35mm ltd+100mm wr versus da*50-135mm

cali92rs · 05-17-2011, 11:58 PM

Just like the title says, which would you get, the two primes or the zoom? I realize they aren't quite the same range. I already have the 14 f2.8 and the 300 f4.

I guess I am a little gun shy because I am so used to zooms that I may use it as a crutch.

wjt · 05-18-2011, 12:41 AM

I have all 3, i have the non wr version of the DFA100. I spent probably a year using little else but my 35Ltd, I had other lenses but there was something about the 35 i loved. I got the 50-135 a while back and since then my spare time has diminished to zero, most of my shooting now is with the 50-135, mostly because the focal range is nice and it is easy for traveling with (I fly a lot) and lens changes where I am would be problematic due to iron ore dust every where i go (sealing is another consideration here) you basically cant go wrong with either selection, all are outstanding lenses, though I have barely had a chance for using my 100 macro.

If i was you i would get the 35Ltd and the 50-135, they complement each other so well, especially with your 14 and 300, a kit of 14, 35, 50-135 and 300 would leave you needing little... wanting is different kettle of fish, but you would have basically everything covered. from wide angle all the way to tele.

MSD · 05-18-2011, 12:45 AM

The primes are an easy choice for me.
They fit your kit perfectly and fill important gaps.
The primes are also significantly smaller and lighter than the 50-135.
The 50-135 is an excellent lens, but the versatility of the primes wins in my mind (and the primes have fantastic image quality, being macro primes).

One question- why two macro lenses? If it is a one-off opportunity, it is understandable, but if it is your personal selection then you might be better off going with a regular 28-35 mm range prime, buying a nifty fifty and using the 100 for macro, tele and some portraits.

Hope this helps.

wjt · 05-18-2011, 12:49 AM

to add to what MSD said don't think of the 35Ltd as a macro, yes it is a macro lens but you have to be very close to the subject to pull out a macro shot, think of it more as a close focusing lens.

cali92rs · 05-18-2011, 01:04 AM

The fact that they are two macros is coincidental more than anything. I want a normal lens and medium telephoto. Umm and I need at least one limited, right

I guess my main question is how many shots do you guys miss when you go for primes instead of zoom? I know old school photographers didn't require every mm covered.

wjt · 05-18-2011, 03:17 AM

Da35ltd and da70ltd. Small, great iq, small.
You don't miss many shots if you are willing to zoom with feet, and most things are cropable if you are a bit wide.

wsteffey · 05-18-2011, 04:05 AM

Just curious, but will the two options cost about the same? I would really like to try a couple of primes, but my status as a frugal photographer leaves me with keeps me in the zoom family.

yusuf · 05-18-2011, 06:39 AM

I would go with 35+100mm combo.

50-135mm is a nice lens but does not match the quality of above combo. Not to open a can of worms, I had an opportunity to test 50-135mm before I bought 70-200mm and personally I found 50-135mm a bit soft wide open.

cali92rs · 05-18-2011, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by wsteffey

Just curious, but will the two options cost about the same? I would really like to try a couple of primes, but my status as a frugal photographer leaves me with keeps me in the zoom family.

You could probably do the 35+70 for about the same price as 50-135...
The 35+100 will be a couple hundred more than the 50-135.

Geez wjt, you just gave me another intriguing combo that I will rack my brain over!

cali92rs · 05-18-2011, 12:35 PM

Or...should I just get a 31 ltd and live with that for a while....I already have a 28-300mm tamron which is no world beater, but at least I would have those lengths covered.

Spotmatic · 05-18-2011, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by cali92rs

The fact that they are two macros is coincidental more than anything. I want a normal lens and medium telephoto. Umm and I need at least one limited, right

I guess my main question is how many shots do you guys miss when you go for primes instead of zoom? I know old school photographers didn't require every mm covered.

You answered your own question. Primes are more compact than zooms. I like primes. Some people like zooms. Both can take great photos. The K5 has plenty
of real estate and cropping is not a crime.

Blue · 05-18-2011, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by yusuf

I would go with 35+100mm combo.

