[Jonathan Mac]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and it´s my most-used lens overall for the flexibility it offers. But I would love a small, fast standard prime with AF, which means the DAL 35mm f/2.4, as I don´t have much money to spend. But as it´s only (in theory) half a stop faster than the Tammy, is it really worth it?

Really, the only reason it could be is if it´s more than half a stop faster. Some have reported that it´s more like f/2.2, and it is known to be based on an f/2 lens. It also may allow more light in than the Tammy simply because it´s a prime rather than a zoom.

Does anyone have the two to compare? Thanks.

[Adam]

You might see slightly better IQ, but given the overlap, I wouldn't say it's worth it. Perhaps a telephoto zoom would be a better investment?

All lens apertures are approximate. Sometimes they're a bit faster, sometimes a bit slower than reported.

[blackcloudbrew]

Part of the answer here is dependent on your style of shooting, in this case zoom or prime.

So members of this forum prefer/go out of their way/just like to shoot prime lenses. They tend to be a more vocal group than others to whom this isn't a devotion and shoot either a mix or just zooms. As you may know, for a long time primes were always considered to be generally sharper than zooms (and less complicated too). While in some specific instances this may still be the case, my experience and readings on this is that modern zoom lenses are absolutely on par with primes. Personally I love them both but when I have to grab a lens or two for a quick shoot, it's going to be a zoom lens 99% of the time (and I have some very nice prime lenses too).

But! It's fun and challenging to go with one focal length. 35mm is a good all round length. The small size of the lens+camera can be very minimalist for some shooting situations. It depends on what you want to do with it of course.

If you say just have the Tammy and want to get your second lens, you could consider going wider or longer than your Tammy to extend your range. That reasoning would argue that the DA35 would not be the best choice. But if you want a set up that's lightweight and less intrusive, the DA35 would be right in there with the DA40limited as that kind of set up. Looking at your listing of gear where would the DA35 fit in?

I've considered it my self but last fall I bought a FA 35 f2 lens. It's been nice but so far I haven't used it as much as I thought I would as my go to lens is the DA*16-50. (they both give great results)

Anyway, I suggest that you think about what you want to do with it and then make up your mind.

[hcc]

I would agree with the earlier posts of Adam and blackcloudbrew. The DAL35mm 2.5 is barely faster than the Tammy. The only positive point is the fun to shoot with a prime. Yes it is fun... Today, I shot 250 photos with my Voigtlander 58m f1.4. It's a fast MF prime lens, with great IQ, and I really enjoyed it.

You should consider other primes. A f1.4 of f1.8 prime lens could be more fun, and there are some manual lenses at reasonable costs.

Food for thoughts.

---

Last edited by hcc; 04-08-2011 at 01:14 AM.

[yusuf]

I started similar thread for getting FA35/2 when I already have Tamron 17-50, and eventually I ended up buying FA35 and no regrets.