[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It was K35/3.5 I think. > I see what you mean it is difficult to say it is the best lens etc. > But taking into consideration only sharpness, resolution and color > rendition one can show which is better. I know the price of FA 35/2.0 >( do not know average price of K35/2.0) but I just wanted to know which > you recommend. Of course if old K35/3.5 will turn out just a little bit > worse than new FA 35/2.0 I would buy old one. I usually use this focal > length for landcapes and speed is not so important for me. > Alek
Visit this site for data on that series of lenses: http://www.concentric.net/~Smhalpin/BriefComments.html#35 mm f/3.5 Here's a few quotes folks have said about the k35mm f/3.5, as taken directly from the site I list above: � John Vanderaalst - The K3.5/35 is probably one of the cheapest in the K-series, and also one of the best. I have the K3.5/35 as well as the M 2/35 and to tell you the truth, I like the K3.5 better...sharp, contrasty, insensitive to back-light. The contrast of the K3.5 is that good that focussing is, despite its limited aperture, quite easy. � Yoshihiko Takinami - I have/had K35/2, K35/3.5, M35/2, M35/2.8 and FA35/2AL. Go for K35/2 if you do need the extra speed. Go for K35/3.5 if you do need fine prints. I prefer K35/3.5 to K35/2 in point of center resolution/sharpness and better correction of aberrations. � Yoshihiko Takinami (again) - very little light-fall-off even at wide open, amazingly sharp, good color rendition, great color saturation, scarce distortion, natural bokeh, great resolution � Yoshihiko Takinami (again) - . . . one of the best Pentax lenses. . . Its color rendition and 3-dimensionality are really great. FA35/2AL is superior to K35/3.5 in point of correction, color saturation, and uniformity of image all over the frame. They are the two best 35mm (focal length) lenses Pentax ever made, IMO. � David Collett - If you get a chance buy a 35/3.5, IMO it is the best "cheap" 35mm second hand lens you can buy. It has good contrast and is very sharp between f5.6 and f11. This may push the price up then perhaps I can sell mine for an inflated price and buy a[new] FA35/2 :-) � Timo Hartikainen - a really great lens! . . . I'm very pleased. The image quality is really good, even at f3.5. . � David Mann - . . .Its small, light and really sharp. * * * * * keith whaley > > com> napisa3: > >As Bob Rapp said, a Pentax-M 35mm f/3.5 is a superior lens, and better > >than most other 35 mm lenses from anyone. > >That is HIS opinion. It is also my opinion. > > > >How much superior is totally dependend on what the user does with it. > >There are several features or qualities about lenses and how they perform. > >What is important to YOU is only known by you. > >If you want mid-range sharpness, that lens has few equals. > >If you want good bokeh, you'll have to listen to those who know ~ I > >don't pretend to be a lens expert NOR a bokeh expert. > > > >Do try to understand one thing, and this does not only apply to > >lenses: there is no such thing as "best" over all others. > >There is only "better than" something else. > >What might turn out to actually BE best for YOU, may not be agreed > >upon by somebody else. They may have reasons to say it is NOT best, > >for them. > >It's that reason that no-one can absolutely say "This [whatever] is > >the very best." It cannot be true for everyone, for all circumstances. > >So, having said that, I'd try to stay with the question "Which lens is > >better for me, than any others I know about?" > > > >Also, don't forget, price enters into it as well. > >There are probably special lenses that have incorporated certain > >design features in them, that are quite superior to most if not all > >other lenses of it's type. But the cost is very very high. For > >instance, if you only get more sharpness from that extra money, may > >not be worth the high price. > > > >No-ne can answer that question for you. Take all you learn and think > >on it. Only you can decide. > > > >Keith Whaley > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> I do not need AF! I just want to have great 35mm lens. I own M35/2.8 and probably >K 35mm are better... Any opinion? > >> Alek > >> > >> U�ytkownik Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >> >Only if you need auto focus. The 35 f3.5 is in a league of its own - try and > >> >buy one in the K mount! > >> > > >> >Bob Rapp > >> >----- Original Message ----- > >> >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:49 PM > >> >Subject: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why? > >> > > >> > > >> >Is FA 35/2.0 better than highly recommended K35/2.0 and K35/3.5 lenses?Which > >> >is the best? > >> >Alek > > > >> >U�ytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >> >>On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 08:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> FA35/2.0 which is probably very good. > >> >>> Alek > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>No _probably_ about it Alek. Just, "FA35/2.o which is very good". <vbg> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>Dan Scott > > > --------------r-e-k-l-a-m-a----------------- > > Masz do�� p3acenia prowizji bankowi ? > mBank - za3� konto > http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
