Prime kit recommendations

paperbag846 · 10-26-2010, 10:57 AM

Hey everyone - some opinions on a good prime kit.

Right now I mostly shoot with a 28mm 2.8 and 55 1.8... the 50 1.7 I have does not see so much action (might sell it, might not).

However I want to fill out the gaps. The wide-side of things could use the DA 15 (I've been completely won over by the DA 15 thread) ...I just need to find a good deal on it.

The 35mm 2.4 also looks amazing, and I would quite like to add it to my collection. I tried reading through the DA 35 2.4 vs. FA 35 2.0 thread but I found it to be too much information! So I have 2 questions:

While I realize eventually something in the 70-85 area would be nice eventually, it's not my top priority.

Does this look like a good set up?

15 - 28 - 35 - (50/55)

or is the 28/35 similarity going to be too close? I've tried both focal lengths on my zoom and they ARE close, but I want to hear the oppinions of people who have used both and might have some insights into the other optical differences between 28mm and 35mm. Will the 35 2.4 be noticeably faster than the 28mm 2.8? It would be nice to have a fast 35 for indoors where the 28mm, in my experience, is rather dark.

Any alternatives you can think of?

Last edited by paperbag846; 10-26-2010 at 12:00 PM.

paperbag846 · 10-26-2010, 01:23 PM

60 views and not one opinion?

axl · 10-26-2010, 01:31 PM

OK, I'll give you my opinion. But take it with the fact I never shot 35 in mind please.
1 - is your 28 MF or AF.
if it's MF you can easily justify 35 as it will give you normal AF option.

28 vs 35 is tad close but not unbearably so IMO. I have 24-31 which is only 7mm (although on wider end the 7mm is bigger than in normal) and I think it's difference worth having. Ideal solution: sell 28, forget 35 and get 31ltd or Sigma 30/1.4 (I've never used it but from the owners it gets rather high scores...)

my 2p

paperbag846 · 10-26-2010, 01:41 PM

Thanks! My 28mm is manual focus (so are my 50's) so I thought the AF wa enough reason to buy the 35. I'm thinkin of using the 28mm as a sharp tight landscape lens, and the DA 35 for people more. Do you folks think that sounds reasonable?

PS. Looked into the 31ltd and that is my one day, dream lens. The sigma, on the other hand, does not look too much more desirable to me than the 35. I'll look into it more thoroughly.

Impartial · 10-26-2010, 01:52 PM

If you have a manual-focus 28, then I think the 35/2.4 will be "different enough" in how you use it to make it a worthwhile purchase. And for bokeh, the new lens is looking quite promising, at least compared to anything but the 40/2.8 or the FA Limiteds . . .

axl · 10-26-2010, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Thanks! My 28mm is manual focus (so are my 50's) so I thought the AF wa enough reason to buy the 35. I'm thinkin of using the 28mm as a sharp tight landscape lens, and the DA 35 for people more. Do you folks think that sounds reasonable?

PS. Looked into the 31ltd and that is my one day, dream lens. The sigma, on the other hand, does not look too much more desirable to me than the 35. I'll look into it more thoroughly.

One thing the Sigma has over DA35 is 1.5 stop advantage and hence shallover DOF. But I'll agree SMC is SMC...

Originally posted by Impartial

If you have a manual-focus 28, then I think the 35/2.4 will be "different enough" in how you use it to make it a worthwhile purchase. And for bokeh, the new lens is looking quite promising, at least compared to anything but the 40/2.8 or the FA Limiteds . . .

definitely agree on this...

paperbag846 · 10-26-2010, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by axl

One thing the Sigma has over DA35 is 1.5 stop advantage and hence shallover DOF. But I'll agree SMC is SMC...

definitely agree on this...

I was under the impression that the DA 40 was not really a bokeh master, but desirable for it's compact size.

Would the upgrade from the 35mm to the 40 be a big jump in IQ?

Eagle_Friends · 10-26-2010, 02:06 PM

If you have a K-X or a K-r, the choice is easy.

Get a DA 40mm!!!

Otherwise,

GET A DA 40mm!!!!

