Please give me reasons to buy a 35mm 2.4 (or not to)

**seventysixersfan** · 03-09-2017, 02:36 PM - **1 Like**

Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 super-wide II is sharp and will provide a nice complement to your Sigma 30mm and DA 40mm. Faster than the DA 21mm too, though harder to find-- must buy it used.

Simen1 · 03-09-2017, 02:50 PM

All of the 30, 35, 40 and 50 are small enough in my opinion. But the focal lengths are far to close in my opinion. With your lenses I would have sold the 40, not buy the 35 and keep the Sigma 30 and Pentax 50.

ChristianRock · 03-09-2017, 02:59 PM - **1 Like**

For the night shots, it really sounds like you need a tripod. I don't think the high ISO/wide aperture thing is going to work for you regardless of what lens you get. For city landscapes, you should be shooting at f8 or smaller. In that case, even your 18-135 should give you good results. I would get a tripod, use the 18-135 and then see what focal lengths you use the most for this kind of shots, then you can get a prime in that range if you want more flare resistance, edge to edge sharpness and hopefully, starbursts, depending on the lens you'll get.

kchamber4 · 03-09-2017, 04:26 PM - **1 Like**

There is only one right answer for why you should buy the lens. That is, Because you want to! Nothing else matters. If you don't want to, then you won't.

pakinjapan · 03-09-2017, 05:04 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Bui

I prefer the sharpness and color from the 18-135

If you prefer 18-135 over DA40 which is a very good prime, that is the whole reason to keep using it. If I were you, I wouldn’t invest in a prime anywhere between 18 to 135 mm. What about invest on a DA15 or 200* / 300* etc.
However, I look at your images without seeing the lens used at first and I ended up like image taken by DA40 more. Anyway, if you like 18-135, it is nothing wrong to stick with it. And pay for a prime in a focal length you not yet have one.

Originally posted by Bui

night shot

I see a few good handheld night shot taken by a DA21 somewhere on this forum but I don’t have one yet. I am thinking about get a 21 or 20-40 pretty soon.

Originally posted by Bui

fast enough, sharp enough, light enough and cheap enough

If you think 35mm is wide enough, you might want to look into FA35 f2 as well. It is sharp at f2, even sharper at f2.2, bleeding sharp at f4. A secondhand is cheap (at less in Japan) and light + I think it is the fastest Pentax 35 mm still in production. I used to have one and it is a real deal. F28 is another good fast and sharp lens.

**UncleVanya** · 03-09-2017, 05:11 PM

I agree that you should use what you have if that is an option.

As for cost - I think I paid $450 used for mine. Sell your DA 40 and Sigma and I suspect you will have no problems buying one. However you may find you don't love it and have to sell it and buy something else.

**caliscouser** · 03-09-2017, 05:31 PM

If you're happy with the 18-135, stick with it and master it until you find its limitations. Use it on a tripod for night shots. It's a very versatile lens.

The 21, 35, 40, 20-40 are probably not going to bring much to the table for you at this point. But may do in the future.

I would keep the Sigma 30 around though for the 1.4 for indoor portrait / wide portrait work. None of the above lenses can quite match it for that job. It is sharp wide-open at 1.4 if you calibrate it and master the focusing.

gm4life · 03-09-2017, 06:07 PM

Best reason not to buy the 35mm 2.4 is the 35mm 2.8 Macro Limited! But seriously it is a good lens for the price.

**Scorpio71GR** · 03-09-2017, 06:08 PM - **2 Likes**

I agree with much that has already been posted. I do not think the DA 35 will add anything to your set up. It is a fine lens though and I do own one. The DA 21 is an excellent lens. It will definitely give you better IQ then the 18-135. I own the 18-135 and it a great all around lens. The DA 21 is a joy to use. Small, compact, lightweight, and extremely well built. I prefer the field of view of the DA21 over that of the DA40. I really like using the DA21 for night shots. You really need a tripod for night photography.
K3 and DA21

jeffw · 03-09-2017, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Scorpio71GR

I agree with much that has already been posted. I do not think the DA 35 will add anything to your set up. It is a fine lens though and I do own one. The DA 21 is an excellent lens. It will definitely give you better IQ then the 18-135. I own the 18-135 and it a great all around lens. The DA 21 is a joy to use. Small, compact, lightweight, and extremely well built. I prefer the field of view of the DA21 over that of the DA40. I really like using the DA21 for night shots. You really need a tripod for night photography.
K3 and DA21

Bang! Question answered 21 wins. Great shots.

GeneV · 03-09-2017, 08:17 PM

The DA 35 is so cheap, that you might as well try it and see what it adds. It is also so light that, like the DA 40, carrying it is also almost free in terms of weight and size. If you are going to indulge in LBA, this is an easy fix. As a bonus, it is nice on FF. Though it fills different needs on different formats, 35mm is a favorite prime on both crop and FF.

