[Yos]

I would go for the DA 50mm, just because it's F1.8
Or save up money for the FA31mm.

[microlight]

Both of the Plastic Fantastics will give great results. The 35/2.4 gives a 'normal' field of view on APS-c so would be better as a walk-around, as the 50 would be a short telephoto.

[shiner]

Depending on the price you can find, split the difference and go with the lovely, small 40mm xs. I got it new for under $100 (US) last month, and thought it was just one of those lenses you could bring along for the fun of it because of the pancake size. Then I started shooting with it - and found out that I very much prefer it over the DA 50 in almost all ways. Better build (metal mount), superb into the corners even wide open, and a quiet, accurate AF, and natural 3D look not found on most low-priced lenses. I'd only consider the DA 50 if I need low light shooting, or close focusing. Also, the 40mm lens length turns out to be far more useful than I had expected.

Nothing against the DA 35, but you can get so much more spending a little bit more with the far-better FA 35 or the 35 macro. The 40xs and FA 35 render very similarly based on their across the frame consistency - which is a very good thing and quite rare to find in the newer, lower priced optical designs.

Yes! I love my 40mm XS. It came with a K-01, and like you, I considered it a "fun" lens, at first. Soon, I realized that the 40mm XS is a fantastic lens!! The curved blades help render super-pleasing bokeh, and it is sharp edge-to-edge. Big fan of the XS.

[Scorpio71GR]

I have the DA35, DA 50, and the 40 XS. The DA 35 gets used most for walk around landscape shots. I find the fov of the 50 to be a bit narrow. For indoor shots or portraits the 50 is better. My DA 50 is sharper than my 35 by a very small amount. The 40 XS is a great little lens, sharp too but does suffer from aberrations. This however is easily fixed in Lightroom. The 40xs stays on my K-01 most of the time. I see the 40 XS on Amazon for around $100 US dollars from time to time, there is where I got mine. For 50mm there is also the A 50 1.7 which is a very sharp lens and will allow the use of extension tubes. You can get one of these used for around $75 dollars US.

[pathdoc]

Looking at your sig, you already have a 50mm prime lens - it's not a DA Plastic Fantastic, true, but it's 50mm and it's only a teensy bit slower (f/2.0) than the DA50/1.8. Put that on your camera for a while and ask yourself if you really need an AF version right now.

My philosophy has generally been to buy something that fills a gap, and the more gaps it fills the more justifiable the purchase is. On that basis, and continuing from above, you have an autofocus prime gap at 50mm but the focal length is covered and the manual prime lens you have there is not significantly slower, PLUS you have 50mm at the short end of your AF tele zoom. On the other hand, you have a definite gap at 35mm with no existing prime lenses at that focal length and the 35/2.4 is at least a stop faster than the zoom you have which includes 35mm.

Therefore, logic dictates that you fill that gap first. OF course if you can fill both together with used lenses, go for it. And remember that in DA50/1.8 terms, "used" these days is sometimes "used once on the K-3 it came with so I can put it on the Marketplace in the knowledge that it works". And because the big stores have it going for peanuts, that's driving the Marketplace prices down too (much to the disgust, I know, of the people who bought theirs for much more and are now trying to offload them!!).

[bertwert]

Looking at your sig, you already have a 50mm prime lens - it's not a DA Plastic Fantastic, true, but it's 50mm and it's only a teensy bit slower (f/2.0) than the DA50/1.8. Put that on your camera for a while and ask yourself if you really need an AF version right now.

It's not the AF so much, it's the in camera aperture control and metering.

And remember that in DA50/1.8 terms, "used" these days is sometimes "used once on the K-3 it came with so I can put it on the Marketplace in the knowledge that it works".

I forgot about that, good point.

On the other hand, you have a definite gap at 35mm with no existing prime lenses at that focal length and the 35/2.4 is at least a stop faster than the zoom you have which includes 35mm.

Yes I'm thinking that.

The DA 35 gets used most for walk around landscape shots.

Okay, useful.

I find the fov of the 50 to be a bit narrow.

I thought it might be a little for outside.

For indoor shots or portraits the 50 is better.

I'm not that much into either

The 40 XS is a great little lens, sharp too but does suffer from aberrations. This however is easily fixed in Lightroom.

I'm going to take pictures today with my 18-55 taped at 40mm and see how I like the FL.

