[jlh]

I have a kit of three zoom lens all Tamron; 10-24mm f3.4, 28-75mm f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8. The sense I have is that most think IQ is better with primes. I can get a good normal view with 28-75 at the low end. Would a Pentax prime in the 35mm or the 40mm range add much or just add more kit with out added capability?

thanks,

jlh

[lytrytyr]

Would a Pentax prime in the 35mm or the 40mm range add much or just add more kit with out added capability?

Apart from anything else,
the DA 35 Ltd Macro would give you coverage
from 1:1 to infinity.
Also, it is much more compact than the zooms.

For street use, small primes attract less unwelcome attention
than a zoom (especially if you have a hood on the zoom as well).

[newmikey]

I have a kit of three zoom lens all Tamron; 10-24mm f3.4, 28-75mm f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8. The sense I have is that most think IQ is better with primes. I can get a good normal view with 28-75 at the low end. Would a Pentax prime in the 35mm or the 40mm range add much or just add more kit with out added capability?

I think you will see very little improvement if at all as both your 28-75 and 70-200 are top-quality zooms. The difference with primes will definitely be there but you'll be hard-pressed to identify it. The 10-24 is somewhat less in pure IQ but covers a range almost no quality prime does.

So my opinion is clear: you'd just add kit which you likely would never use.

[Schmidlapper]

In terms of creativity and photo quality it would probably not add a whole lot. The measurements may improve, tight inspections on screen likely would show slight sharpness boost, but you may loose a quality you like in the process. I defiantly get sharper from my primes, but I like many shots taken with my Tamron 17-50 too, and sometimes like the rendering even better. Character is more about imperfection than perfection and is purely subjective..

[DeadJohn]

If you aren't printing at large sizes you will not notice a substantial image quality improvement going from a decent zoom to a prime. Add a prime if it can fill a real limitation in your current setup. The 35 Limited Macro is supposed to be an excellent lens, but if you don't need something more compact than your zooms and have no interested in shooting macro, then the lens "upgrade" might just just sit idle.

You have 10-200 covered. *If* you are interested in birds, other wildlife, and aviation perhaps a 300+ might be an option for your first prime.

[jatrax]

Many people start with a kit zoom or at least a consumer level zoom, so when they try a prime the difference is very noticeable. But with top notch zooms like your 28-75 and 70-200 you will not see as much difference. With a good prime there will be a difference but unless you are really looking it will be hard to see. In the old days when zooms first came out there was usually a very noticeable difference as the zoom quality just was not as good. With today's modern zooms the difference is shrinking.

If you are happy with the quality you are currently getting I think you would just be adding kit. If you want to try a prime get something that is not already well covered in your kit and see if you like using a prime lens. The suggestions above (DA35mm macro or a 300mm) are good. I use a three zoom kit when traveling but I never leave my DFA 100mm wr at home, just would not be without it. One other suggestion might be an F 50mm f/1.7 or an FA 50mm f/1.4 for low light shots.

[Driline]

If you aren't printing at large sizes you will not notice a substantial image quality improvement going from a decent zoom to a prime.

I'm going to have to agree with John here. I went from the 18-55 kit zoom lens to the FA 43 and was blown away. Night and day difference in quality. Even way better than the Pentax 18-135 WR. But when I obtained the Pentax DA* 50-135 zoom lens things changed. Yes the FA 43 has it's own special qualities but comparing the 50-135 images I would have to say IQ was equal in most cases, even though they shoot in different focal lengths. I really like the prime's though because they are small and unobtrusive. My next lens will also be a prime, the DA 21 to fill the gap in focal length. But I would never give up my DA* 50-135 zoom. The images are that good.
I like both and will use both.

[Kerrowdown]

I think a lot depends on what the final image is being used for.

If it's small prints or computer screen viewing, your not really going to notice to be honest.

I like primes because I've always used them and I'm a dinosaur now, they give me what I want and need in terms of my images. There's no right a or wrong here, it's what suits you for what you doing.

[52mm]

Also, it is much more compact than the zooms.

For street use, small primes attract less unwelcome attention
than a zoom (especially if you have a hood on the zoom as well).

This. Primes can be small, light and unobtrusive for what they do. Look at a DA 35/2.4, one of the super small 40/2.8s (barely a body cap), the 50/1.8 or the 70/2.4 Limited, and then look at the Tamron 28-75. (And I suppose you don't even want a fast 300+ mm lens in anything else but prime form.) Not to mention that a lens on the camera (subjectively) tends to be multiple times as heavy as in the bag.

Plus, having a fixed focal length makes you shoot differently, more consciously. (Even more so for manual primes.) It's something for those occasions when you can / want to take your time, not so much when it's hectic.

Oh, and I while I certainly wouldn't want to drop a prime, I REALLY wouldn't want to drop a zoom.

[kswong_00]

i have a tamron 28-75. But i'll always go for sigma 30 or fa 43 if i'm doing portrait photos. I can't get the great bokeh that there primes have provided even at the same aperture.