**NaClH2O** · 10-26-2010, 02:07 PM

Don't know what your pocket book is like, but I'd suggest the FA 20mm F2.8. It is close to limited quality, excellent color rendition, contrast and bokeh and is also sharp sharp sharp. In addtion it is a nice close focuser.
May I suggest DA 14mm FA 20mm Sigma 30mm (or FA 31 ltd if you can afford it) and one of the fast 50's?

NaCl(the only trouble with the FA 20mm is that it's expensive and sometimes hard to find)H2O

**mattb123** · 10-26-2010, 02:19 PM - **1 Like**

I'm also a fan of the 40, but if I was buying now I might go for the new 35 instead. As for bokeh, here's some with the da40. It's not as creamy as say the SMC A 50, but not bad IMO. This also may not be the best example, but it was the best example I had handy!

paperbag846 · 10-26-2010, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

Don't know what your pocket book is like, but I'd suggest the FA 20mm F2.8. It is close to limited quality, excellent color rendition, contrast and bokeh and is also sharp sharp sharp. In addtion it is a nice close focuser.
May I suggest DA 14mm FA 20mm Sigma 30mm (or FA 31 ltd if you can afford it) and one of the fast 50's?

NaCl(the only trouble with the FA 20mm is that it's expensive and sometimes hard to find)H2O

Yes I like the look of the FA 20 but that will have to wait for now. I think I like the DA 15 over the 14 for its absurd flare resistance.

Now this sigma 30mm... I have read very little but it just does not look that sharp. Furthermore I am actually very happy with the 28mm, and would maybe replace it one day with the 24 2.0 when I can afford it. The 28mm lens is quite nice except in situations where I'm starved for light.

On to the 35mm... if I could buy any it would be the DA 35 macro, but I can't

. The FA 35 2.0 looks good, but hard to find and rather pricey when compared to the DA 35 2.4... which looks very good in some recent comparisons.

Now the DA 40 (which I have considered before) has reared it's head again. However extreme compactness has never been top priority to me, but if it will give me significantly nicer pictures than the 35 2.4, I would consider it. I would sell the 50mm 1.7 too, and stick with the 55 1.8. Would the difference in low-light between the 35 2.4 and the 40 2.8 be worth mentioning?

I like the lineup that you mentioned NaCl, but I don't have anywhere near enough money to play with to get myself that lineup. Thats why all the lenses I currently own cost me under 200

. However I just sold off some guitar gear I don't use that much anymore, and plan on spending 300 - 500 on something that will really blow my current lenses away (and, after all, be AF).

Thanks so much everyone.

EDIT: The bokeh looks pretty good on the DA 40... better than my 50 1.7. However, I would bet that the bokeh would be greatly helped by moving to something like the DA 70?

So in essence: Would the DA 40 be sharper/nicer/better bokeh than the cheaper DA 35? Would I miss that stop in low light?

E.g., I never really use my 50 1.7 below 2.4 for people anyways, because nothing is in focus. So I'm really torn. Unfortunately the bokeh of the 50 1.7 starts to look really jagged and busy past 2.8, so an improvement with the DA 40 might be the right compromise... unless I can get similar rendering out of the 35 fantastic plastic!

axl · 10-26-2010, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

I was under the impression that the DA 40 was not really a bokeh master, but desirable for it's compact size.

Would the upgrade from the 35mm to the 40 be a big jump in IQ?

for it's speed the DA40 has actually very pleasant bokeh. Very smooth and pleasant.... combined with great sharpness very nice IMO
(talking from first hand experience here)

twitch · 10-26-2010, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

So in essence: Would the DA 40 be sharper/nicer/better bokeh than the cheaper DA 35? Would I miss that stop in low light?

I think you'd need a microscope to spot the difference in either sharpness or bokeh between those 2 lenses. Tiny differences between lenses get way over stated on forums like this. Worry about the right FL, if 35 is "right" then you wont go wrong with the DA35 (either models).

RioRico · 10-26-2010, 05:08 PM

Partly it's a matter of cost, eh? My only AF prime is the FA50/1.4 -- all my rest (MANY) are manual, and they're what I can afford.

