[SirJangly]

Hey guys, I think I am set on this, unless I can be convinced otherwise. I plan on using it along with my tamron 70-300 for an outside wedding in the afternoon next month. I'd also like to use it as my walk-around lens. I was looking at the da 40mm, tamron 17-50/28-75...but not sure if I can justify spending almost twice as much for them? I am just hoping the IQ is better than the standard kit lens. I'd love to hear from people either way to make sure I do not regret my decision. Thanks in advance guys

[HoBykoYan]

Hi TS,

We share the same dilemma but instead of the 40mm am considering the 35 da/dal then the Tamton 17-50/28-75 together with my sigma 70-300...

I reall hope someone will help us out....

Thanks in advance to those who will

[SirJangly]

Thanks yan Just to clarify, the current plan is to buy the 35mm 2.4 DA and pair it with my tamron 70-300

[chalion]

I've had my 35mm 2.4 for about 6 months now and it's not left my K20D in all of that time. It's a good solid performer which is a bit slower than my FA 43mm 1.9, but to me shows colors almost was well as the limited. It is definately better than the kit lens (I have the mark I, not the mark II) and it's alot less bulky than my Sigma 18-50 2.8

I also have the Tamron 75-300, but when I got my hands on the Pentax DA 55-300, I retired it to my backup kit. The pf/ca at max zoom was a bit annoying to have to remove in post-processing, but since I was using it for long birding shots it's understandable to see this.

Edit: I also should note that the DAL 35mm 2.4 is now below $180 NEW from Amazon with shipping. When I purchased mine, it was above $230 and I considered it a good value back then.

[SirJangly]

I'm fine with my tamron 70-300 Good results. I have a few prime MF lenses but I want AF so I have a lesser chance of screwing up shots, especially because I can't manually focus very well. I just want to make sure that the 35mm 2.4 has a great performance per dollar ratio, and if for what I use it for, would not be able to justify paying an additional $175 for the other lenses.

[chalion]

Check out this thread of comparisons of various 35mm lenses done by frank, one of the first people who purchased the lens and also the K5.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/118765-da-35mm...ny-photos.html

[HoBykoYan]

The only thing that stops me from buying the 35 2.4 is the plastic mount... am afraid that like my 18-55 kit lens, part of the mount will have chipping that can ultimately cause dirty sensor.... (had this on my sensor, checked the mount and found bits of plastic...)

[chalion]

I'd suggest holding the lens release button while putting the lens on. That should reduce the chances of the mount chipping.

[loco]

Just got the DA 35/2.4 and really love it. It produces very sharp, clear, and colorful shots and is fast to lock focus. Plus, it's so light that it makes the already light K-r a breeze to carry around. At the price, it's hard to pass it up.

[SirJangly]

Hmm. Sounds like the 35mm 2.4 isn't a bad choice.

[omega leader]

My normal kit with me is my 50-150mm 2.8 and my 12-24mm. I will just throw the 35mm in the bag and it is a good other lens when the other two don't cut it. It is sharp wide open and gets good images.

Best of all I got it for under $200. Heck, I spent $120 on the filter for my 12-24mm.

[SirJangly]

I wonder how the quality is compared to tamron 17-50 and 28-75?

[twitch]

If all you have is a 70-300, which is going to be next to useless at a wedding anyway, I'd suggest you look at getting a Tamron 17-50 or a 28-75. I'm a prime shooter, I love my limiteds, but seriously for "work" (which means for me covering family events) I tend to use a zoom.

[SirJangly]

Well, I also have the kit 18-55 lens, and other primes that are MF and being sold.

[twitch]

Do you have a second body? Primes work better for this sort of thing when you have 2 bodies, but 1 prime and 1 body for an inexperienced wedding shooter is a receipe for failure IMHO.