[keanex]

I've been playing in my mind of now whether to get a Sigma 17-70 or the 35/2.4. I could afford the Sigma for sure...This hobby is the worst I've come across for gear lol.

[ChristianRock]

I've been playing in my mind of now whether to get a Sigma 17-70 or the 35/2.4. I could afford the Sigma for sure...This hobby is the worst I've come across for gear lol.

If you can afford the 17-70, then it means you could also afford the DA 35 2.8 Limited, and might want to consider that instead. The DA 35 2.4 is good but I think everyone agrees the DA 35 Limited is better. But you can still take great pictures with the DA 35 2.4 as well

I personally think everyone who likes to shoot with primes needs a normal prime, in the 28-35mm range. There's good options in that range (especially used) and the DA 35 2.4 is a good one, and for the price, probably represents the best value. I love mine and it gets used a lot (even if the family pictures don't end up in my flickr account, so you just have to trust me on that...).

[keanex]

If you can afford the 17-70, then it means you could also afford the DA 35 2.8 Limited, and might want to consider that instead. The DA 35 2.4 is good but I think everyone agrees the DA 35 Limited is better. But you can still take great pictures with the DA 35 2.4 as well

I personally think everyone who likes to shoot with primes needs a normal prime, in the 28-35mm range. There's good options in that range (especially used) and the DA 35 2.4 is a good one, and for the price, probably represents the best value. I love mine and it gets used a lot (even if the family pictures don't end up in my flickr account, so you just have to trust me on that...).

I was browsing the DA35 Limited today and saw how highly rated it is, truly a gem it seems. My concern is wanting to have a general walk-around camera without worrying about having to change lenses. For instance my buddy asked me to take photos at his wedding, and I was thinking a 17-70 would be best as a general purpose, but shit the DA35 limited has me intrigued. I saw the silver one for $365 on Amazon...

[pathdoc]

If you're constantly cursing your inability to get in close enough and you really want a 35mm prime, the DA 35 Limited Macro will solve all your problems for you, at a price.

If you want a 35mm prime for a "normal" FOV and you aren't constantly cursing your lens's inability to get close enough, step back and reconsider. I say this as someone who owns the lens and is impressed with it - unless the budget is really not an issue, you don't want to spend the extra for a capability you don't need. If I were in a different line of work, didn't professionally need a macro lens, and wanted a 35mm prime, I'd have bought the non-Limited DA 35mm f/2.4 rather than the macro.

Ultimately the prime-versus-zoom decision is yours to make, based on your needs and current lens lineup.

[keanex]

If you're constantly cursing your inability to get in close enough and you really want a 35mm prime, the DA 35 Limited Macro will solve all your problems for you, at a price.

If you want a 35mm prime for a "normal" FOV and you aren't constantly cursing your lens's inability to get close enough, step back and reconsider. I say this as someone who owns the lens and is impressed with it - unless the budget is really not an issue, you don't want to spend the extra for a capability you don't need. If I were in a different line of work, didn't professionally need a macro lens, and wanted a 35mm prime, I'd have bought the non-Limited DA 35mm f/2.4 rather than the macro.

Ultimately the prime-versus-zoom decision is yours to make, based on your needs and current lens lineup.

Well my original plan was the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary + 100mm/2.8 Macro. The 17-70 would be to allow for wider shots and ease of shooting events without having to change lenses. I wanted the 100mm 2.8 solely because of how beautiful it takes macro shots.

I'm thinking the 35 Limited may be a good compromise as it will allow for macro photography, have a super sharp image, and should likely be a good all purpose lens combined with the 50 for events. I just worry that I will miss shots with the inability to quickly change lenses. Ugh curse this hobby!

[redrockcoulee]

My other two kits are not as well spaced out

60 100 150

90 150 210

But the Hasselblad and 4X5 are not as easy to zoom with the feet ��

I should also state that one of my systems includes FE, 38 55 75 and 110 and a pinhole and used all of that plus the camera body, a flash and some other accessories cost me only $100 but it is only a Diana.

OP sounds like you want fast and conviennce more than the macro right now. One option is to go with the 17-70 then a 70-200 2.8 and start adding primes like a macro or a DA 15 filling in where you want a lens other than the fast zooms.

A set of lenses does not need to be obtained all at once. The last lens I bought came to me 42 years after the very first Pentax lens I bought. Spreading out your purchases often means that you do not buy lenses that you don't really need as you find out what you do need. Myself I do not have a fast short zoom and for some of the events I cover I really could use one however I do not have to volunteer to cover those events and I like the lenses I currently have so I am willing to be having to choice to make the best with what I have, borrow some gear or not cover the event.

[bertwert]

I'd go for the 35 over the 17-50 if I were you.

This hobby is the worst I've come across for gear lol.

[ChristianRock]

For a wedding there are pretty much only two games in town: Sigma 17-50 and Pentax 16-50. Pentax 17-70 is too slow and hunts at the long end. Tamron 17-50 has focusing issues so you can only use it if you are confident in the copy you have. Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 might be an option but not quite as good as 17-50.
Maybe rent the 17-50 for the event? Then you can see how you like it.

[keanex]

So I bought a 35/2.8 Macro with a refund check, not sure the focal length is a huge difference between the two in actual use, but the fastness of the 50/1.8 and the macro abilities of the 35/2.8 Macro makes me happy to have both in my possession.

[pathdoc]

Congratulations. Even if you never do actual 1:1 macro with it, the ability to get as close as you need to for portrait or other shots will be valuable, and the optical quality is (in my experience) exquisite. The 35 macro gives new meaning to "close focus" - I've practically dipped the attached UV filter in what I was photographing more than once. Enjoy!