What I have and like on the wide side are the Zenitar 16/2.8 (the least cheap); Tokina-made M42 21/3.8 and 24/2.8 and PK 35/2.8; Tamron PK 28/2.5; If I can get my Vivitar-Komine 24/2 fixed or replaced, it might stand in for the 21 and 28. A 35/2 or faster would be nice too, a stand-in for a FF Nifty Fifty.

The differences between 21-24-28 are minor but noticeable, and can be significant depending on what you're doing. The 21mm is great on sunny streets, stopped-down to f/11 and hyperfocused to 2m for DOF of 1m to infinity, but I don't use it much indoors. The 24mm is good in well-lit indoors and for nice sharp landscapes. The 28mm has the true 'normal' FL and is good for general walkabout and tighter landscapes. In comparison, a 35-37mm has the short-tele FOV of a FF Nifty Fifty, and the Zenitar grabs small spaces nicely.

I could talk about longer lenses but I'd bore you and I must go cook dinner now. Ciao.

paperbag846 · 10-26-2010, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by twitch

I think you'd need a microscope to spot the difference in either sharpness or bokeh between those 2 lenses. Tiny differences between lenses get way over stated on forums like this. Worry about the right FL, if 35 is "right" then you wont go wrong with the DA35 (either models).

This was my "worry". I got the impression that the DA 40 was more about the super-compact size and weight, and the all metal construction. For me, not super important at this point (although one day I'd like to invest in some sexier glass

).

That said, I can't help but think that the 9 blades vs. 6 blades would really make a difference for OOF renderings when you stop down to say F4. I don't yet have a lens that will render a blurry background in the f4 - 5.6 area, which I really like.

If neither will pull that off though, I'll buy the 35 for less and save up for the DA 70

.

10-26-2010, 10:57 AM	#1
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Prime kit recommendations Hey everyone - some opinions on a good prime kit. Right now I mostly shoot with a 28mm 2.8 and 55 1.8... the 50 1.7 I have does not see so much action (might sell it, might not). However I want to fill out the gaps. The wide-side of things could use the DA 15 (I've been completely won over by the DA 15 thread) ...I just need to find a good deal on it. The 35mm 2.4 also looks amazing, and I would quite like to add it to my collection. I tried reading through the DA 35 2.4 vs. FA 35 2.0 thread but I found it to be too much information! So I have 2 questions: While I realize eventually something in the 70-85 area would be nice eventually, it's not my top priority. Does this look like a good set up? 15 - 28 - 35 - (50/55) or is the 28/35 similarity going to be too close? I've tried both focal lengths on my zoom and they ARE close, but I want to hear the oppinions of people who have used both and might have some insights into the other optical differences between 28mm and 35mm. Will the 35 2.4 be noticeably faster than the 28mm 2.8? It would be nice to have a fast 35 for indoors where the 28mm, in my experience, is rather dark. Any alternatives you can think of? Last edited by paperbag846; 10-26-2010 at 12:00 PM.

