[yusuf]

Would you chose DA 70 f2.4 over 50-135mm f2.8 (or similar zoom like 70-200mm f2.8) ?

Except for the size, I don't see any advantage. f2.4 is not a lot faster than f2.8 and zoom definitely has it's own flexibility. MTF ratings on phonezone are close too.

Just wondering

Yusuf

[Adam]

I would personally take the DA 70mm/FA 77mm/FA 85mm over the zoom unless it is raining, probably just because I like that particular FL range. If you're thinking only along the lines of lighting, however, I'd probably take the zoom over the DA, since half a stop won't do you much good. The FA lenses are both more than a stop faster, so that would be another story.

[Recercare]

Size and contrast.

[elho_cid]

These are very different lenses - take a look here:
Fórum - smc PENTAX-DA 1:2,4 70mm Limited - Pentax Friends Site - Pentax K20D - Pentax K200D

[GeneV]

I don't own the zoom, but my DA70 is one of the sharpest lenses I've used in 35 years of Pentax photography. It is also tiny. The DA*50-135 may be a fantastic lens, but I really don't know why one would compare the two. It's like comparing a Mini to an SUV. If you need an SUV then you don't need a Mini.

[sinus007]

Yusuf,
It's a classic example of trying to compare apples and oranges. Simple answer - they are different.
BTW, I think it's the first attempt to compare these two lenses. Mostly it's da70 vs fa77 or 50-135 vs 70-200/50-150.
You won't regret getting either one. If you can afford get both.

[aerodave]

I think that the dilemma as presented isn't your typical prime vs. zoom comparison, which is normally easy to settle in terms of image quality. In this case, however, you're putting a a pretty good prime lens against a zoom that has been rightfully labeled a "prime killer". The 50-135mm may be the sharpest, contrast-iest zoom Pentax has ever produced. You don't really give up much in image quality to gain a lot of flexibility in focal length range.

So in this case, you can almost (but maybe not quite) take image quality out of the equation. And aperture is already a virtual wash. The decision then comes down to the only things either lens has over the other one: size on one hand, versatility and weather sealing on the other.

I couldn't decide...I bought both.

[Marc Sabatella]

Except for the size, I don't see any advantage.

There's a joke here in the US, where some guy asks "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?". I assume even most non-US folk would be able to figure out who this might reference.

[twitch]

Would you chose DA 70 f2.4 over 50-135mm f2.8 (or similar zoom like 70-200mm f2.8) ?

Except for the size, I don't see any advantage. f2.4 is not a lot faster than f2.8 and zoom definitely has it's own flexibility. MTF ratings on phonezone are close too.

Just wondering

Yusuf

I have both those lenses, although the 50-135 for only 2 weeks. The IQ seems identical to me, both are simply stunning, so I agree that IQ can be taken out of the equation.

2.4 vs 2.8 is half a stop. That's only insignificant when you don't need it.

The DA70 is also a lot cheaper, and a lot smaller and a fraction or the weight. Being smaller, it's no where near as intimidating for people when you take their pictures. Sometimes that's very important, sometimes that doesn't matter.

The 50-135 is a fantastic range for candids at family events, which is the reason I bought it. I was getting sick of swapping between my DA40, DA70 and DA55-300. I wanted IQ & flexibility.

If I had to give up one lens I don't know which one I'd choose to be honest.

Probably a better comparison though would be between the FA77 and the DA*50-135 which are much closer in price.

[ll_coffee_lP]

First...get the DA 50-135 it is an awesome lens and you will never regret it. Later, when you are more clear on whether you should buy a zoom over a prime lens get the FA77 instead of the DA70. Again it's an awesome lens and you will never regret it.

c[_]

[SergioFromSF]

I actually had the same dilemma back in January. I chose DA70 for several reasons:

1) because it's a pancake lens, hence small, makes it an easy decision to grab the camera on the way out somewhere
2) wanted a good walk-around lens (small, light, fast)
3) less expensive than 50-135
4) was afraid of SDM issues

2 reasons I would have chosen 50-135

1) shooting indoor kid events or other indoor events (zoom is very helpful when bound by walls)
2) a planned shooting event (then size and weight wouldn't matter)

[montman]

I own both. Either way… If you get the 70 you will wish you had the 50-135 and if you have the 50-135 you will wish you had the 70. However if you had the 77 you just might be content.

[ManhattanProject]

There's a joke here in the US, where some guy asks "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?". I assume even most non-US folk would be able to figure out who this might reference.

I can't compare the two lenses, but I have the 50-135 and you wont hear a complaint from me.

[GeneV]

Size and contrast.

The zoom is double the price, too, if that matters.

[hinman]

I own both. Either way… If you get the 70 you will wish you had the 50-135 and if you have the 50-135 you will wish you had the 70. However if you had the 77 you just might be content.

I can't said it any better. Not that I try to convince you or others to get both. In my opinion, the 70mm and 50-135mm are totally different lens. Zooming with your feet on the 70mm prime does not work in all cases. I was shooting a dance using 77mm and 50-135mm in turns. Both gave me different characters and advantages/dis-advantages. I use 70mm for portraits and lighter and more compact in traveling while I use the zoom for flexibility as in an event that mobility that the zoom offers really pays off.

And I do have 70mm, 77mm, and the DA* 50-135mm. I am one of the sickest in LBA. I am planning to let go one of the primes and that will either be 70mm or the 77mm subject to how I flip the coin. There is no way that I will give up my DA* 50-135mm unless I change system or the SDM motor fails on me.