Fast fifty vs. fa 35 f/2.0?

[NaClH2O]

Originally Posted by axl

*snip*
Now I'm still after something to fill the gap between my Sigma 10-20 and DA40 (as gap stop measure I got Tokina 28 f2.8, but I'm really after AF lens, or very good manual).
so my conclusion, good luck choosing, but I think it doesn't matter because sooner or later you'll get both (and many more...)
BR

Axl, have you thought about the Sigma 24mm EX DG F1.8? I thoroughly enjoy mine (as long as you use a good hood...flare can be bad without) And it also has pretty good "close focus" capability. Sigma markets it as a "macro" but it's more close focus than true macro. I use it primarily as a "club" lens where low light and relatively short distances are the norm. But it also works well as a landscape and garden lens. It also seems to be somewhat available second hand.

NaCl(not quite as good as the FA 20mm F2.8 but my second hand copy is less than 1/2 the price)H2O

[Marc Sabatella]

I voted fast 50, on the assumption that you go cheap (used manual focus). For $50 or less, you've got a great short portrait lens, and money left over to then think about the FA35, and perhaps also consider DA35 Macro, DA40 or waiting for the DA* 30.

[rparmar]

Can I be difficult and say neither? I prefer normal length 28mm to 35mm, which is too pinched for me on a DSLR. Nonetheless I use the DA35 when I need flower shots or can only have one lens for whatever reason.

In primes I've got 24, 28, 35, 43, 55, 77, 105 and prefer 28 and 77.

[soccerjoe5]

Originally Posted by Sailor

I didn't vote, because comparing different focal lengths is like comparing apples to oranges, and rational people can prefer either.

I have both lenses, and I use my FA 35/2 far more than my FA 50/1.4 - in part because I find the "normal" fov more versatile for the kind of shooting I do and because I much prefer the clean sharpness of the 35. Others find the 35 to have too "clinical" a rendering - so you run into the apples and oranges again.

Jer

I'm with Jer here. Both are excellent lenses. I believe the deciding factor should be the focal length YOU prefer

[clawhammer]

I voted FA 35. I got a FA 50 for christmas last year. It's a great lens, small, very sharp when stopped down a stop or a stop-and-a-half, and a lot of fun. However, having used it indoors (where a lot of your low-light situations occur), I wished it was wider. I would gladly trade the one stop in speed for the wider angle.

[audiobomber]

The FA 50mm 1.4 is my short range portrait lens, and I could never be without that. I don't have a 35mm and don't miss having one. I have an A 28mm 2.8 that I very rarely use. I use the 16-45 a lot, but mostly it's at one end or the other.

[Light_Horseman]

I have both (A50/1.2 and FA35/2) and I give my priority to the fast 50. I love having the narrower DOF to play with and I am starting to appreciate getting in closer for portraiture.

[ll_coffee_lP]

I have the FA50 and the FA35. FA50 wins hands down for me for focal length/speed/dof (and cost).

c[_]

[Robert S Donovan]

Have a 50 1.7A. Just bought what may very well be one of the last FA 35s. I like to shoot up close to my subjects and the 35 gives me more options than a 50. The 50's not for sale, though ;-)

[axl]

Originally Posted by NaClH2O

Axl, have you thought about the Sigma 24mm EX DG F1.8? I thoroughly enjoy mine (as long as you use a good hood...flare can be bad without) And it also has pretty good "close focus" capability. Sigma markets it as a "macro" but it's more close focus than true macro. I use it primarily as a "club" lens where low light and relatively short distances are the norm. But it also works well as a landscape and garden lens. It also seems to be somewhat available second hand.

NaCl(not quite as good as the FA 20mm F2.8 but my second hand copy is less than 1/2 the price)H2O

I have thought about that lens, and I still do...
since my previous post in this thread I purchased FA31/1.8 and now I have gap between 31 & 20. Since 28 is too close to 31 and 21 is too close to 20 (though 3.2 is much faster than 5.6) 24 is really the only option I have...
so either Sigma you suggest or FA*24 let's see....

BR

[WerTicus]

looks like the fa 35 f2 is discontinued

Pentax | Wide Angle 35mm f/2.0 SMCP-FA AL Autofocus Lens | 22190

"# Important Notice!
# This item has been discontinued and is no longer available"


I think its going to be come a collectors item if true!

[ILoveVerdi]

Fast 50s are so cheap, you really should have one, at least, eventually. I bought the FA 50 as my first lens, because I really wanted to take better photos in low light indoors (and because for the price the lens is a steal). It's no longer my default lens but it certainly has a role that nothing else I have currently fills. 35 may be a touch wide for standard portraits, some may say.

[farfisa]

Originally Posted by WerTicus

looks like the fa 35 f2 is discontinued

Pentax | Wide Angle 35mm f/2.0 SMCP-FA AL Autofocus Lens | 22190

"# Important Notice!
# This item has been discontinued and is no longer available"


I think its going to be come a collectors item if true!

From a timing standpoint, I'd get the FA 35mm now. They're getting more and more rare--there are sightings here and there at B&H and wherever at reasonable prices, but they just doubled in price in Canada.

Any day of the week you can find a fast fifty in the marketplace!

[Robert S Donovan]

I agree that everyone should have a fast fifty in their bag for low light, portraits, etc. However, a fast 35 on an APS-C camera is going to get more real world use day in and day out by most people. That's why it was the defacto standard for 35mm kit lenses back in the day. (In other words, get both.)

[Robert S Donovan]

Here's one difference between the FA 35 f/2 and the FA 50 f/1.4: