[axl]

I would imagine the Tamron 28-75 would be able to replace that FA 35, although I don't think you will ever find a zoom that renders exactly like the FA 43.

I don't think zooms can touch FA43...
The Tamron has great reviews but all in all I'd say FA*28-70 would edge it slightly in IQ and by mile in built quality. If that's worth 2-2.5x the price... That's up to you..

Generally speaking, thats either going to be less flexible, or much more expensive (because you would have to own so many primes to cover all the ranges).

Think about it:

--- ASPC---

Ultra Wide (x-15) - Wide (16-27) - Normal (28-40) - Short Tele (41-55) - Tele (56-70) - Long Tele (71-x).

You don't need all of these ranges covered, but if you *wanted* that kind of flexibility, you would end up with a kit that looks like (high quality):

DA 15, DA 21, FA 35, DA* 55, FA 77, D FA 100...

I mean, sure, that would nice to own, but not incredibly cost-effective or practical in the field. And I'm sure there are some here that are thinking "put an FA 43 between that 35 and that 55!"

If the purpose is to collect fine objects as well as take photos, then this makes a lot of sense. They are beautiful, and fun, to own. But for the most part, you can get the same results in a much more cost efficient package with 2 zooms and a fast prime in the middle.

The point of having primes is not to cover all ranges. And if so, not in one outing. I tried it,at one point I had:
10-20, 24 (Sigma AF 2.8), 31, 40, 50/1.7, 55/1.8, 105 (Sigma).
I "reduced" it to:
10-20, 24 (FA*), 31, 43, 50/1.2, 55/1.8, 77
Still too much,
Ended up selling a lot
And only keep 31 for my wife, and FA*24 + DA*55 + FA100/2.8 (probably will get replaced by 85 of sorts in future). And frankly I would easily get by with 24+55 for 95% of my shooting.
Thing with primes is, you have to find out how you see the world and then pick a lens you can interpret this vision with. F.e. As great as 77 is, I could never lift camera with 77 to my eye and shoot. I always had to recompose and move (usually flinch). With 24 and 55 it all comes naturally...

No need for 100s of primes, pick a few, wisely and carefully and you'll be reaping the rewards...

[paperbag846]

That Tamron looks like it might be a candidate (28-75), but from looking at images, it's nowhere near as sharp or saturated as those two at f2.8, and I do a lot of shooting there.

The Tamron has it's faults. I compared my DA 40 with the Tamron, and I stuck with the DA 40. Of course, the Tamron was worse than the DA 40 at 40mm, but the Tamron was considerably better than the 40 at 75mm .

It's always a compromise. Fact is, the Tamron 28-75 effectively covers the DA 21, 40, and 70, for approximately the cost of *one* of those.

The differences are even greater when you compare with the FA ltds, but the Tamron still kicks the FA 43's ass at 70mm .

Compromise! Compromise! Compromise!

[paperbag846]

No need for 100s of primes, pick a few, wisely and carefully and you'll be reaping the rewards...

Yes, exactly. If you want that FA 43 magic, keep it. But if you have the 43, 50, & 55... it might be time to pick one and also buy the 50-135 .

I think something like the 10-20, FA 43, 50-135 would have 90% of the magic that your prime set up had, with considerably more money in your pocket and weight off your shoulder.

[GeneV]

I use the 12-24 pretty often, though it would serve me just fine as a 12mm prime.

For parties or similar events where I do use a lot of different focal lengths on one body, I use the DA 17-70, and can often get through an entire event with hardly any other lens.

For travel or portraits, it is overwhelmingly primes. I'll take the 18-55/50-200 kit, but I don't use them all that much.

Oh, yes, and for the zoo--mostly the 55-300.

[axl]

I think something like the 10-20, FA 43, 50-135 would have 90% of the magic that your prime set up had, with considerably more money in your pocket and weight off your shoulder.

Not really....
been there done that.
There was a time when I had 10-20+31ltd+50-135.
43 is way too close to 50-135 which on closer distances is considerably wider than 50 is not too far off 43....
I wasn't bad line up but it didn't satisfy me....

besides, in my mind it's the 50/1.2 and not 43 which was the irreplacible....

[paperbag846]

besides, in my mind it's the 50/1.2 and not 43 which was the irreplacible....

Sure, but the principal remains the same. If you have that 50 1.2, why bother owning a FA 43? The fact that your zoom also does 50mm is not going to replace the uniqueness of 50 1.2, and that prime is not going to replace your 50-135 when you want longer focal lengths.

What about the 10-20 + 31 + 50-135 did you find so limiting? Seems like a pretty solid set up.

[Blue]

Sure, but the principal remains the same. If you have that 50 1.2, why bother owning a FA 43? The fact that your zoom also does 50mm is not going to replace the uniqueness of 50 1.2, and that prime is not going to replace your 50-135 when you want longer focal lengths.

