Originally posted by Wheatfield HAR!!!
I don't worry much about weather sealing, but mostly I live in a dry area.
I admit it's nice to have, but really, how often does a lack of it really affect things?
I have both the 31 and the 35 macro.
I would really like to love the 35 macro, and it is certainly a nice lens that I can't say anything bad about, but I always seem to migrate back to the 31.
I just got the 43, and to a great extent, and I'm finding it to be the perfect compliment to the 31. I can see my 35 hitting the shelf for a while, anyway.
The 35 is definitely the nicer carry lens though.
I'm actually someone who likes to shoot in adverse weather a lot, believe it or not. I love to go out in the rain and snow for pictures. Of course, I've been doing it for years
without any weather-sealing, so I guess a kit that's 1/2 weather-sealed is a step in the right direction... LOL
I could probably make arguments for both the DA 35 and the FA 31. It's a tough decision, but if I look at price and the possibility of keeping the DA*55, the 35 might have to be the winner. However, I'm just not sure if having a 35, 43, 55 and 70 is all that smart... (continued below...)
Originally posted by Nick Siebers Hi Amy -
I picked up an 18-55 WR for snap-shooting in weather, and it works just fine for a lens I will only use in bad weather conditions. I am not crazy about it, but for $120 I can live with it. For a small, light-weight wide lens with great IQ I use an FA 20-35 - it might not have the magic of the limiteds, but is pretty darn sweet. I had a 31, but it was a little big for me, and I didn't love it enough to justify its expense (heresy, I know). The DA35 macro is quite different from the 43, and I like it less... but if you don't have a macro lens, it is nice to go as close as you'd like. (I prefer the FA 50 macro for that).
If I were to pare down to "bare essentials" (and there's no risk of that) I'd probably go 20-35, 43, 50 macro.
I had the non-WR kit lens back with the K-x and hated it... just about never used it. Had I not switched over to the limiteds (40 and 70 at the time) I probably would have given up on Pentax completely. If I end up returning the 18-135, it'll be in favor of keeping the DA* 55 as my one weather-sealed lens.
Now, the FA 20-35 is an interesting suggestion! I didn't know about this lens at all, and though it isn't fast, it might be a decent solution for wider than 35. I'll have to read some of the reviews on that one. It might be interesting to have a kit made up of the 20-35, 43, 55 and 70. Of course, based on the prices I intially saw, I might be able to swing both the 20-35 and 35 Macro... though it would be redundant, it would give me macro when I want it and wider when I want it. Hmmmmm
Originally posted by acrollet: Hi Amy,
I have the 35 ltd and the 43mm, and they are extremely different lenses. The 35 definitely works as a normal, and the 43 is much more of a short-tele/wide portrait type lens. The 35 is an interesting lens, its rendering is so accurate that I find it almost boring at times, but I think that's much more to do with my lack of imagination/composition skill than anything else Another way to look at it is that the photos it takes start out very neutral, and will take on any character you give them with with composition, post processing, etc.
hope this helps.
I'd imagine, quality wise, the DA 35 might compare more to the DA 40 (which I liked very much when I had it). In all honestly, I could probably go with a kit of completely DA limiteds and be very happy... though as per Nick above, the FA 20-35 sounds interesting.
I used to do some macros years ago and enjoyed it. It's something I haven't really been into much in the last few years, but believe it or not, I was out with a Lensbaby today and that sparked the interest again. I had shot a dandelion and the shot itself was unremarkable, but at 100% in photoshop that's what I wanted the photo to be... hence, my sudden re-interest was born.
Oh man... decisions decisions... off to read more about the FA 20-35...