10-26-2010, 02:26 PM	#11
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395 Original Poster	Originally posted by NaClH2O Don't know what your pocket book is like, but I'd suggest the FA 20mm F2.8. It is close to limited quality, excellent color rendition, contrast and bokeh and is also sharp sharp sharp. In addtion it is a nice close focuser. May I suggest DA 14mm FA 20mm Sigma 30mm (or FA 31 ltd if you can afford it) and one of the fast 50's? NaCl(the only trouble with the FA 20mm is that it's expensive and sometimes hard to find)H2O Yes I like the look of the FA 20 but that will have to wait for now. I think I like the DA 15 over the 14 for its absurd flare resistance. Now this sigma 30mm... I have read very little but it just does not look that sharp. Furthermore I am actually very happy with the 28mm, and would maybe replace it one day with the 24 2.0 when I can afford it. The 28mm lens is quite nice except in situations where I'm starved for light. On to the 35mm... if I could buy any it would be the DA 35 macro, but I can't . The FA 35 2.0 looks good, but hard to find and rather pricey when compared to the DA 35 2.4... which looks very good in some recent comparisons. Now the DA 40 (which I have considered before) has reared it's head again. However extreme compactness has never been top priority to me, but if it will give me significantly nicer pictures than the 35 2.4, I would consider it. I would sell the 50mm 1.7 too, and stick with the 55 1.8. Would the difference in low-light between the 35 2.4 and the 40 2.8 be worth mentioning? I like the lineup that you mentioned NaCl, but I don't have anywhere near enough money to play with to get myself that lineup. Thats why all the lenses I currently own cost me under 200 . However I just sold off some guitar gear I don't use that much anymore, and plan on spending 300 - 500 on something that will really blow my current lenses away (and, after all, be AF). Thanks so much everyone. EDIT: The bokeh looks pretty good on the DA 40... better than my 50 1.7. However, I would bet that the bokeh would be greatly helped by moving to something like the DA 70? So in essence: Would the DA 40 be sharper/nicer/better bokeh than the cheaper DA 35? Would I miss that stop in low light? E.g., I never really use my 50 1.7 below 2.4 for people anyways, because nothing is in focus. So I'm really torn. Unfortunately the bokeh of the 50 1.7 starts to look really jagged and busy past 2.8, so an improvement with the DA 40 might be the right compromise... unless I can get similar rendering out of the 35 fantastic plastic! Last edited by paperbag846; 10-26-2010 at 02:47 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-7 Kit recommendations	SkagitFly	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	10-04-2010 04:36 AM
Recommendations for replacing the 18-55mm DA-L Kit Lens...	Internetpilot	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	66	06-12-2010 11:49 PM
Looking to replace my K-x kit lenses - recommendations please	iankh	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	04-26-2010 09:26 AM
Need recommendations on my kit (75/25 portrait/landscape)	krypticide	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	11-15-2008 04:36 PM
Prime Recommendations Between 24 and 50 ?	daacon	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	30	04-07-2008 01:07 PM

10-26-2010, 01:23 PM	#2
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395 Original Poster	60 views and not one opinion?

10-26-2010, 01:31 PM	#3
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	OK, I'll give you my opinion. But take it with the fact I never shot 35 in mind please. 1 - is your 28 MF or AF. if it's MF you can easily justify 35 as it will give you normal AF option. 28 vs 35 is tad close but not unbearably so IMO. I have 24-31 which is only 7mm (although on wider end the 7mm is bigger than in normal) and I think it's difference worth having. Ideal solution: sell 28, forget 35 and get 31ltd or Sigma 30/1.4 (I've never used it but from the owners it gets rather high scores...) my 2p

10-26-2010, 01:41 PM	#4
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395 Original Poster	Thanks! My 28mm is manual focus (so are my 50's) so I thought the AF wa enough reason to buy the 35. I'm thinkin of using the 28mm as a sharp tight landscape lens, and the DA 35 for people more. Do you folks think that sounds reasonable? PS. Looked into the 31ltd and that is my one day, dream lens. The sigma, on the other hand, does not look too much more desirable to me than the 35. I'll look into it more thoroughly.

10-26-2010, 01:52 PM	#5
Impartial Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 208	If you have a manual-focus 28, then I think the 35/2.4 will be "different enough" in how you use it to make it a worthwhile purchase. And for bokeh, the new lens is looking quite promising, at least compared to anything but the 40/2.8 or the FA Limiteds . . .

10-26-2010, 01:56 PM	#6
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by paperbag846 Thanks! My 28mm is manual focus (so are my 50's) so I thought the AF wa enough reason to buy the 35. I'm thinkin of using the 28mm as a sharp tight landscape lens, and the DA 35 for people more. Do you folks think that sounds reasonable? PS. Looked into the 31ltd and that is my one day, dream lens. The sigma, on the other hand, does not look too much more desirable to me than the 35. I'll look into it more thoroughly. One thing the Sigma has over DA35 is 1.5 stop advantage and hence shallover DOF. But I'll agree SMC is SMC... Originally posted by Impartial If you have a manual-focus 28, then I think the 35/2.4 will be "different enough" in how you use it to make it a worthwhile purchase. And for bokeh, the new lens is looking quite promising, at least compared to anything but the 40/2.8 or the FA Limiteds . . . definitely agree on this...

