;)

[dorus]

Nice work. I got me the FA 35 recently, still have to put it through its paces.

[mountainvisions]

Adam, as you can see the FA35 is pretty much as good as you can get, of course the DA 35 is good too, but IMO the FA is optically better and almost half the price.

 

So now Pentax needs to put the FA35 into a DA/FA limited exterior and I'll be buying one in a jiffy.

 

You've picked out all the things I loved about the FA 35, flare control, sharpness, and star patern. I preffer the bokeh of the 6 point aperture as well.

 

But like you said, the build is just ok. Now if I hadn't had access to M42 glass, and even KA glass which while not 100% metal are just finished a little tighter IMO, I'd have been happy with the FA35.

 

Bottom line is while some people say the limited build is overrated, I find it really adds to the enjoyment of shooting. Maybe the novelty will wear off, but I still find my 21mm my favorite lens to grab, and the 43mm is equally enjoyable to use.

[shots worth sharing]

But the DA35 isn't weather-sealed is it? To my mind, that heavily discounts the value of the better build

[audun_sjoeseth1]

Justin: I have the DA21/3.2, FA35/2, FA50/1.4 and FA77/1.7. The 2 lenses I use most of these 4 are the FA35 and FA50. I enjoy to use them, but the other 2 are great too when needed. :)

For my use the FA 77 fits better together with LX than with K20D. :)

[mountainvisions]

Audon,

 

I had the FA35 and 50mm for about 18 months and sold them at a profit. Never used the FA50 (well not never, but

rarely) and I used the FA35 a lot and loved it, but build is important to me, I don't like babying my stuff

excessively. I sold them both in LN condition without a mark on them, the buyer was thrilled, so I'm not abusive,

but the build never inspired confidence. While I do miss the FA35 to some degree, I've never liked the 50mm FL on

film, and I didn't care for it on digital, the FA 43mm actually isn't really that much longer on digital, and

works equally well with much better build.

 

@ Dave, no not weather sealed, but not cheap plastic with loose fittings. There is a major quality difference

between the standard FA series and DA/FA limiteds or FA/DA*. Now optically many of these lenses are as good as

you can get, but build wise they look and feel cheap. I would say the DA Limiteds would be better weather proofed

if they didn't have that stupid cutout window for focus distance. That thing can collect water and snow flakes.

But the gaps and shaky nature of the FAs can let in just as much water.

 

Still, I wish Pentax was weather sealing it's Limiteds. I really wish that 15mm was sealed as with limited build

and sealing it would probably never leave my camera!!! Hmm, maybe they can re-release the DA limiteds as weather

sealed to boost sales DA* Limited series :-)...

[joe_jackson4]

"the FA is... almost half the price"

 

Well, I guess that depends on where you live/shop... :) Here in Finland the price difference isn't all that much:

 

http://www.cyberphoto.fi/index_fi.php?/info_fi.php?article=SMC35

 

http://www.cyberphoto.fi/index_fi.php?/info_fi.php?article=da35macro

 

It seems that both lenses are decent enough, optically, so if the handy macro capability of the DA 35 isn't important then the wider max aperture of the FA 35 would make it the more useful lens. I wouldn't worry too much about the differences in build quality, TBH.

[garydem]

note from b&h photo. the fa35 is $299, while the da35 is $499.

[xpiotiavos]

(part two will show up soon. i promise!)

 

but as to the price point: I paid $299 for the FA at adorama, and $402 for the DA on ebay from prodigital2000. I'll share my

thoughts on the implications of that later, but the DA is certainly not twice as much as the FA, assuming you trust

canadian ebay sellers (which in this case, I do, and you should).

[bob-c]

Why do these threads always appear the same day I but a lens. In this case the DA 35 Limited. After buying some less

expensive lenses over the last few months, I wanted a good piece of glass. I am sure this one is. Would anyone argue I

should send it back and get the FA. I am not really too concerned about the money but $200 is $200.

[miserere_mei]

Adam wrote: <i>I actually prefer the 6-point look rendered by the FA 35 to the 9-point look rendered by the DA 35mm.</i><br>

<br>

[NERD ALERT] The star pattern of the limited has 18 points, not 9. Star patterns are always even numbered. The number of rays depends on the number of diaphragm blades. If the number is even, then there will be the same number of rays (for the FA 35 6 blades = 6 rays). If the number is odd, then there will be double the number of rays (for the 35 Ltd 9 blades = 18 rays). [/NERD ALERT]

[xpiotiavos]

Does the "nerd alert" include a warning that you used a "/" in the closing warning, as if you were writing in HTML?

