[Kameko]

I've currently got the 15mm Ltd, the F50 1.7 and a telephoto kicking around in my camera bag. As I'm learning more about what style of photography I enjoy, I find myself wanting a wider, faster prime than my trusty 50. I'm getting more into low light settings, whether it be concerts or abandoned places. I was thinking the 43mm Ltd. would be a good choice, but after trying it out, I'm not so sure it'd make much of a difference in focal length. I'm a bit fenced as to which way I should go, what lenses I should consider. Thoughts?

---

Last edited by Kameko; 08-09-2013 at 01:17 PM.

[kenafein]

You are right, 43 is too close to what you have. If you're wanting something dramatically different, go with 35 or wider. The DA35/2.4 is on sale now.

[oxidized]

yes. the 43 wouldnt be that different. every lens has a unique way of rendering but since you already have the 50 1.7 it will be a bit redundant. you could look into something in between 15 and 50. For instance the sigma 35 1.4 is very popular nowadays. It is also very fast, perfect for low light settings. If you are more on a budget you could also try the samyang/rokinon version of the lens - much cheaper but manual focus only. Of course there is always the 31mm 1.8 which I have and absolutely love. Though it's "bang for the buck" is somewhat questionable with the sigma being available now. There is also a pentax FA 35 F2, which is quite popular, sharp and about half the price of the 31mm. The nice thing about this 30ish focal length is that it looks very natural through your viewfinder since the 1.5 crop ratio makes it behave like a 50ish mm lens on your camera.

So it all boils down to
1) how much money are you willing to spend
2) are you willing to live with manual focus (in low light settings auto focus may not even be that useful)

After you answer those, you will be pretty close to the answer

[seventysixersfan]

I find myself wanting a wider, faster prime than my trusty 50.

Well, that's tricky. Your F50 is f/1.7. For a wider, faster prime in K-mount, AND autofocus, you only have a few options. (Obviously, you have more options if you're willing to use a manual focus lens.)

Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art
Sigma 30 f/1.4 - original version (only available used)
Sigma 28 f/1.8
Sigma 24 f/1.8
Sigma 20 f/1.8

Pentax FA* 24 f/2
Pentax FA 31 f/1.8
Pentax FA 35 f/2
Pentax DA 35 f/2.4 (not that fast)
Pentax FA 43 f/1.9 (which, as you point out, isn't much wider than your F 50)


am I missing any AF prime lens that is at least f/2 or faster, and wider than 50mm?

I think this is why the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 zoom holds so much appeal -- it covers the range where there are not that many fast primes currently available for K-mount.

You might be well served to try to buy a used Sigma 30 f/1.4 lens.

[Kameko]

Thanks for the advice, I've only briefly owned a Sigma lens and wasn't thrilled with the quality or weight. While the FA* 24 f/2 is appealing (there's one available on my local cl), I still fear it may be too close to my 15mm.

Price isn't too much of an issue. I'd rather not go and spend $400+ on a lens that I'd be unhappy with. I would much rather save for an extra month and get what I want. I'm curious about the FA 35 f/2, but in all reality I'll probably wait and get the 31.

[tclausen]

Thanks for the advice, I've only briefly owned a Sigma lens and wasn't thrilled with the quality or weight. While the FA* 24 f/2 is appealing (there's one available on my local cl), I still fear it may be too close to my 15mm.

Price isn't too much of an issue. I'd rather not go and spend $400+ on a lens that I'd be unhappy with. I would much rather save for an extra month and get what I want. I'm curious about the FA 35 f/2, but in all reality I'll probably wait and get the 31.

Given what you have, saving up and getting the Pentax 31mm sounds right.

I just looked at statistics in Aperture, >50% of my shots are with the 31mm.....you just won't regret waiting for that.

[Allison]

I personally found the 43 just Right. I know a lot of people don't find it very different from a 50, but just that little bit of extra room made a huge difference for me. If you want something a little wider, I suggest looking at the 31 or the 35 macro.

[savoche]

Thanks for the advice, I've only briefly owned a Sigma lens and wasn't thrilled with the quality or weight. While the FA* 24 f/2 is appealing (there's one available on my local cl), I still fear it may be too close to my 15mm.

Price isn't too much of an issue. I'd rather not go and spend $400+ on a lens that I'd be unhappy with. I would much rather save for an extra month and get what I want. I'm curious about the FA 35 f/2, but in all reality I'll probably wait and get the 31.

The difference between 24 mm and 15 mm is very close to the difference between 50 mm and 31 mm. So anywhere in that range will be close to "in the middle" (27.4 being the exact midpoint, if I'm not completely off).

[Apapukas]

Thanks for the advice, I've only briefly owned a Sigma lens and wasn't thrilled with the quality or weight. While the FA* 24 f/2 is appealing (there's one available on my local cl), I still fear it may be too close to my 15mm.

Price isn't too much of an issue. I'd rather not go and spend $400+ on a lens that I'd be unhappy with. I would much rather save for an extra month and get what I want. I'm curious about the FA 35 f/2, but in all reality I'll probably wait and get the 31.

I have owned 31mm and I can't say anything bad about it. Was my favorite lens.
But now since the Sigma have 18-35 f/1.8 and 35 f/1.4 I find it extremely hard to find reasons to pay extra 400/500$ for 31mm. It is just not worth it anymore.
I'd get the 18-35 if I were you (in fact, if my stolen 31 doesn't show up in a couple months, I will get 18-35)

[jqsk]

Yet another 31 owner reporting in with nothing but satisfaction. It's a pricey lens but I have never been disappointed by it. My desire to buy new gear actually dried up considerably when I obtained it. I'd be fine if it were the only lens I had.

[Kameko]

anddd I'm now the proud (broke) owner of this. Was pretty hard to resist after finding it used in my local camera shop for $900, especially when the sales guy knocks an extra $100 off of that. I'm hoping this lens lives up to its reputation. Thanks to everyone for the advice.

[Sandy Hancock]

The right choice. Congratulations and welcome to the Pixie Dust club!

[bossa]

Would someone please define "Pixie Dust"?

[jatrax]

It can`t be defined. It comes from pixies.

[Sandy Hancock]

Would someone please define "Pixie Dust"?

Why would anyone want to do a silly thing like that? Every time that question is asked a pixie dies.