[connor.nolan]

Hi all!
This summer I will be traveling to England and France and will be mainly in London and Paris. Currently I own a K-5 with an 18-135 3.5-5.6 lens. Although this lens is great for all around shooting and travel in general, I would like to have another lens with me on the trip, preferably with a larger aperture for night and just general shooting. I am looking to pick up one of the cheaper prime offering from Pentax such as the 40 2.8xs, 35 2.4 or 50 1.8. I am hoping to keep the price under $300. Which of these would be best for street and walk around photography? Feel free to suggest others too, as long as they're in the price range. Thanks!

[alamo5000]

For a cheap walk around either the plastic 35mm or an F28 f2.8.

If you want 'fast' you cannot have both fast AND cheap, but generally f2.8 is good enough.

[hcc]

I would recommend to complement your DA18-135mm by two primes: an UWA and a fast prime.

For street photography in crowdy cities, you want a UWA lens. I would recommend strongly the DA15mm Ltd, based upon my own experience in Europe inc. Paris:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/246655-primes-paris.html

if you intend to shoot at night, a fast prime is strongly recommended: f1.4 or f1.8, and no slower.

If you are on a budget, a UWA lens is a top priority, especially in summer times with long evenings.

I hope that the info will help.

[biz-engineer]

A wide angle for sure.

Wide as you can afford. 2.8 is quick enough, your K5 is fine at high ISO.

[GeneV]

For walking around in Europe with only a two lens combo and those price limitations, I think your first suggestions are the best. I have done the two lens combo with a zoom and the FA35/2, so I'm sure that its variant, the 35/2.4 would also be a great choice. I have also done the same with the 40/2.8. Its plus is the small size. I own and like the 15mm and the 12-24 zoom, but they cost more than $300 and would be further down my list for a two lens combo than the fast normal prime.

[batmobile]

50mm f1.8 for people/better IQ than the zoom for scenics.
28mm prime for small, light and better IQ than the zoom for walk around shooting.

[sterretje]

If I think European cities, I see narrow streets, cramped places, cathedrals etc. It would make sense to add an UWA for that. For this specific work, I would however not easily pick a prime as it's not flexible enough (for me) and rather get a DA12-24 or Sigma 10-20/4-5.6; the latter is currently $379 at B&H and might just be in your price range (else consider 2nd hand).

On the other hand, I will also happily do Paris with a lens that maxes out at 18mm and just have a different view on the world. That would open the way to a faster prime; the DA35/2.4 will be the obvious choice (new) or maybe something wider (like a 28mm but new AF ones don't seem to be available for K-mount); I would prefer the wider end. But don't expect wonders like handheld shots of the Eiffel tower at night

Life is full of difficult choices.

Here's a 35mm 2.4 at B&H for $109

[Macario]

If you want to stay under $300, I would go with the 35 2.4. A fantastic lens, and already sharp wide open. And suitable for many situations.

[pathdoc]

Of the primes you have named, I would favour the 35mm f/2.4 or the 50mm f/1.8 over the 40mm pancake. The 40mm is great - I have one myself, albeit not the ultra-flat XS - but for what you're doing, you will want either more speed, more field of view, or both. That will matter more than the very small size IMHO. The 35mm is slightly wider AND ever so slightly faster; the 50mm is significantly narrower but substantially faster (a full stop, if I've got my calculations right). Neither is particularly expensive, large, or heavy; depending on what's available near you and how hard a bargain you can drive, you may even be able to have both.

ETA: I know the 35 only by reptuation, but I've heard it's pretty damn good for what it costs. The 50 I have myself, and I am impressed.

[GeneV]

Back in the film days, I walked all over Europe multiple times with a kit of the 28/2.8, later a 28/2 (roughly 18mm aps-c) 50mm/1.4 (35 is a substitute now) and 80-200 (50-135 more or less). What I would miss more back then than an UW was a 35 or 40mm (24 now) for slightly wide street shots.

Last year in Romania, I had the 18-55wr, (would now be the 18-135) 35/2, 55-300, FA 77/1.8 and DA15/4 The 15 rarely left the suitcase. The two most used lenses were the fast primes. My 18-135 arrived after the trip. I think it would have been the most used lens if it had been along.

[6BQ5]

You ought to be able to pick up a DA 35mm f/2.4 and DA 50mm f/1.8 together for less than $300. The DA 40 XS f/2.8 sits too close to the DA 35mm and competes with it. Despite the 40mm's diminutive size, I would favor the 35mm for the wider field of view.

Another idea : put the $300 toward an UWA zoom from Tamron or Sigma.

[GeneV]

If you don't shoot indoors, you can be very happy with the 18-135, alone. A number of others (mostly Canon shooters) on the last trip carried only that FL zoom.

---------- Post added 06-01-15 at 09:24 AM ----------

You ought to be able to pick up a DA 35mm f/2.4 and DA 50mm f/1.8 together for less than $300. The DA 40 XS f/2.8 sits too close to the DA 35mm and competes with it. Despite the 40mm's diminutive size, I would favor the 35mm for the wider field of view.

Another idea : put the $300 toward an UWA zoom from Tamron or Sigma.

I tend to go the other way and opt for a longer fast prime with the all around zoom. The zoom is better and faster at the wide end, and I can use lower shutter speeds, making it easier to shoot in low light with the zoom than at longer focal lengths. My most used primes with this kind of zoom are the FA 77/1.8 and the DA 70/2.4, but they are much more than $300. For the OP price range, getting the 35 and 50 would make sense. If only one, then the 50. YMMV

[pathdoc]

In retrospect I wish I had taken only the K-5 and the kit lens.

I did selected parts of England and Scotland in 1995 with a film camera and a kit lens of approximately the same FOV. I ended up being disappointed on several occasions at both the narrow and the wide end. The EFOV of 18-135 on a crop DSLR would have been a godsend at the zoom end, so OP is served well there, and digital would have made stitched composites a lot easier at the wide. For what I was doing then, a fast prime would have made little difference - I wasn't a sophisticated enough photographer to have been able to make use of it. Now is another matter.

At a pinch, OP could get away with what he's got right now and not be doing too badly. But in the context of the question he's posed, I'll stick with my recommendation for the 35 or 50mm, and both if he can find a deal that will let him have them at or close to his $300 limit. It shouldn't be impossible.