50-135mm is a nice lens but does not match the quality of above combo. Not to open a can of worms, I had an opportunity to test 50-135mm before I bought 70-200mm and personally I found 50-135mm a bit soft wide open.

chiane · 05-19-2011, 10:51 AM

I wouldn't worry so much about getting every millimeter covered for length, and go with the better lens/ lenses. Between 100mm and 135 is not earth shattering in terms of reach. I'd do primes and forget the zoom. The size alone would be worth it to me.

farfisa · 05-19-2011, 11:01 AM

Personally, I think the 100 WR macro is a limited in disguise

I went on a trip a few months ago and my two most used lenses were the 35/2.4 DAL and the 100 WR Macro. Covered a lot!

I owned the 50-135 but prefer the 100. When using the 50-135 I was usually at the long end anyway, so I get (much) closer focusing, sharper optics (though the 50-135 is no slouch) and a lighter build in the 100 WR.

Since the 50-135 is internal focusing, the extra reach on the long end might not amount to so much if your subject is close.

cali92rs · 05-19-2011, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by farfisa

Personally, I think the 100 WR macro is a limited in disguise

I went on a trip a few months ago and my two most used lenses were the 35/2.4 DAL and the 100 WR Macro. Covered a lot!

I owned the 50-135 but prefer the 100. When using the 50-135 I was usually at the long end anyway, so I get (much) closer focusing, sharper optics (though the 50-135 is no slouch) and a lighter build in the 100 WR.

Since the 50-135 is internal focusing, the extra reach on the long end might not amount to so much if your subject is close.

How did you like that 35 DAL? I was actually thinking of getting that with a FA77 ltd to stay within my budget...

05-17-2011, 11:58 PM	#1
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	*35mm ltd+100mm wr versus da50-135mm** Just like the title says, which would you get, the two primes or the zoom? I realize they aren't quite the same range. I already have the 14 f2.8 and the 300 f4. I guess I am a little gun shy because I am so used to zooms that I may use it as a crutch.

05-18-2011, 04:05 AM	#7
wsteffey Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 106	Cost comparison Just curious, but will the two options cost about the same? I would really like to try a couple of primes, but my status as a frugal photographer leaves me with keeps me in the zoom family.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA* 50-135mm versus Tamron 70-200mm	Tommot1965	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	11-08-2010 04:02 AM
FA 31mm f/1.8 versus FA 35mm /f2 - That old debate again	pentaman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	11-28-2009 02:47 AM
DA* 50-135mm vs. D-FA 100mm AF?	MidwestMax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	06-22-2009 08:58 AM
Bokeh challenge: 77 Limited versus DA*50-135mm!!!	mikerigel	Post Your Photos!	6	09-01-2007 10:51 PM

05-18-2011, 12:41 AM	#2
wjt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Perth Photos: Albums Posts: 371	I have all 3, i have the non wr version of the DFA100. I spent probably a year using little else but my 35Ltd, I had other lenses but there was something about the 35 i loved. I got the 50-135 a while back and since then my spare time has diminished to zero, most of my shooting now is with the 50-135, mostly because the focal range is nice and it is easy for traveling with (I fly a lot) and lens changes where I am would be problematic due to iron ore dust every where i go (sealing is another consideration here) you basically cant go wrong with either selection, all are outstanding lenses, though I have barely had a chance for using my 100 macro. If i was you i would get the 35Ltd and the 50-135, they complement each other so well, especially with your 14 and 300, a kit of 14, 35, 50-135 and 300 would leave you needing little... wanting is different kettle of fish, but you would have basically everything covered. from wide angle all the way to tele.

05-18-2011, 12:45 AM	#3
MSD Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 163	The primes are an easy choice for me. They fit your kit perfectly and fill important gaps. The primes are also significantly smaller and lighter than the 50-135. The 50-135 is an excellent lens, but the versatility of the primes wins in my mind (and the primes have fantastic image quality, being macro primes). One question- why two macro lenses? If it is a one-off opportunity, it is understandable, but if it is your personal selection then you might be better off going with a regular 28-35 mm range prime, buying a nifty fifty and using the 100 for macro, tele and some portraits. Hope this helps.

