Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-17-2011, 11:58 PM   #1
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,195
35mm ltd+100mm wr versus da*50-135mm

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, 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
MSD's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 164
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
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,195
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, 04:05 AM   #7
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 91
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.
05-18-2011, 06:39 AM   #8
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bangalore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,435
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
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,195
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wsteffey Quote
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
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,195
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ft. Myers Florida
Posts: 169
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
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
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by yusuf Quote
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.

:CanofWorms:



05-19-2011, 10:51 AM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 168
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
Veteran Member
farfisa's Avatar

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
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,195
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by farfisa Quote
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...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top