[bertwert]

Okay hard question...
I got some Christmas money that I want to get as new lens with.
I can spend up to around $200 ($150 for you Americans) and obviously see the DA 35 and 50.
I'm not sure what FL I prefer, but in time I'll probably own both DA 50 and 35. (Next year maybe...)
Other lenses I would consider to buy, would be F and FA lenses (used) or maybe an A lens depending on the lens.
I don't mind used either.

What do you suggest as a walk-around/landscape/etc... lens?

[TinaS]

If you do some shopping around you might almost have enough for both. I have both & love both, but I think 50 is my favorite. 35 might be better for walk around/landscape, though.

[Zafar Iqbal]

As a walk-around and landscape lens, I'd recommend 35mm. I own 30mm Macro and use it sometimes, but I use 21mm Limited a lot more.

[bertwert]

If you do some shopping around you might almost have enough for both.

Maybe used I could
New:

Price	Amazon.ca	The Camera Store
DA 50	135	150
DA 35	170	175

---

Last edited by bertwert; 12-30-2015 at 06:16 PM.

[TinaS]

Maybe used I could
New:

Price	Amazon	Camera Store
50	135	150
35	170	175

Lol. My bad. Clarification: you might almost have enough for both used.

[bertwert]

Lol. My bad. Clarification: you might almost have enough for both used.

That's what I interpreted it as.

[bertwert]

As a walk-around and landscape lens, I'd recommend 35mm. I own 30mm Macro and use it sometimes, but I use 21mm Limited a lot more.

35 macro you mean?

I think I might prefer 35mm for landscapes.

An older 28mm might be nice instead of the newer ones

An advantage to older lenses is the aperture rings to use with extension tubes.

[Alnjpn]

The 35mm is a much more usable focal length unless you are planning to take a lot of portrait shots. I have both and rarely use the 50mm. The sharpness and IQ of both lenses are similar but the 50 has a much nosier focus. Where I do use the 50 is for movies, the length seems to suit film making more, but for general usability go for the 35.

[SparkTronic]

My recommendation would be to go for the 35mm first: Pentax SMCP-DA 35mm f/2.4 AL Wide Angle AF Lens #21987 21987

Then get yourself an f/2 or f/1.4 Pentax A-series 50mm lens off eBay ($50 and $115 respectively). The A lenses have auto everything EXCEPT focus. So the 35mm has AF for most shots and the A series lens can be your go-to for creative portraits yet still work great for landscapes at infinity...just my $0.02!

Enjoy!

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

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.

[bertwert]

35 macro

I wish...
If I could get something that price I'd be getting the 100 macro.

FA 35

Too much as well.

40mm xs

Thought of that but new right now is around $230
I'll look for used though.

[boriscleto]

There is a seller in the Marketplace right now with a DA 35 for $80 CDN. He has a FA 100 macro too for $175 CDN.

[bertwert]

$80 CDN

$80 cdn, I read it as 80 usd?

[Zafar Iqbal]

35 macro you mean?

I think I might prefer 35mm for landscapes.

Wupsies! Yes, I meant 35mm

[KDD]

I have both.