DAL 35mm Review

Just found this review, it looks like I know what I'll be getting for Xmas now.
DAL 35mm review

The DAL 35mm has a very nice bokeh though, for the rest the DA35 Ltd seems to be better.

Yes, that made my mind up about this lens too! As I said on that thread

It looks like the lens is essentially an FA 35 f2 which has been stripped down a bit and slightly pre-stopped to get top performance wide open. To my eyes the bokeh is just as nice as the FA 35, but there is less CA. Interesting that he thought it was actually faster than f2.4, a bit closer to f2....

By the way... here's the lens used - successfully! - on full-frame (film):
link

My brief tests with mine (before it was wrapped up and stashed away for my birthday in just over a month) showed that it was very sharp throughout the aperture range. A worthy successor to the old 50/1.7 standard prime lens.

so on a scale of 1 to 10...????

seriously how's this lens stack up to the 16-45 at 35mm? image quality wise? equal? better?
I just don't have time to go through that lengthy review and want the readers digest version...

Just look at the pictures at the end of the post Don. A picture speaks a thousand words.

Based just on the resolution tests it doesn't look very good.
The photos at then end look OK though. So may be like a lot of old
prime lenses, the performance is better than the resolution tests
would indicate.

The photos look a bit over-sharpened though.

Only one? Surely now that your Govt has graciously committed you to the heavy toils of serfdom for another long year before eligible retirement, you should be able to factor in the expense of at least two.

.R.

the DAL 35 is a prime though (obviously) why compare it to a zoom lens which you use differently?

To avoid possible duplication if you already own a capable zoom covering the length might be one consideration for some.

Aka the dreaded G.A.S.

.R.

But still my question stands.

It's just so different to use a prime compare to using a zoom that there really is no real comparison for me at least.

It's the same as comparing motor cycles with cars, both designed to bring you from point A to B over the road but they are completely different things to handle.

You won't use the DAl 35mm as a DA 16-45 or vice versa so they don't replace each other.

I think probably Gareth just wants to know whether or not a new design of prime is significantly better than a high quality zoom.

It's worth testing.

Well you can compare the shots, like you can see the FA35 and the DAL35 aren't miles apart.

FA35
DA16-45

The DAL will most likely be better in every aspect but not by miles and the DA16-45 already preform very good, i doubt you will see a real difference unless you zoom in 100%
But still my earlier comment stand though, you will use a zoom for different things as you would a prime.
I doubt you will be sitting at home contemplating if you should use the DAL35 or the DA16-45 today.
Both my primes and zoom lenses overlap and i never have to think hard which to take, if in doubt i'll always take the zoom because i've more reach that way.
If i know the DA40 or DFA100 would be suitable i'll take those for the extra quality.

your question ignores value.

would I buy an inexpensive prime when I got that range covered?

only two reasons to consider the 35...
do I need a prime in that range? or... can I make do with what I got?

if the image quality is better, then the matter is settled.
if the image quality is not better, then it's back to saving for the 21mm...... or the 35mm macro... unless I have a winfall and decide to splurge on the 31mm.

it's all about bang for the buck.

Or maybe shooting in low light (when flash would be inappropriate).