35mm 2.4 vs 2.8 macro or 40mm 2.8 Ltd

Perhaps the hood gives the FA an edge Simon. I bet not many people with the DA bother with one. I know I don't, although I probably should.

A hood is a valuable addition to any lens. The clip on hood for the 50mm lenses works fine with the 35mm f2.4

thanks for all suggestions, finally i am getting 35mm 2.4, because of its price to IQ comparison and lots of positive votes from you people .

Good choice. Just add to the budget £5-10 for a screw-on rubber hood and you are ready.

I bought the 40mm mainly due to size. It is a great lens but if I could only afford 130 as opposed to 250 I'd buy the 35mm 2.4 without hesitation.

It seems that lately cheap 35mm lenses hit all sort of sweet spots! I have kept my D40 only cause the £160 35mm 1.8 from Nikon is absolutely fantastic!

I'm holding out for the 35mm 2.8 macro Ltd myself... Hopefully a month away and the first of my DA-Ltd line-up...

I'm currently in the midst of a similar dilemma. After shedding some lenses I'm looking at a much reduced stable, ie, Sigma 17-70, Tamron 70-200 f2.8, and a nice short prime. The DA35 f2.8 macro stands out, but the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is also interesting. The question is, would the short prime be useful, given the versatility of the Sigma 17-70??

Regards

Can't comment on the macro but I have the other two.

The 35mm f2.4 must be the best value lens pentax produce, I can't fault it but the 40mm is in a different class if, as simonkit says, you can buy into its slightly quirky focal length.

As with all prime lenses you have to train your eye and brain to 'see' with that field of view. I use the 40 for street photography because camera and lens are really discrete, almost like a bridge camera. It suits my way of working very well.

I assume drfahad already has a zoom; why don't you make a serious effort only to use the lens you already have at one of the focal lengths for, say, a week and see how you get on. And no cheating!

"A different class"? From the images I haver seen they both perform about the same, which is to say very good but not excellent, neutral rendering, no special character. (I don't own either since I have the FA 43 Limited.)

Both good lenses -- 35mm for the cost and 40mm for the size.

It's worth bearing in mind that all of the options you have identified are pretty good so comparison between them will be subtle and quite subjective. In practice, I'd be happy with any of them.

However, given what you want to do with it, I'd suggest getting two lenses:

The 35/2.8 limited is excellent for landscapes and gives you the bonus of being able to take macro shots if you ever want to.

For portraits, I'd suggest getting hold of a comparatively cheap manual focus prime, like an A50/2 or A50/1.7, as these will give you a more shallow depth-of-field and nicer bokeh than the DA35/2.8.

I have a DA35/2.8 and it is an excellent lens, but portraits aren't its strongest suite as it is bitingly sharp and the bokeh can be quite busy on some backgrounds.

I bought the DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited a few months ago - one of those unexplained impulse buys!

Well, I have to say it's a peach! It just oozes quality, both in it's build and results. I have used it for landscapes and as a Macro, recently getting very close to some dragonflies for some great images. I'll maybe post some shots when I figure out how to link to them.

I agree that the 35mm ltd is superb for everything I´ve used it for in the last month since I got it. From what I´ve seen, the talk of it not being good for portraits or landscapes is utter nonsense.

It's an optical paragon, according to Carl Weese. He thought it was better than Zeiss glass, used for landscape, putting it up there with the very best lenses available. Personally I prefer the softer bokeh from the slightly faster f2.4 one though.

You will see from my comment on the article page that I was right there with the DA35 Limited as it was released. I think that the comments of Carl and mark are right on the money. I also think that a good deal of their wonderment was down to the camera and sensor (K20D).

I actually ended up getting rid of my copy of the DA35 Limited for two reasons, both of which they touch on. First, the focal length is not useful for me. And second the manual focusing, once outside the macro range, is pretty much impossible. Instead I kept the FA43 Limited.

It is not at all a surprise to me that Pentax glass is the equal or better than Zeiss or anyone else for that matter. There are plenty of lenses as good as the DA35 Limited. Pentax glass simply doesn't get its due.