**dms** · 03-09-2017, 08:42 PM

As the 35mm DA lens has no distance scale--it is not a great idea for street shooting and night photography--you should have a distance scale and depth of field markings--as zone focusing is quite useful in wider FL lenses. More so in wider than 35mm on a cropped sensor dslr, but still pretty useful at this FL.

But I also don't think the FL will be useful given what lenses you already have.

**pres589** · 03-09-2017, 08:44 PM

I second what GeneV suggests. If you find that you really like 35mm's field of view, there's a number of upgrades if you really want to do so; Sigma 35 Art, FA 35 f2.0, and the DA 35 Macro are all highly spoken of. And it's cheap enough that you can't lose much money on the thing.

**dms** · 03-09-2017, 09:00 PM

And looking back at your post--saying night pictures being soft suggest out of focus--and instead of f/4, sounds like you should be at f/8-f/11 as noted by other(s). If you do this and set the distance to roughly 15 feet, 8 ft to infinity will be in acceptable focus (for 8x12 prints anyway).
At night (with distant lights) I would guess as a starting point 1/4s at f/8 and iso 1600--possible with SR--but not reliably/and needs very good technique--suggest a tripod or monopod, or a handy wall/table.

**pres589** · 03-09-2017, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by dms

And looking back at your post--saying night pictures being soft suggest out of focus--and instead of f/4, sounds like you should be at f/8-f/11 as noted by other(s). If you do this and set the distance to roughly 15 feet, 8 ft to infinity will be in acceptable focus (for 8x12 prints anyway).
At night (with distant lights) I would guess as a starting point 1/4s at f/8 and iso 1600--possible with SR--but not reliably/and needs very good technique--suggest a tripod or monopod, or a handy wall/table.

Is this lens really so bad that he had to run around with a monopod and use hyperfocal focusing? I've got a garbage 28mm f2.8 lens that I've shot hand held at f2.8 in bars with some stage lighting and have been very pleased with the results.

I almost want to buy one of these Sigma 30 1.4's and shoot in the dark to see what's it's like to use...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why I won't buy a K1 - Short Pithy Reasons Welcomed	LoneWolf	Pentax Full Frame	5	02-18-2016 11:11 AM
Pentax Doomed™!!! Give your reasons why you think this is so.	VoiceOfReason	Pentax DSLR Discussion	109	02-23-2015 08:46 AM
please give me a reason to buy a Pentax k3 and not a Nikon D3!	clostoyo	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	87	03-07-2014 10:45 PM
3 reasons to buy (and 1 reason not to buy) the K30	EarlVonTapia	Pentax K-30 & K-50	16	02-27-2013 12:10 PM
not a clue...Please give me one...	slip	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	21	02-20-2011 07:36 AM

03-09-2017, 02:36 PM - 1 Like	#16
seventysixersfan Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 super-wide II is sharp and will provide a nice complement to your Sigma 30mm and DA 40mm. Faster than the DA 21mm too, though harder to find-- must buy it used.

03-09-2017, 02:50 PM	#17
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	All of the 30, 35, 40 and 50 are small enough in my opinion. But the focal lengths are far to close in my opinion. With your lenses I would have sold the 40, not buy the 35 and keep the Sigma 30 and Pentax 50.

03-09-2017, 02:59 PM - 1 Like	#18
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	For the night shots, it really sounds like you need a tripod. I don't think the high ISO/wide aperture thing is going to work for you regardless of what lens you get. For city landscapes, you should be shooting at f8 or smaller. In that case, even your 18-135 should give you good results. I would get a tripod, use the 18-135 and then see what focal lengths you use the most for this kind of shots, then you can get a prime in that range if you want more flare resistance, edge to edge sharpness and hopefully, starbursts, depending on the lens you'll get.

03-09-2017, 04:26 PM - 1 Like	#19
kchamber4 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Conroe, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 154	There is only one right answer for why you should buy the lens. That is, Because you want to! Nothing else matters. If you don't want to, then you won't.

03-09-2017, 05:04 PM - 1 Like	#20
pakinjapan Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,041	Originally posted by Bui I prefer the sharpness and color from the 18-135 If you prefer 18-135 over DA40 which is a very good prime, that is the whole reason to keep using it. If I were you, I wouldn’t invest in a prime anywhere between 18 to 135 mm. What about invest on a DA15 or 200* / 300* etc. However, I look at your images without seeing the lens used at first and I ended up like image taken by DA40 more. Anyway, if you like 18-135, it is nothing wrong to stick with it. And pay for a prime in a focal length you not yet have one. Originally posted by Bui night shot I see a few good handheld night shot taken by a DA21 somewhere on this forum but I don’t have one yet. I am thinking about get a 21 or 20-40 pretty soon. Originally posted by Bui fast enough, sharp enough, light enough and cheap enough If you think 35mm is wide enough, you might want to look into FA35 f2 as well. It is sharp at f2, even sharper at f2.2, bleeding sharp at f4. A secondhand is cheap (at less in Japan) and light + I think it is the fastest Pentax 35 mm still in production. I used to have one and it is a real deal. F28 is another good fast and sharp lens.

