NOT HAPPY with my DA 35mm F2.4AL

I'd also try a few with a different target. There's no guarantee the focus points actually match exactly with the indicators in the viewfinder, and the dish is a very small target. Ok, the shot with the 16-50 is fine, but there are a lot of branches, etc in the foreground.

Interesting how the colour rendition differs as well. The 16-50 looks warmer?

It looks like the camera is selecting a different white balance, the 16-50 shots are much warmer (& nicer).

I agree with exchanging the lens if the AF is not working reliably.

Bill,

Any further update on your experience with this lens?

Dave

No not yet, not had a minute, I will try and get some more test shots tomorrow.But I think the lens is fine and I just have to find the best way to use the AF, Close up it seems spot on and when AF point is set to 'Auto Select' it seems ok on distant subjects too, it just didn't like AF point being set to 'Center' where I usually have it.

Funnily enough, I was testing my DA35 vs Tamron 17-50 this morning.
The DA35 (set to centre point) snapped to focus quickly however the viewfinder view was not in focus. The Tamron snapped to focus as per usual with the centre point in focus in the viewfinder.

When I pointed the DA35 in the near distance, lets call it a hyperfocal third, for arguments sake, the infinity view was in focus.

I'm happy the set up works for the Tamron BUT it needs a hefty AF adjustment. I turned off the AF adjust but the DA35 still seemed out of kilter.

I'm working over the weekend and unfortunately only just got in tonight so have no time yet to have a look at the images. Will have a closer look next week.

I'm not not happy, just uncertain at the moment.

Mine seems OK on AF, but on manual focus it's going
just beyond infinity which I'm not happy about.

How are other people finding their's focuses on infinity?
Spot on or just a bit off?

Edit: The image in the viewfinder is good enough to
focus on.

I'll let you know next Tuesday hopefully.

It does sound as if they are a bit of a duff lot though .

I have just tested the one I've received against the 16-45mm f4 and the 31mm f1.8 Limited and its performance is well up to standard. It's very similar to the one I tested for EPZ a while back.

Definitely worth its 4.5 star rating.

The boxes look brand new and unopened, so I'm quite sure they aren't returns.

The colour rendering using AWB especially considering the time of year is spot on with Jpegs

I'm struggling with 'beyond infinity', not from a pure semantical perspective, but in practice. I thought a number of lenses exhibited this behaviour deliberately so that they didn't 'bang' against the end stop when using AF?

That was my understanding too.

I bought one (arrived today) to keep on the 50D. Fully manual with adapter and can only use wide open as no aperture ring but the couple of test shots I did with it look promising.

I can't remember my FA 50mm f/1.4 (which I sold 18 months ago)
doing that and all my pentax MF primes don't go beyond infinity.
I normally just set anything from 24mm to 35mm to infinity and
leave it there.

The only MF prime I have that goes beyond INF is the Sigma II
24mm.

I suppose if other people have 35mm f/2.4's that go beyond
infinity I'll just have to live with it.

I think you have to think less Stephen Hawking and a little more Buzz Lightyear, also the chap in charge of K-5 qc, initially.

It's usually telephoto lenses that focus beyond infinity, if such a place exists, simply because of expansion and contraction of the lens barrel causing a focus shift. So they don't really focus beyond infinity, it's just that the position of infinity changes slightly with temperature changes.

Smaller lenses and wider angles don't really have the same facility as the effect is too small to cause a problem.