[normhead]

You aren't alone, I found the same thing. The only time I bring out the DA 35 is night-time in the city. I thought I would use it more indoors, but I prefer to bounce a flash and use the zoom to fit into the room. My fast fifty is a manual focus A-lens and I use it more than the DA 35, mostly for experimenting with, I don't do posed portraits, only quick and dirty candids.

Same here, since Jan/ 2014, 58 DA 35 2.4 keepers, , 520 FA 50 1.7 keepers... 568 40XS keepers. I've never really thought about why...but the numbers tell the story.

[pathdoc]

my girlfriend owns the 35 ldt macro and its a crazy good lens. roughly the same price (used) as the two 35 & 50 together... but it's worth it!

I would have to caution against this in the first instance.

While I own the 35 Macro and everything Max says about it is true, you have to consider the economics. Unless you really need the macro capability for your paid employment, or are very, very enthusiastic about macro photography already and feel that the "macro zoom" option on an existing lens isn't good enough any more, IMO the extra cost does not justify the added capability for the average user, especially one on a budget or who is coughing up a big chunk of money on a camera and high-performance kit zoom at the same time.

Better to try and bundle one or both of the 35/2.4 and/or 50/1.8 with your body/lens package and save up for the macro lens after a year or so IF you find a significant proportion of your work is very close-up and very wide-field.

If you do develop a hankering for macro and find yourself mostly going after things that can jump or fly and sting, you're better off with a longer focal length, in which case the 50 or 100mm macro may suit you better - and the 100 being WR may be the best option of all for hunting the squishy slimy things that inhabit wet places.

Could the 35 Macro be the poor man's FA31? There are people out there who DO think so, and I wouldn't think to call them wrong, but my money's on a combination of the 35 and 50 non-limited as being the better deal for the general user. On the other hand, if you've got the money and want to spend it, I won't stand in your way.

[Pioneer]

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the prime?

I recommend that you stick to your 18-135 and really learn what you can and cannot do with it. I strongly believe in really learning what you can or cannot do with what you already have before buying something new. Otherwise you will almost certainly buy something you really don't need. You may have a large enough budget to buy anything you want, but most of us don't.

But, lets look at this.

• The 18-135 is weather resistant.
• The 18-135 is more versatile.
• The 18-135 has great image quality.
• The 18-135 already covers the focal lengths you are considering.
• The K50 has excellent low light performance so fast lenses are not that important.

I know that everyone on this forum makes it sound really exciting to buy new lenses, but it really is not as important as they usually make it sound. The goal is really to make exciting photographs. Take that exciting zoom and do just that. Once you learn what you cannot do with that zoom then you will know what you need. You may find out that what you really need is not an inexpensive prime lens, but a much more expensive zoom like the new 150-450 zoom.

[IchabodCrane]

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the prime?

I recommend that you stick to your 18-135 and really learn what you can and cannot do with it. I strongly believe in really learning what you can or cannot do with what you already have before buying something new. Otherwise you will almost certainly buy something you really don't need. You may have a large enough budget to buy anything you want, but most of us don't.

But, lets look at this.

• The 18-135 is weather resistant.
• The 18-135 is more versatile.
• The 18-135 has great image quality.
• The 18-135 already covers the focal lengths you are considering.
• The K50 has excellent low light performance so fast lenses are not that important.

I know that everyone on this forum makes it sound really exciting to buy new lenses, but it really is not as important as they usually make it sound. The goal is really to make exciting photographs. Take that exciting zoom and do just that. Once you learn what you cannot do with that zoom then you will know what you need. You may find out that what you really need is not an inexpensive prime lens, but a much more expensive zoom like the new 150-450 zoom.

All good thoughts. The reason I mentioned the DA 50/1.8 to go with the DA 18-135 is because it can function as a very inexpensive portrait lens when used wide open or thereabouts, something the DA 18-135 can't really do in the same fashion. Whether the OP wants to do portrait work is up to him or her, of course.

[normhead]

Same here, since Jan/ 2014, 58 DA 35 2.4 keepers, , 520 FA 50 1.7 keepers... 568 40XS keepers. I've never really thought about why...but the numbers tell the story.

Quoting myself, but adding, with the DA 18-135 I have 2160 keepers in the same time period and 1680 keepers with the DA*60-250. 486 keepers with the 21 ltd. That's a huge argument for starting with the 18-135 and possibly the 55-300 if you're me. But you're not me, so what do I know?

I have never not owned a 50 since 1967, so the concept of having a camera without 50 1.8 is a little mind boggling to me. I have to try and wrap my mind around that.

Let's see. we're in doors, I want to do an informal portrait, and I don't have a 50 1.8, how exactly does that work?

I guess it's possible.

[Pioneer]

I should add that I predominantly prefer prime lenses. I originally bought the 18-135 for my K-5iiS so I had a light but weatherproof kit for my mountain hikes. Since then I have found that it handles literally dozens of photographic tasks. It even does a really good job on portraits if you aren't afraid to experiment a bit. You may need to do a little more work in Photoshop to blur out your background but it still works great.