 

But yes, 18-point. thanks for keeping me straight, mis!

[miserere_mei]

<i>Does the "nerd alert" include a warning that you used a "/" in the closing warning, as if you were writing in

HTML? </i><br>

<br>

That was the whole point, Adam :-)<br>

<br>

And don't worry, I'll make sure to keep you straight.

[mountainvisions]

Actually I was refering to my preference for the 6 point (which many consider a more crude/lower quality) aperture than the 9 point found on the limiteds.

 

To some degree I find the smoother bokeh of the 6 point often more flattering than the 9 point of the limiteds. Of course I believe part of the "3D" rendering of the limiteds is in part due to what I consider harsh bokeh.

 

This probably wasn't the case on film, but with digital the bokeh of the 9 point seems harsh, especially after image sharpening, luckily, espcially with the 21mm, I am not shooting wide open often so this is really not an issue.

 

Part of the appeal of the 43mm was I can use it on film as a true normal lens, more so than a digital lens so it's bokeh will not bother me either, as I have 18-20 rolls of Provia 100F sitting in the freezer that I must eventually finish off.

 

As far as what Robert asked, the question is do you want a macro to use at close distance. Me personally, I find someting more like a 50mm or 100mm macro better suited for standoff distance. If getting close isn't a problem than the 35mm makes sense.

 

The 35mm FA has a very respectable close focusing distance, SO while it's not a macro lens, nor am I promoting it as one (i need to be clear on this because someone in a previous thread misunderstood my statement) it does serve as a close focus lens EQUALLY well to the DA in non macro situations.

 

The reason I say this is quite a few people have said, well I didn't buy it for macro but I wanted a lens I could focus at close distances for regular shooting. The FA35 focuses at about 9inches (Pentax list 12 but my copy was much closer, and while seeing if this was a problem, I noticed quite a few people reported 9in close focus, so something is up somewhere).

 

The bottom line is the build on the DA is superior, but the optics on the FA are on par, if not better. IMO, for regular shooting the FA is a better lens, if you need a macro lens the DA is better. Not finding a 35mm macro particularly useful, my choice is obviously the FA35mm.

 

But thats just my opinion having used both lenses for a few months, your needs might be different, your taste might be different, and certainly I'm bucking the trend. As the McCain/Palin ticket keeps saying, "I'm a maverick". So this was Joe Sixpacks take on the dueling 35mm lenses.

[mountainvisions]

Paul,

 

The US is a bit different.

 

$299 for the FA from amazon (or just about anyplace reputable).

 

$485 for the DA, so no not 2X the price (although it did release at $599 which is 2x the price).

 

Still $200 pays for a FA50mm 1.4 or a good chunk of a 70mm DA, or 21mm DA, or a nice dinner for your wife/girfriend ...or wife and girlfriend if you are lucky!!

[joe_jackson4]

Justin, yeah, that's certainly a significant price difference there... It seems that the FA 35 is something of a

bargain, Stateside. Pretty hard to justify the extra expense for the DA 35, TBH, unless the macro feature is a

big issue.

 

From my own personal perspective it was a pretty easy decision to buy the DA 35 though, because (a) a shortish,

reasonably compact/lightweight, macro-capable lens appealed to me (a lot...), and (b) I already had the Sigma

30/1.4 for the wide aperture stuff. But if money was a bit tight and I could only afford one lens of this focal

length then the FA 35 would be the one.

[ddeacon]

Pity there's no link to the full-sized shots - can't see too much with these reduced-size ones and Flickr says

they're 'private'. I do not know if what follows is normal since I can't find any wide open shots and various

distances not even the Photozone review offered them yet it does for other lenses - seems odd...

 

I bought and tried a 35mm P-FA f2 AL and found it dreamy open wide; distance did not improve it. It is very prone

to flare too. If very close to, then some sharpness can be detected but not much. Stopping down to f2.8 improves

things but not by much. Down to f4 and things look good. But, I wanted f2.0 to look good albeit with a reduced

dof. Photozone indicates f2 is very good. Think I need to try another copy. I hate lens tennis!!

 

I looked at the DA 35mm f2.8 Macro but since I have the superb Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro, I decided to save a little

and go for the wider aperture and supposedly sharper images. I might eventually go 35mm macro.