Originally posted by Woolcott So, having put a few pennies I found down the back of various sofas together, I have enough to get either one of these lenses used from a local camera shop.
I know that it's comparing apples and oranges, but which do we reckon gives the most bang for the buck? I mainly use my 50mm 1.7 when I'm out and about, and whilst I love that lens, I think it's high time something came along to challenge its place in my affections.
Whilst I have no particular need for macro, it's something I would love to give a try. Given that most of my photography at the moment is either street or concert-based though, I feel that the 70mm may be more useful for what I currently do.
What would people recommend in terms of wow factor and happiness with cost?
(FWIW I'm looking at about £290/$485 for either)
I have both and both are great lenses. I do find that I probably get more use out of the 35 since it is perfect as a normal focal length lens. In addition its so sharp, you can crop to the point of equivalence to the 70 mm. Plus you may find times where you may want to try some macro shots, especially if you are interested in photographing small items such as jewelry, coins & stamps and botanicals. None of this is in any way a put down of the 70 mm, it is compact and very sharp and it has its niche too. This is the lens for situations where you need more reach than a normal lens can provide. Nothing beats having both, but if you are going to pick on which is more versatile and get more use out of, its the 35. Best Bang for the buck. My most used combo is DA 21 and DA35 and the DA 70 since it is so small.