Hey guys, I've got a question for you. Who would've guessed??
Should I get the HD 40mm f/2.8 ltd?
First some context:
I own a
K-30, with the
Tammy 17-50 f/2.8,
HD DA 55-300,
M 50 f/1.7
A 28 2.8
A 35-105 f/3.5 "stack o' primes"
I have a rather low-budget, as you can tell by my lenses
I've wanted a standard prime lens, my 50 is too long for standard, and the DA 35 ltd is too expensive (and I temporarily alleviated my macro needs by purchasing a set of cheap extension tubes). The 40 would be a compromise between the two, but... i guess my question is,
should I bother getting the 40 f/2.8 when i already own the tamron 17-50 f/2.8?
The Tamron image quality is good, although i'm sure the 40 ltd is better, considering my VERY low budget, am I just trying to convince myself of something I don't really NEED? Both lenses are f/2.8, after all, so i'm not gaining any low-light/bokeh advantage, like I do with my M 50 f/1.7. I realize the 40 ltd is tiny, but again, do you think I don't really need it?
For the type of photography I generally do, you could check my 500px link in the signature, if that would help you with feedback.
thanks so much to the best pentax forum!
p.s. another reason I would want to 40mm ltd is because my 50 f/1.7 doesn't have AF, which is one reason I use it less. But then I usually use it for the 1.7 aperture.