Pentax Pancake feedback -

[raist3d]

so, if I was going to get a pancake between these two, I am inclined to go for the Macro because it has a focal length more appealing to me and also because it's a macro.

The idea is to carry 3 pancakes (70, 22 and 35 macro) and "have it all" (i..e can do macro). But I keep hearing the 40mm focuses super fast and is super sharp. The macro apparenlty is super sharp but not so hot on the focusing.
Any feedback? For those who have done street life, you find you prefer the 40mm over the 22 altogether? You find the macro unacceptably slow?

Thanks.

- Raist

 

[Paratom]

I have the 21,35 and 70.
SO far I did not feel any AF-speed difference.
The 35 seems optically the best IMO - most reliable AF, good bokeh and fuly usable even wide open.

However I only got the 35 because I had a nice offer for a used mint sample.
And I still consider to get a 43/1.9 as a portrait lens for its faster aperture and slightly longer focal length.
Cant comment on the 40.

 

[raist3d]

The DA 40mm is being "sold to me" as very sharp and super fast to AF.

 

[Paratom]

I think! to remember to have read something like:
-the 40 is maybe slightly better regarding being very sharp all over the frame while the 43 might suffer slightly in the corners.
-the 40 to render a little colder color, while the 43 delivering a warmer overall look
-the 40 having a short focus thread and therfore focusing faster (what I wonder if the longer focus thread of the 43 could help to focus more accurate though??? )

I think choosing between the 2 I will probably go for the 43. Reason is I want at least one lens with a little faster speed and plan to use it for portrait where the somewhat shallower DOF would also help.
Also the 40 seems maybe somewhat to close to the 35 (both f2.8 and pretty close regarding focal length).

So for me the difference is:
smaller size, lower cost, slightly faster AF:40
little longer focal length, faster aparture, shallower DOF if wanted, but biger size and price: 43

If I had for example a 50/1.4 or a 55/1.4 (or would plan to get one) and would not have the 35Macro than I might prefer the 40.

Regarding the 35: I dont feel that it focuses slow (even if it was slower than the 40 which I do not question)

 

[ptomsu]

Having looked at both I would prefer the 43 over the 40. Much nicer to handle if you use MF. And for sure the faster lens. I think the size and weight differences are also not to big, so this all speaks for the 43.

What remains is the higher price of the 43 though

 

[jonoslack]

The 35 has a longer focus throw, and it is a bit noisy and slow . . BUT I don't think it's an issue for street, the problem occurs when going from very close to mid distance and back again - when the focusing is adjusting between say 3 and 5 metres it's quick and accurate.

 

[MPK2010]

I have the 40 and am happy with it. The only lenses I can really compare it with are the 31 and 21. I think the 31 is sharper in the center, and the 31 definitely has a nicer rendering, including in particular the out of focus areas, but the size difference is substantial. I also noticed a few more streetlight halo issues with the 31 than with the 40 (not that the 40 is totally immune). The out-of-focus rendering on the 40 is not beautiful like the 31, but it is fairly good; I like it.

The 21 and 40 seem roughly comparable so far in terms of sharpness, although I haven't used them enough to draw any definitive conclusions. It is clear that the 40 has nicer out-of-focus rendering than the 21, although many will not care too much about that in using the 21.

Don't have the 35 but like the macro results I have seen. Don't have the 43, but I have read that the center is sharper than the 40 but the corners are weaker. I have also heard mixed reports about how it performs wide open and not universal praise for the out-of-focus rendering. For me another issue was that 60 equiv FOV is already really pushing it for "normal" so I went with the 40 rather than 43. But all that said, it would be tempting to try the 43 sometime, given how much I like the 31.

For me, the K-5 is a bad-weather camera rather than my top-IQ camera, so it made more sense to keep the tiny 40 and 21 and sell the larger 31. But if this were my top-IQ camera I would without any hesitation buy the 31. It is my favorite of the Pentax lenses.

 

[raist3d]

Seems like everyone prefers non DA Limited and go for faster lenses...

makes me wonder.

Anyway I picked up today the 21mm DA Limited so that's what I have now.

Oh and also no more stains! I bought a 2nd body, and sending the first to Amazon. The 2nd doesn't have the stains and it was already Firmware 1.01.

Crossing my fingers it focuses even better!

The little I used the 21mm DA Limited, it seems pretty sharp.

- Raist

 

[bcf]

I am getting more and more interested in the K5 (I have a Nikon D700 and D200 currently), but... is there a good 28mm in the Pentax line (AF or manual)?

The 31mm is a bit long for me, I would prefer a lens that would give me the equivalent of a 40mm focal length on full frame (my favorite lens on the Nikon D700 is the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, and on the D200 it was the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AI-S).

 

[photogerald]

I am getting more and more interested in the K5 (I have a Nikon D700 and D200 currently), but... is there a good 28mm in the Pentax line (AF or manual)?

There is a gap at 28mm in the current lineup - a lot of folks are wishing for a new 28. If you are buying 2nd-hand, there is the FA28/2.8 but I'm not sure how good it is. As well as an assortment of manual focus ones.

Sigma has a fast 28 in P-K mount that you can buy new, but I have no experience with this one either.

 

[bcf]

lot of folks are wishing for a new 28.

Let's hope they make one.

Anybody has experience with any of the existing ones?

As for the Sigma, I hear it's rather good (and luminous), but rather too big for my taste.