03-09-2017, 05:11 PM	#21
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,385	I agree that you should use what you have if that is an option. As for cost - I think I paid $450 used for mine. Sell your DA 40 and Sigma and I suspect you will have no problems buying one. However you may find you don't love it and have to sell it and buy something else.

03-09-2017, 05:31 PM	#22
caliscouser Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: SF Bay Area, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,037	If you're happy with the 18-135, stick with it and master it until you find its limitations. Use it on a tripod for night shots. It's a very versatile lens. The 21, 35, 40, 20-40 are probably not going to bring much to the table for you at this point. But may do in the future. I would keep the Sigma 30 around though for the 1.4 for indoor portrait / wide portrait work. None of the above lenses can quite match it for that job. It is sharp wide-open at 1.4 if you calibrate it and master the focusing.

03-09-2017, 06:07 PM	#23
gm4life Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 602	Best reason not to buy the 35mm 2.4 is the 35mm 2.8 Macro Limited! But seriously it is a good lens for the price.

03-09-2017, 06:08 PM - 2 Likes	#24
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,003	I agree with much that has already been posted. I do not think the DA 35 will add anything to your set up. It is a fine lens though and I do own one. The DA 21 is an excellent lens. It will definitely give you better IQ then the 18-135. I own the 18-135 and it a great all around lens. The DA 21 is a joy to use. Small, compact, lightweight, and extremely well built. I prefer the field of view of the DA21 over that of the DA40. I really like using the DA21 for night shots. You really need a tripod for night photography. K3 and DA21

03-09-2017, 06:32 PM	#25
jeffw Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Gallery Posts: 182	Originally posted by Scorpio71GR I agree with much that has already been posted. I do not think the DA 35 will add anything to your set up. It is a fine lens though and I do own one. The DA 21 is an excellent lens. It will definitely give you better IQ then the 18-135. I own the 18-135 and it a great all around lens. The DA 21 is a joy to use. Small, compact, lightweight, and extremely well built. I prefer the field of view of the DA21 over that of the DA40. I really like using the DA21 for night shots. You really need a tripod for night photography. K3 and DA21 Bang! Question answered 21 wins. Great shots.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-09-2017, 08:17 PM	#26
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	The DA 35 is so cheap, that you might as well try it and see what it adds. It is also so light that, like the DA 40, carrying it is also almost free in terms of weight and size. If you are going to indulge in LBA, this is an easy fix. As a bonus, it is nice on FF. Though it fills different needs on different formats, 35mm is a favorite prime on both crop and FF.

03-09-2017, 08:42 PM	#27
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	As the 35mm DA lens has no distance scale--it is not a great idea for street shooting and night photography--you should have a distance scale and depth of field markings--as zone focusing is quite useful in wider FL lenses. More so in wider than 35mm on a cropped sensor dslr, but still pretty useful at this FL. But I also don't think the FL will be useful given what lenses you already have.

03-09-2017, 08:44 PM	#28
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	I second what GeneV suggests. If you find that you really like 35mm's field of view, there's a number of upgrades if you really want to do so; Sigma 35 Art, FA 35 f2.0, and the DA 35 Macro are all highly spoken of. And it's cheap enough that you can't lose much money on the thing.

03-09-2017, 09:00 PM	#29
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	And looking back at your post--saying night pictures being soft suggest out of focus--and instead of f/4, sounds like you should be at f/8-f/11 as noted by other(s). If you do this and set the distance to roughly 15 feet, 8 ft to infinity will be in acceptable focus (for 8x12 prints anyway). At night (with distant lights) I would guess as a starting point 1/4s at f/8 and iso 1600--possible with SR--but not reliably/and needs very good technique--suggest a tripod or monopod, or a handy wall/table.

03-09-2017, 09:12 PM	#30
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	Originally posted by dms And looking back at your post--saying night pictures being soft suggest out of focus--and instead of f/4, sounds like you should be at f/8-f/11 as noted by other(s). If you do this and set the distance to roughly 15 feet, 8 ft to infinity will be in acceptable focus (for 8x12 prints anyway). At night (with distant lights) I would guess as a starting point 1/4s at f/8 and iso 1600--possible with SR--but not reliably/and needs very good technique--suggest a tripod or monopod, or a handy wall/table. Is this lens really so bad that he had to run around with a monopod and use hyperfocal focusing? I've got a garbage 28mm f2.8 lens that I've shot hand held at f2.8 in bars with some stage lighting and have been very pleased with the results. I almost want to buy one of these Sigma 30 1.4's and shoot in the dark to see what's it's like to use...