[nonstopnick]

I currently own a K50 and my only lens thus far is the DA 18-135 3.5-5.6 WR. I like the lens outside, but it needs lots of light, so i find myself with a wide open lens and no DOF. We are currently raising a litter of puppies and I am ending up with in focus eyes and blurry noses!

I am looking for a prime with a large aperture that will allow me to shoot indoors, and in low light without a flash. The 35mm focal length would be better for indoors but Im not sure about the 2.4 aperture. I like the idea of the 1.8 of the 50mm, but worry that the focal length is too long. Yes, I know the FA43 would be the ticket here, but unless you kind folks take up a collection in my name, its out of the question for now. B&H has both of these right now: $155 for the 35mm and $130 for the 50mm with free shipping. I could get both on sell the one I use the least, but I'm not good at selling stuff.

I see myself moving toward brighter glass in general and prefer good quality gear, so Ltd lenses are in my future, but not for a while. So what say you fellow Pentaxians?

[robgski]

It seems to me that you need to raise the ISO for a better aperture choice, because at f1.8, you'll get the same results, only the eyes in focus withteh ears and snout out of focus.

Having said that, I really like my 50mm f1.8.

[aremmes]

Get the 35. At f/2.4 it's only a half-stop slower than the 50/1.8, and the K-50 has good enough low-light performance to work with even slower lenses.

Do plan on getting the 50 later if you intend to do much portrait work, as it performs much better in that use case.

[luftfluss]

I currently own a K50 and my only lens thus far is the DA 18-135 3.5-5.6 WR. I like the lens outside, but it needs lots of light, so i find myself with a wide open lens and no DOF. We are currently raising a litter of puppies and I am ending up with in focus eyes and blurry noses!

I am looking for a prime with a large aperture that will allow me to shoot indoors, and in low light without a flash. The 35mm focal length would be better for indoors but Im not sure about the 2.4 aperture. I like the idea of the 1.8 of the 50mm, but worry that the focal length is too long. Yes, I know the FA43 would be the ticket here, but unless you kind folks take up a collection in my name, its out of the question for now. B&H has both of these right now: $155 for the 35mm and $130 for the 50mm with free shipping. I could get both on sell the one I use the least, but I'm not good at selling stuff.

I see myself moving toward brighter glass in general and prefer good quality gear, so Ltd lenses are in my future, but not for a while. So what say you fellow Pentaxians?

So, you're saying that when you shoot wide-open with the 18-135 you get no DOF, but then you want a fast prime, which will give you even less DOF if you shoot wide-open due to the larger sperture.

Not that there is anything wrong with a fast prime, but I agree with robgski, its time to increase your ISO.

[troika]

I had a DA35/2.4 and have had a few fast 50s. The FA 35/2 was unavailable for a long time and one day some new ones showed up and were on-sale, so now I have a FA 35/2 and an SMC 50/1.4.

I think you'll be happier with 35mm focal length indoors for what you're describing. You might also look at the Sigma 30/1.4.

Personally, I didn't connect all that well with the DA 35/2.4. I agree that it's a great lens for the price and it's really not bad in any way, but I wasn't that happy with it. In my own experience the FA35 is a much better lens and that extra partial stop makes a big difference indoors without a flash. You might just look for and price the FA35, Sigma 30 and DA35 and see if they are close enough for your comfort. The 35/2.4 is well regarded and it would be an improvement on your zoom which I think is f4 or f4.5 at that focal length. .

I like 43-55mm lenses too, but with a litter of puppies you're going to be standing on a ladder trying to fit them all in. 28-35 is really useful indoors, taking pictures of friends sitting around a table or something like that.

EDIT: Props to the other good advice you're getting. I don't like using a flash either, but you might need to be shooting at 5.6 or 8 to get all of these critters in focus. You can get more light with a faster lens, but at a cost. It depends on what you're going for. I, of course, went straight to the gear question...stupid me.

[clackers]

Depth of field problems mean you don't need faster lenses, Nick, you need to master subtle hotshoe flash if you can't position the puppies in good light.

They're harder than cats to get right because of the nose-eye distance.

[UncleVanya]

I currently own a K50 and my only lens thus far is the DA 18-135 3.5-5.6 WR. I like the lens outside, but it needs lots of light, so i find myself with a wide open lens and no DOF. We are currently raising a litter of puppies and I am ending up with in focus eyes and blurry noses!

Let's start with this fact:

ROUGHLY Speaking, a given focal length at a given f/stop gives the same depth of field on the same sensor. This means that your DA 18-135 set at 35mm and shot at f/4 gives you the same DOF as the 35mm f/2.4 lens also shot at the same f/4. The 35mm would be able to produce LESS depth of field for those times that you want to do that.

Let's also agree that you may be experiencing bad focus - which lower light with slower lenses will have more trouble with than the 35mm f/2.4 would.

You may want to test your AF calibration to see if you are front or rear focused which will also impact your keeper ratio.

---

Last edited by UncleVanya; 03-06-2015 at 06:57 PM.

[robthebloke]

The 35. That is all.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Both are great. I have them. The 35mm does stay glued on to my camera more, though. I can shoot at 2.8 & ISO 3200 & get very good results in low light.

The 50 mm can let me shoot at 2.0 & ISO 1600 or 3200. Even more light coming in.

I normally don't open them all the way, unless I'm trying to get a specific bokeh induced shot.

[Greenneck]

What Iso would you guys recommend if he decides to try shooting with his 18-135
Ive ran into the same issue and Im afraid to set mine higher than 200 because I worry ill get too much noise but the only time I tried was back before I shot raw

[UncleVanya]

What Iso would you guys recommend if he decides to try shooting with his 18-135
Ive ran into the same issue and Im afraid to set mine higher than 200 because I worry ill get too much noise but the only time I tried was back before I shot raw

Even jpeg at 1600 is reasonable on the k50. I've had keepers at 3200 without raw.

[Greenneck]

Even jpeg at 1600 is reasonable on the k50. I've had keepers at 3200 without raw.

Is there like an user accepted iso cut off point when in raw. Ie at night dont go over 1600 or during the day 3200 is fine something like that?

[Des]

Is there like an user accepted iso cut off point when in raw. Ie at night dont go over 1600 or during the day 3200 is fine something like that?

I've got plenty of RAW shots at 6400 with the K-30 that are quite usable, once they are given the treatment with DxO Optics Pro PRIME noise reduction. Here's an example (taken right on sunset with my Tamron 18-250 superzoom).

[Greenneck]

I've got plenty of RAW shots at 6400 with the K-30 that are quite usable, once they are given the treatment with DxO Optics Pro PRIME noise reduction. Here's an example (taken right on sunset with my Tamron 18-250 superzoom).
[/URL]

That looks very good but what if you only use light room and dont want to spend 130 for a program?

[nonstopnick]

Thanks for all the replies. As for DOF: i could get the shot at 35mm with my current lens at f4, but am stopping the lens down a couple stops to gain some DOF which means I have to crank the ISO. The da35 should give me more DOF at the same f4. Correct?