[gokenin]

Hello, I am just curious what range of focal lengths do people have that still use primes? I currently have a 28,50 and 70 I am thinking of picking up the 35 and hoping for the 135 but does the 35 seem redundant?

[boriscleto]

I would go for a 24 instead of a 35. Or get rid of the 28 and get a 24 and a 35. Or a 21 and a 40. Or a 21, a 24, a 35, and a 40. I'm a LBA enabler...

[Lowell Goudge]

Hello, I am just curious what range of focal lengths do people have that still use primes? I currently have a 28,50 and 70 I am thinking of picking up the 35 and hoping for the 135 but does the 35 seem redundant?

i have 3 basic lens kits, and M42 kit, a K/KA Manual focus kit, and an AF kit

My M42 kit is exclusively primes, ranging from 16mmFE through 300mm in total I have about 20 lenses.
My K mount kit is about the same number of lenses from 8mm fisheye through 400mm Primes, plus 70-210 and 200-500mm zooms
My AF kit is 10mm through 400mm exclusively zooms

[condor27596]

I have 35 50 and 77 The 35 is not redundant. 35 x 1.5 for apps-c = the " nifty fifty" everyone says you should have. The 50=75. Which I use for indoor portraits. But I find it too magnifying for day to day use.

I'm hoping to one day get that really nice 31, but it is super expensive.

You can get a 35 for $100 and I say go for it.

[Tas]

My main bag is all primes except for the Sigma 10-20. The primes include: smc 15 LTD, Zeiss 25, 35, 50, smc 70 LTD, and Zeiss 85 and 100. I also drag the DA*300mm around a bit and if I had a Zeiss 135 and the DA*200mm they'd be regular travellers too.

Looking at your options wider and longer seem to be the logical directions to head. The 15 is a great choice if you're interested in going wide. But I also love my 35 and there's some inexpensive options to try if you want to give it a go.

Good luck with your choice.

[hcc]

My primes range from 15mm to 300mm. However, Pentax FL offer is outstanding within 15mm to 100mm, but with gaps above. Many PF have redundant FL, because different lenses have different colours and feel. For example, I have two 50mm and one 58mm; one 77mm, one 85mm and one 90mm.

Since you have already 28,50 and 70, you should ask yourself what is most important. Do you want to expand your focal length (FL) range? Do you want to enhance the image quality (IQ) of your shots? What do you shoot most? What do you want to learn?

If you simply want to expand your FL range, do for a 15mm or a 135mm. If you want to improve the IQ (and enhance your keeper rate), consider a FA Limited lens. The FA31mm or FA77mm possibly? If you want to shoot portrait, I would recommend the FA77mm Ltd based upon my own take. Do you want to do some macro? The DFA100mm would be a good choice IMHO.

It seems to me that you should carefully consider your lens buying path based upon your needs and interests.

I hope that the comment will help.

[Volker76]

50mm (two actually)
100mm (macro)
135mm

Don't see the need for any other.

[condor27596]

But for $100 to be used as a walk around lens the 35 is fantastic.

[SpecialK]

Hello, I am just curious what range of focal lengths do people have that still use primes?

All of them. And yes, the 35 is a bit redundant but is the sort of normal lens (on APS-C). I would get wider or longer than what you have first before filling in...

[Scorpio71GR]

I have 35, 50, 70, 90, 135, and 400mm in primes. It really depends on your own personal taste and style. I shoot manually nature, landscapes, and wildlife. So wide primes work great for landscapes and you never have enough focal length for birds, hence the 400mm. If you are shooting street scenes a 35mm may not be bad idea, the DA 35 2.4 is a great little lens. I picked mine up used for a hundred dollars. You may find something wider like the DA 15 would be great for landscapes. However you may find a longer focal length will better suit you for portraits. I use my Tamron 90mm Macro for portraits. 90mm is equilivant to 135 on film which was standard for portaits.

[skunktail]

My two K mount prime kits.

On digital:
15, 31, 50, 77, 100 Macro, 300

On 35mm film:
28, 50, 77, 100 Macro, 300

I also keep zooms to cover a similar range and more.

[ramseybuckeye]

Hello, I am just curious what range of focal lengths do people have that still use primes? I currently have a 28,50 and 70 I am thinking of picking up the 35 and hoping for the 135 but does the 35 seem redundant?

I don't think it's redundant if you have a reason you want it, is does it have some qualities your 28 does not? I have a 35 and a 28, I had the 35 first 35/2.4, not an expensive lens. I didn't go looking for the 28, it came as an extra in a lot I bought for the A 50/1.7. It was a performance surprise that cost very little. To me it can make a difference if you can get a lens inexpensively, I can't see spending a lot on a lens that is very close to another, but if you get a deal....

I have a 15, 28, 35, 50, and 300. Next I would like a 20/21, then maybe 24, and 10.

[UncleVanya]

15, 35, 50 (several), 85, 100 macro, 135, 400 here. The last two I have are only so so lenses and not great examples of their focal length.

When I shot film I had 28, 50, 85, 100, and a 100 macro.

[madphys]

I have 16 mm, 50 mm, 105mm and 300 mm I am waiting for the 24mm Sigma Art, meanwhile I can't decide weather to go with 35 mm Art or 30 mm crop Art. 16 mm excellent for landscapes, nightscapes and some unusual perspectives, 50 mm is a good portrait lens - on a crop sensor gives that sweet spot - where you don't have to be very close to the subject but still you are rather close. 105 mm is for macro and also portraits and some smaller wildlife (I call it my nature lens - my favorite). 300 mm are used rarely - mainly birds and some celestial objects. So I think I am covered pretty well. I also have zooms but to be honest - I don't use them. My favorite and most used zoom is the 10-17 fisheye, others are just accumulating dust. Now with the upcoming 70-200 - maybe I will consider it.

[Des]

I have 35, 50, 70, 90, 135, and 400mm in primes. It really depends on your own personal taste and style. I shoot manually nature, landscapes, and wildlife. So wide primes work great for landscapes and you never have enough focal length for birds, hence the 400mm.

I'm almost exactly the same, for the same reasons: 35, 43, 50, 77, 100 macro, 400.

If the 31 was affordable I get it instead of the 35, which is not as indispensible now since I got the 43. I'd probably settle for a DA 28 if one existed. The Sgma 30 is too bulky and heavy.

Many people like a zoom at the long end, but I like having one at the wide end (DA 12-24). I find that you can't always zoom with your feet when shooting wide (e.g. when shooting trees in a dense forest, or standing on rocks in a stream). Yes I could get the 15 and 21 but that wouldn't be ultrawide, and it wouldn't be so versatile. The IQ from the 12-24 is very good anyway.

currently have a 28,50 and 70 I am thinking of picking up the 35 and hoping for the 135 but does the 35 seem redundant?

If you are happy with the 28 I don't think you really need the 35. The 35 would make sense if you were thinking of getting something wider instead of the 28 (such as a 15 or 21 or a UWA zoom). If you plan to keep the 28, I'd suggest putting the money towards a macro in the 90-105 range and/or a 135.

But hey as everyone says the DA 35 f2.4 is very cheap and sharp. You'd use it for sure.