[Imp]

I wouldn't get either because of the cheap build quality - which isn't BAD, i get that, but it just puts me off. And no quick shift, and likely not the best manual focus.
If you're getting the 35mm, i'd get the DA 35mm 2.4.
I wouldn't get the 50mm f/1.8 because you've got a 55 f/1.8 M42 mount and the 50 f/2 sears. Seems redundant... right? If you want to get another fifty, i'd recommend an A 50mm f/1.4, because its faster than anything you have, its an A lens, and it will have an amazing silky smooth focus ring. You should be able to find one within your price range.
And if you want to do macro, just get some extension tubes. I got a set off of e-bay for $40, it works great with my M 50 1.7 - this is one example image: With just extension tubes you can get so close! the pine needles should give you a sense of scale, there is a small glass ornament and a blue christmas light


Although I understand that if you want autofocus you might want the 50 1.8. But if that's the case, i'd say go for the 35 2.4 first, because you've already got a couple of fifties.
Or you could save up and think about it for a bit . Perhaps get a good zoom to replace your kit lens, like the Tamron/Sigma 17-50 f/2.8?

---------- Post added 12-31-15 at 10:28 AM ----------

It's not the AF so much, it's the in camera aperture control and metering.

oh

[bertwert]

A 50mm f/1.4

I've thought of that.

just get some extension tubes

I've got some with no contacts or aperture levers ($7 on ebay ) so an A prime would work nice with them.

Or you could save up and think about it for a bit .

That's probably going to happen...

Perhaps get a good zoom to replace your kit lens, like the Tamron/Sigma 17-50 f/2.8?

By the time I save up to there, I'd be thinking of the 100 macro

[boriscleto]

I'm going to take pictures today with my 18-55 taped at 40mm and see how I like the FL.

I kind of like 40mm...

[bertwert]

Now if I were to think of an A 50...
Which one?
A 50/1.4 $110
A 50/1.7 $60
A 50/2.8 Macro $45

[Imp]

Now if I were to think of an A 50...
Which one?
A 50/1.4 $110
A 50/1.7 $60
A 50/2.8 Macro $45

Not the 50 2.8 macro, you've got tubes. And its 2.8.
You won't be disappointed with the A 50 1.7, the question is whether its worth the extra fifty bucks to get the A 50 1.4 - I'd say it is, because you've already got a 55 1.8, and as people say if you buy cheap, you buy twice...
Also, i'm sure you can find the A 50 1.4 for a better price, it you wait and look hard.

[pathdoc]

It's not the AF so much, it's the in camera aperture control and metering.

Oops! Guilty as charged, Your Honour. But I do (or at least have done) enough shooting with K/M-type lenses (mostly 3rd party) on my DSLR that I've learned to live without this when I put manual focus lenses on, whereas I've done nowhere near enough A-type shooting to have this in my consciousness as a benefit (my only SMC-A lens was until recently the 50/2.0, which postdated my acquisition of the DA50/1.8 and which consequently spends most of its active time on the P3 with which it came).

[pres589]

My question to bertwert is, looking at your current list of lenses, you've got a 50mm now. Would in-camera aperture control have you using your more 50mm than you are now? I've been doing a lot of shooting lately with a fully manual, no "A" position on the aperture ring, 28mm lens. With green button metering I really don't miss in-camera control and actually wish more lenses still had aperture rings.

A nicer zoom like the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 has been mentioned and you posited that you'd rather go towards something like a 100mm Macro. So I think that's really your answer. And it may be a good time to save and watch pricing and get a good deal on a focal length you're really missing. If that 28mm you've got is nice, and you like the 50mm you've already got as well, I think I personally would go to some other focal length outside those two instead of getting a 35mm. That's my own opinion and some folks seem to get piles of primes to split a distance like that. My lens collection just isn't big enough to make that work for me.

[boriscleto]

Now if I were to think of an A 50...
Which one?
A 50/1.4 $110
A 50/1.7 $60
A 50/2.8 Macro $45

If you are going to use it with tubes get the 1.4. The aperture ring of the 1.7 is known to be fragile. For macro work on tubes you would be better off with a M 50/1.7. The 1.7s were designed for edge to edge sharpness, the 1.4s for a sharp center with softer edges.

[bertwert]

the question is whether its worth the extra fifty bucks to get the A 50 1.4

Unfortunately the seller won't ship to Canada right now (50/1.4)

Also, i'm sure you can find the A 50 1.4 for a better price, it you wait and look hard.

I'll be doing that.

Oops! Guilty as charged, Your Honour.

I wouldn't mind the AF though, but I can live fine without.

Would in-camera aperture control have you using your more 50mm than you are now?

I think yes.

If you are going to use it with tubes get the 1.4.

I would do that as tubes make an image darker (am I right on this...) and it would be nice to have that little more light, I also like a really shallow DoF for macro.