What about the 10-20 + 31 + 50-135 did you find so limiting? Seems like a pretty solid set up.

Those zooms are gi-normous is why I would endup leaving them behind when I travel. I replaced a very good Sigma 20-40/2.8 because of size and put a DA 21mm Ltd in its place. My 21 ltd, 35 ltd, 77 ltd, and FA 50 take up less room than it did.

[builttospill]

I only keep two zooms in my bag (others at home) and they very rarely make it to the camera. I enjoy using primes much more. I don't even need to discuss image quality differences because primes provide a better shooting experience for me.

[jstevewhite]

The Tamron has it's faults. I compared my DA 40 with the Tamron, and I stuck with the DA 40. Of course, the Tamron was worse than the DA 40 at 40mm, but the Tamron was considerably better than the 40 at 75mm .

It's always a compromise. Fact is, the Tamron 28-75 effectively covers the DA 21, 40, and 70, for approximately the cost of *one* of those.

The differences are even greater when you compare with the FA ltds, but the Tamron still kicks the FA 43's ass at 70mm .

Now that's not quite fair. If the Tamron kicks the FA43's ass at 70, then the DA21 kicks the Tamron's ass at 21mm. Consistency! I get your point, but fair is fair

The DAs aren't fast enough to justify choosing them over a zoom. You've got to look real, real close to tell the difference between the DA70 and the DA* 50-135 @70mm above f3.2. At f4, I got $5 that says you (in the generic sense, not you personally) can't, even at 100%.

I might end up lookin' to swap the FA43LTD for the DA* 55, I think.

[JHD]

With the exception of the DA40 and the Tamron 90, I dumped all my primes.

That's a different perspective. So what are the zooms you having now?

Pruned it down to 3 zooms by Sigma... 10-20, 17-70, 50-150, and the 2 WR kits by Pentax.

These lenses are good enough to earn well into six figures this year alone.

[jstevewhite]

Pruned it down to 3 zooms by Sigma... 10-20, 17-70, 50-150, and the 2 WR kits by Pentax.

These lenses are good enough to earn well into six figures this year alone.

Oh, see, that's a *completely* different question, talking about lenses as a tool primarily for commerce rather than a tool primarily for art (or vocation vs. hobby, if you'd rather). I shoot with my primes for fun. In a studio I used primes, because of the controlled environment. With the zooms available now, I wouldn't use anything else on location, period. If I were shooting weddings or environmental portraits, candids, events, no question, it would be three zooms. Maybe one really fast prime in case I got in one of those situations.

[Aristophanes]

I've considered this solution with a couple of exceptions, but I've had real trouble finding a zoom in the 20-70 f2.8 range that wasn't *obviously* inferior to the primes I have in that range. (FA35, FA43, Helios 44M). I had the 16-50 2.8, and it was a disappointment. I have a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 that does ok when I need the flexibility. But I can almost always tell the difference between an image from it and one from one of my primes. (Same with the DA* 16-50). I can't always tell the difference between the DA* 50-135 and the Helios, or the D-Xenon 100mm (if it's not a macro shot). Sometimes it can be tough to tell the diff between the DA* 50-135 at the long end and my Tamron 180 f2.5 (both at f4).

If I could find a ~20-~70 that wasn't obviously inferior to my FA35 and FA43, I might use zooms more. Of course, they can't replace the f1.9 speeds.

The only one I know of and have used is the Nikon 24-70 for FF!
And the 14-24 ain't too shabby either.
Throw in a 70-300 and you're set.

Oh. And a sherpa as well.

Most pros I know (journalism landscape, typology) use zooms for the money shot. Zooms are all news orgs buyI've been told.

[jstevewhite]

The only one I know of and have used is the Nikon 24-70 for FF!
And the 14-24 ain't too shabby either.
Throw in a 70-300 and you're set.

Oh. And a sherpa as well.

Most pros I know (journalism landscape, typology) use zooms for the money shot. Zooms are all news orgs buyI've been told.

Yeah, like I said - as a tool for commerce, lenses are a different animal than they are when viewed as an artist's brush. As long as your recording exceeds the quality of the publication media, it's adequate for "professional" work. Since much of what is shot is targeted for electronic use, that bar is pretty low, eh?

Most wedding pros I've seen use zooms almost exclusively. The last four or five weddings I've seen in person have all been shot with zooms; two with one lens change, two with NO lens changes.

[pricyber]

Really depends, when I am just going out I use primes as they are much smaller, but during event I use zoom cause I cant waste time changing lens. It really depends on what you do and what you need.

[johnmflores]

DA Limiteds primes when I'm looking to save weight.
DA* zooms when I'm looking to save time.