10-26-2010, 02:04 PM	#7
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395 Original Poster	Originally posted by axl One thing the Sigma has over DA35 is 1.5 stop advantage and hence shallover DOF. But I'll agree SMC is SMC... definitely agree on this... I was under the impression that the DA 40 was not really a bokeh master, but desirable for it's compact size. Would the upgrade from the 35mm to the 40 be a big jump in IQ?

10-26-2010, 02:06 PM	#8
Eagle_Friends Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 971	If you have a K-X or a K-r, the choice is easy. Get a DA 40mm!!! Otherwise, GET A DA 40mm!!!!

10-26-2010, 02:07 PM	#9
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Don't know what your pocket book is like, but I'd suggest the FA 20mm F2.8. It is close to limited quality, excellent color rendition, contrast and bokeh and is also sharp sharp sharp. In addtion it is a nice close focuser. May I suggest DA 14mm FA 20mm Sigma 30mm (or FA 31 ltd if you can afford it) and one of the fast 50's? NaCl(the only trouble with the FA 20mm is that it's expensive and sometimes hard to find)H2O

10-26-2010, 02:19 PM - 1 Like	#10
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,873	I'm also a fan of the 40, but if I was buying now I might go for the new 35 instead. As for bokeh, here's some with the da40. It's not as creamy as say the SMC A 50, but not bad IMO. This also may not be the best example, but it was the best example I had handy!

10-26-2010, 02:44 PM	#12
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by paperbag846 I was under the impression that the DA 40 was not really a bokeh master, but desirable for it's compact size. Would the upgrade from the 35mm to the 40 be a big jump in IQ? for it's speed the DA40 has actually very pleasant bokeh. Very smooth and pleasant.... combined with great sharpness very nice IMO (talking from first hand experience here)

10-26-2010, 03:47 PM	#13
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by paperbag846 So in essence: Would the DA 40 be sharper/nicer/better bokeh than the cheaper DA 35? Would I miss that stop in low light? I think you'd need a microscope to spot the difference in either sharpness or bokeh between those 2 lenses. Tiny differences between lenses get way over stated on forums like this. Worry about the right FL, if 35 is "right" then you wont go wrong with the DA35 (either models).

10-26-2010, 05:08 PM	#14
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Partly it's a matter of cost, eh? My only AF prime is the FA50/1.4 -- all my rest (MANY) are manual, and they're what I can afford. What I have and like on the wide side are the Zenitar 16/2.8 (the least cheap); Tokina-made M42 21/3.8 and 24/2.8 and PK 35/2.8; Tamron PK 28/2.5; If I can get my Vivitar-Komine 24/2 fixed or replaced, it might stand in for the 21 and 28. A 35/2 or faster would be nice too, a stand-in for a FF Nifty Fifty. The differences between 21-24-28 are minor but noticeable, and can be significant depending on what you're doing. The 21mm is great on sunny streets, stopped-down to f/11 and hyperfocused to 2m for DOF of 1m to infinity, but I don't use it much indoors. The 24mm is good in well-lit indoors and for nice sharp landscapes. The 28mm has the true 'normal' FL and is good for general walkabout and tighter landscapes. In comparison, a 35-37mm has the short-tele FOV of a FF Nifty Fifty, and the Zenitar grabs small spaces nicely. I could talk about longer lenses but I'd bore you and I must go cook dinner now. Ciao.

10-26-2010, 07:59 PM	#15
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395 Original Poster	Originally posted by twitch I think you'd need a microscope to spot the difference in either sharpness or bokeh between those 2 lenses. Tiny differences between lenses get way over stated on forums like this. Worry about the right FL, if 35 is "right" then you wont go wrong with the DA35 (either models). This was my "worry". I got the impression that the DA 40 was more about the super-compact size and weight, and the all metal construction. For me, not super important at this point (although one day I'd like to invest in some sexier glass ). That said, I can't help but think that the 9 blades vs. 6 blades would really make a difference for OOF renderings when you stop down to say F4. I don't yet have a lens that will render a blurry background in the f4 - 5.6 area, which I really like. If neither will pull that off though, I'll buy the 35 for less and save up for the DA 70 .