[dcumpian]

Sorry but I don't get this. To me there much more difference in portraiture with a much wider apperture like f/2 instead of f/5.6 than there is between a kit lens and a great prime at f/8 for a landscape.

Don't get me wrong, I like my DA35 ltd for it's contrast and flare resistance on top of its sharpness but this will not make a night and day difference except for in the most difficult conditions.

While if I take a portrait with a moderate tele at f/1.8 instead of f/5.6 there will be always a very visble difference between the 2 photos.

And for me familly include portraiture.

Well I never understood too why for taking photo of the persons you like the most(*), to capture scenes that will never go back we can't take the worst gear but to take a shoot of a landscape that has been already taken by millions of peoples or make yet another duck shoot then it is justfied to get the best gear one can ever dream of.

(*) The grandmother that is now dead for example of the baby that obviously will look completely differently in just 1 year...

I'm mostly talking about those who have a DSLR but never really grow much beyond casual photographs. They are perfectly happy with the "kit" lens. I have the DA* 55mm for portraits and it is a wonderful lens. I can definitely tell the difference between this and a shot taken at 55mm with the kit lens. But, I've been shooting for 35 years, so I know what I'm getting with either before I even trigger the shutter.

Regards,
Dan