Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
Am 13.12.14 18:11, schrieb Carlos R.: The DA rendering and sharpness is identical to the FA, they seem to share the same optical design. I've offered myself the DA 2.4/35 mm and the DA 1.8/50 mm as well. Have been playing with both this afternoon but it's quite windy over here and I haven't used a tripod. First impression is that the 50 mm is tack sharp and the 35 mm is decent but nothing spectacular. More once the wind has calmed down again. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - Dunkerque/Dunkirk, France Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
On 2014-12-19 15:51 , Ralf R Radermacher wrote: First impression is that the 50 mm is tack sharp and the 35 mm is decent but nothing spectacular. i'm not a connoisseur, but 35/2.8 macro seems to be the one to get; quickly became my everyday lens -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
Ralf R Radermacher wrote: Hello all, I'm thinking about replacing my trusted M 2/35 mm through a AF lens. A look at Bojidar's website has taught me that the M has 7 elements in 7 groups while the FA and DA versions both have 6 elements in 5 groups where one is an aspherical element. Is there anyone who's ever been able to compare any two of all three of them? How similar are the FA and DA versions optically? I'm quite happy with the M's optical quality but my eyes aren't as good anymore as they used to be and focussing is getting a little difficult. Just to confuse matters a bit more, three other lenses in that focal range to consider would be the DA35/2.8 macro, the sigma 35/1.4 art and the sigma 18-35/1.8. Ralf -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
El 14/12/2014 0:01, Henk Terhell escribió: Ralf, Don't know about the DA 2.4/35, but there are data on the M 2/35 and FA 2/35 on Yoshihiko's site http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html The FA 2/35 is one of my favorite lens so I have no need for the DA version. The FA is excellent, if I hadn't been fool enough to sell mine, I wouldn't have bought the DA years later. But the DA is a wonderful lens for the price, it is the same lens half a stop slower and in a cheaper lens body. Carlos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
On 13/12/2014 9:32 PM, Zos Xavius wrote: I don't think its ever a good time. Worst case they perform admirably on the A7. I just checked. I've taken exactly 7 pictures with my FA35/2. All on the same day in 2007 of my dog in his kennel wearing a cone around his neck. Probably that was the day I got the thing. Apparently I like the 31mm more as I have a couple of thousand or so taken with that one. Even on film, it wasn't a focal length I used much. I found it not wide enough to be a wide angle, but too wide to be useful. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
Hello all, I'm thinking about replacing my trusted M 2/35 mm through a AF lens. A look at Bojidar's website has taught me that the M has 7 elements in 7 groups while the FA and DA versions both have 6 elements in 5 groups where one is an aspherical element. Is there anyone who's ever been able to compare any two of all three of them? How similar are the FA and DA versions optically? I'm quite happy with the M's optical quality but my eyes aren't as good anymore as they used to be and focussing is getting a little difficult. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
I can only go from general principles as I have no direct experience with either lens. However if Pentax tells the truth and the DA is optimized for an APS-C sensor I'd expect that there could be more light fall off in the edges and corners of the frame of an APS-C camera. Otherwise I'd expect sample variation to have more of an effect on image quality than the actual differences between the two designs. On 12/13/2014 9:16 AM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: Hello all, I'm thinking about replacing my trusted M 2/35 mm through a AF lens. A look at Bojidar's website has taught me that the M has 7 elements in 7 groups while the FA and DA versions both have 6 elements in 5 groups where one is an aspherical element. Is there anyone who's ever been able to compare any two of all three of them? How similar are the FA and DA versions optically? I'm quite happy with the M's optical quality but my eyes aren't as good anymore as they used to be and focussing is getting a little difficult. Ralf -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
Ralf, Our listmeister has FA 35/2.0 and he makes wonderful photos with it. I've held DA 35/2.4 in my hands and it feels really plasticky... Boris On 12/13/2014 16:16, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: Hello all, I'm thinking about replacing my trusted M 2/35 mm through a AF lens. A look at Bojidar's website has taught me that the M has 7 elements in 7 groups while the FA and DA versions both have 6 elements in 5 groups where one is an aspherical element. Is there anyone who's ever been able to compare any two of all three of them? How similar are the FA and DA versions optically? I'm quite happy with the M's optical quality but my eyes aren't as good anymore as they used to be and focussing is getting a little difficult. Ralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