05-18-2011, 12:49 AM	#4
wjt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Perth Photos: Albums Posts: 371	to add to what MSD said don't think of the 35Ltd as a macro, yes it is a macro lens but you have to be very close to the subject to pull out a macro shot, think of it more as a close focusing lens.

05-18-2011, 01:04 AM	#5
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354 Original Poster	The fact that they are two macros is coincidental more than anything. I want a normal lens and medium telephoto. Umm and I need at least one limited, right I guess my main question is how many shots do you guys miss when you go for primes instead of zoom? I know old school photographers didn't require every mm covered.

05-18-2011, 03:17 AM	#6
wjt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Perth Photos: Albums Posts: 371	Da35ltd and da70ltd. Small, great iq, small. You don't miss many shots if you are willing to zoom with feet, and most things are cropable if you are a bit wide.

05-18-2011, 06:39 AM	#8
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	I would go with 35+100mm combo. 50-135mm is a nice lens but does not match the quality of above combo. Not to open a can of worms, I had an opportunity to test 50-135mm before I bought 70-200mm and personally I found 50-135mm a bit soft wide open.

05-18-2011, 07:38 AM	#9
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354 Original Poster	Originally posted by wsteffey Just curious, but will the two options cost about the same? I would really like to try a couple of primes, but my status as a frugal photographer leaves me with keeps me in the zoom family. You could probably do the 35+70 for about the same price as 50-135... The 35+100 will be a couple hundred more than the 50-135. Geez wjt, you just gave me another intriguing combo that I will rack my brain over!

05-18-2011, 12:35 PM	#10
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354 Original Poster	Or...should I just get a 31 ltd and live with that for a while....I already have a 28-300mm tamron which is no world beater, but at least I would have those lengths covered.

05-18-2011, 03:35 PM	#11
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	Originally posted by cali92rs The fact that they are two macros is coincidental more than anything. I want a normal lens and medium telephoto. Umm and I need at least one limited, right I guess my main question is how many shots do you guys miss when you go for primes instead of zoom? I know old school photographers didn't require every mm covered. You answered your own question. Primes are more compact than zooms. I like primes. Some people like zooms. Both can take great photos. The K5 has plenty of real estate and cropping is not a crime.

05-18-2011, 09:15 PM	#12
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by yusuf I would go with 35+100mm combo. 50-135mm is a nice lens but does not match the quality of above combo. *Not to open a can of worms,* I had an opportunity to test 50-135mm before I bought 70-200mm and personally I found 50-135mm a bit soft wide open.

05-19-2011, 10:51 AM	#13
chiane Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	I wouldn't worry so much about getting every millimeter covered for length, and go with the better lens/ lenses. Between 100mm and 135 is not earth shattering in terms of reach. I'd do primes and forget the zoom. The size alone would be worth it to me.

05-19-2011, 11:01 AM	#14
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	Personally, I think the 100 WR macro is a limited in disguise I went on a trip a few months ago and my two most used lenses were the 35/2.4 DAL and the 100 WR Macro. Covered a lot! I owned the 50-135 but prefer the 100. When using the 50-135 I was usually at the long end anyway, so I get (much) closer focusing, sharper optics (though the 50-135 is no slouch) and a lighter build in the 100 WR. Since the 50-135 is internal focusing, the extra reach on the long end might not amount to so much if your subject is close.

05-19-2011, 10:09 PM	#15
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354 Original Poster	Originally posted by farfisa Personally, I think the 100 WR macro is a limited in disguise I went on a trip a few months ago and my two most used lenses were the 35/2.4 DAL and the 100 WR Macro. Covered a lot! I owned the 50-135 but prefer the 100. When using the 50-135 I was usually at the long end anyway, so I get (much) closer focusing, sharper optics (though the 50-135 is no slouch) and a lighter build in the 100 WR. Since the 50-135 is internal focusing, the extra reach on the long end might not amount to so much if your subject is close. How did you like that 35 DAL? I was actually thinking of getting that with a FA77 ltd to stay within my budget...