I think part of the point here is that most of us don't even really learn to use what we have before we run out looking for the next silver bullet. The old advice about really learning how to use your lens to its fullest before moving to the next is even more real today. With all the technology available today there are many, many things you can do with your current equipment that we never imagined 20 years ago.



But, hey, what do I know? Sometimes it is a lot more fun buying something new. Even my ist DL2 and 18-55 has found new life but the K5 and 18-135 is more fun.

[6BQ5]

Both the DA 35 and 50 lenses are very nice. Don't be fooled by their low cost and plastic construction. I've owned and played with both at one time. The designs have are in the film era and these designs have been optimized and polished over the years for today's digital applications. It's really a matter of which field of view you want based on the photographic style you are looking for. There are general guidelines of using wider angle lenses for landscapes and narrower angle lenses for portraits. I've done that ... and I've also flipped that guideline around too. I've shot portraits with my FA 31mm and landscapes with my FA 77mm. If you pick one of the DA lenses and mount it on your K-body for a walk-around you will surely find good material to photograph with it. Don't get too hung up on which one you should get first. Get whichever is cheaper first ... or more expensive first. They are both FF compatible so if you ever venture into shooting film then you can use either lens on a film body as long as it has a Av shooting mode.

[bobbotron]

I started with the 18-135 plus the 50mm 1.8. I wish I'd bought the 35 at the same time, I could have gotten it for a great deal and it'd be really nice to have an auto lens at that focal length. At first I didn't like the 50mm, but since I've grown to really like it, it's really quite a lovely lens!

[GeneV]

The two plastic fantastic lenses are so cheap they are worth trying over something like the ltd macro or other 50s if you don't already have one. I bought the 35, (but don't have it yet) and already have several 50mm primes, and I was still tempted by the 50 for $120.

[NoobOnTour]

Thank you all for the great response!
If I can get my hands on one of these cheap I will try them out otherwise I will shoot with the zoom first to see if there is a specific focal length I prefer.
Once again you helped me a lot!
regards Sascha

[UncleVanya]

Thank you all for the great response!
If I can get my hands on one of these cheap I will try them out otherwise I will shoot with the zoom first to see if there is a specific focal length I prefer.
Once again you helped me a lot!
regards Sascha

You listened to the advice and elected to learn more before jumping. That's a smart choice. Good luck in your journey.

[jimr-pdx]

I preferred the field of the 35 but the images from the 50 when I owned both. Its odd # of aperture blades and optical design makes for really nice focus transition. The DA35 is very nice but the 50 had more pop to its images.

Definitely better to think more than buy more. I should try it myself

[NoobOnTour]

You listened to the advice and elected to learn more before jumping. That's a smart choice. Good luck in your journey.

Iam not sure about that...

I asked for a price inquiry and got the following:

K-50+16-85=950euro
k-50+18-135=700euro
DA 35=130euro
DA 50=100euro
I get 50euro cashback for buying a K-50 so that reduce the price for another 50euros

and with that mail in my inbox my mind is going crazy again about which bundle to buy

I got a 55-300wr for 265euros already...

choices... choices... it is never going to be easy is it?

[pathdoc]

The K-50 with the 18-135 is 250 euros cheaper than with the 16-85, and with that extra money you can buy the DA 35 and the DA 50 and have some left over. That is what I would do in your shoes.

I would then put the extra towards skylight or clear filters to go on the front of all the lenses as sacrificial protection. (Some do this; some don't - that's a huge debate in itself. I do, and I don't hesitate to advise others to do the same.)

[IchabodCrane]

Iam not sure about that...

I asked for a price inquiry and got the following:

K-50+16-85=950euro
k-50+18-135=700euro
DA 35=130euro
DA 50=100euro
I get 50euro cashback for buying a K-50 so that reduce the price for another 50euros

and with that mail in my inbox my mind is going crazy again about which bundle to buy

I got a 55-300wr for 265euros already...

choices... choices... it is never going to be easy is it?

NoobOnTour, you've been given lots of good info. I'll go back to what I posted quite awhile ago in the thread. The DA 18-135 is a great travel lens as it has good sharpness in the center and overall good IQ up to somewhere around 80 or 90 mm and quite acceptable after that.

So what might you need that the DA 18-135 can't provide? The DA 35/2.4 is a small and light lens but if the DA 18-135 is on your camera most of the time then "small and light" is still just dead weight if you're not going to use it. The roughly 1.5 stop advantage over the DA 18-135 @ 35 mm doesn't seem all that compelling. I have the lens and didn't bring it on my last trip.

As for the DA 50/1.8, at least it's differentiated from the DA 18-135 in one way... it's about 2.5 stops faster than the DA 18-135 @ 50 mm which can be a significant difference if you're trying for max aperture portraits. Obviously, just my opinion and it may have no relation to your own needs. Lastly, there's no need to buy lenses you may hardly ever use unless they are truly special. There's nothing wrong with saving the cash for that special purchase later on.