El 13/12/2014 15:16, Ralf R Radermacher escribió: Hello all, I'm thinking about replacing my trusted M 2/35 mm through a AF lens. A look at Bojidar's website has taught me that the M has 7 elements in 7 groups while the FA and DA versions both have 6 elements in 5 groups where one is an aspherical element. Is there anyone who's ever been able to compare any two of all three of them? How similar are the FA and DA versions optically? I'm quite happy with the M's optical quality but my eyes aren't as good anymore as they used to be and focussing is getting a little difficult. Ralf I can't say anything about the M 35mm 2.0, but now I have the DA 35mm 2.4 and had the FA 35mm. 2.0 in the past. The DA rendering and sharpness is identical to the FA, they seem to share the same optical design. The only differences are that the FA is half a stop faster, has a metal bayonet and aperture ring and comes with its lenshood, the DA has a plastic bayonet, comes without the hood and has no focusing scale. ANd it is much cheaper, of course, a bargain IMO. Carlos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
On 13/12/2014 8:16 AM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: Hello all, I'm thinking about replacing my trusted M 2/35 mm through a AF lens. A look at Bojidar's website has taught me that the M has 7 elements in 7 groups while the FA and DA versions both have 6 elements in 5 groups where one is an aspherical element. Is there anyone who's ever been able to compare any two of all three of them? How similar are the FA and DA versions optically? I'm quite happy with the M's optical quality but my eyes aren't as good anymore as they used to be and focussing is getting a little difficult. Ralf I can't speak to the quality of the M lens or the DA, but if you decide you want an FA35/2, contact me off list. I have one that is very cherry and practically unused that I could be talked into parting with to the right person. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
Ralf, Don't know about the DA 2.4/35, but there are data on the M 2/35 and FA 2/35 on Yoshihiko's site http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html The FA 2/35 is one of my favorite lens so I have no need for the DA version. Henk Ralf R Radermacher schreef op 13-12-2014 om 15:16: Hello all, I'm thinking about replacing my trusted M 2/35 mm through a AF lens. A look at Bojidar's website has taught me that the M has 7 elements in 7 groups while the FA and DA versions both have 6 elements in 5 groups where one is an aspherical element. Is there anyone who's ever been able to compare any two of all three of them? How similar are the FA and DA versions optically? I'm quite happy with the M's optical quality but my eyes aren't as good anymore as they used to be and focussing is getting a little difficult. Ralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
with rumours of a FF Pentax dslr coming soon, doesnt seem like a good time to unload FF lenses. On 12/13/2014 6:01 PM, Henk Terhell wrote: Ralf, Don't know about the DA 2.4/35, but there are data on the M 2/35 and FA 2/35 on Yoshihiko's site http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html The FA 2/35 is one of my favorite lens so I have no need for the DA version. Henk Ralf R Radermacher schreef op 13-12-2014 om 15:16: Hello all, I'm thinking about replacing my trusted M 2/35 mm through a AF lens. A look at Bojidar's website has taught me that the M has 7 elements in 7 groups while the FA and DA versions both have 6 elements in 5 groups where one is an aspherical element. Is there anyone who's ever been able to compare any two of all three of them? How similar are the FA and DA versions optically? I'm quite happy with the M's optical quality but my eyes aren't as good anymore as they used to be and focussing is getting a little difficult. Ralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Difference M 2/35 mm, FA 2/35 mm, DA 2.4/35 mm
I don't think its ever a good time. Worst case they perform admirably on the A7. On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 8:15 PM, J C OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: with rumours of a FF Pentax dslr coming soon, doesnt seem like a good time to unload FF lenses. On 12/13/2014 6:01 PM, Henk Terhell wrote: Ralf, Don't know about the DA 2.4/35, but there are data on the M 2/35 and FA 2/35 on Yoshihiko's site http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html The FA 2/35 is one of my favorite lens so I have no need for the DA version. Henk Ralf R Radermacher schreef op 13-12-2014 om 15:16: Hello all, I'm thinking about replacing my trusted M 2/35 mm through a AF lens. A look at Bojidar's website has taught me that the M has 7 elements in 7 groups while the FA and DA versions both have 6 elements in 5 groups where one is an aspherical element. Is there anyone who's ever been able to compare any two of all three of them? How similar are the FA and DA versions optically? I'm quite happy with the M's optical quality but my eyes aren't as good anymore as they used to be and focussing is getting a little difficult. Ralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
