Best Starter Lens for All-Around Night Photography?

**Jomar** · 11-01-2017, 02:59 AM

Hi all,

I own a secondhand K-01 with a DAL 18-55mm/f3.5-5.6 kit lens, and recently I got an opportunity to buy a starter prime. Either I buy a DA 35mm/f2.4 lens, or a DA 40mm XS lens.

I understand that both are "better" than my kit lens, but I can't decide which one to go for. The DA 35mm seems to be the generally recommended starter lens, but I also get the appeal of having a pancake lens that makes my brick as unobtrusive & portable as possible. So I decided that my tiebreaker is how good they are in night photography.

Between the two, the DA 35mm and the DA 40mm XS, which one would be better at all-around night photography? I generally prefer to take photos of stationary objects like buildings, & neon skylines. If either/both are halfway decent at star photography, that would be a bonus I'm not expecting. Also, how good are these starter prime lenses compared to my DAL 18-55mm? Is the difference in quality really that significant?

Thanks very much!

GodsPetMonkey · 11-01-2017, 05:04 AM

Well the 35 has a half stop advantage over the 40, so there is that - half a stop of extra light gathering power can be critical in low light situations, but you obviously like the size of the 40 - so it is a trade off between extra aperture and extra convenience.

Not sure I could recommend either for star photography - not wide enough for Milky Way shots, not long enough for inter-stellar detail. The range would be limiting, though that isn't necessarily a bad thing when starting out. If I had to pick one, probably the 35, and even then only on the assumption that the pancake build on the 40 involved compromising on the optical design negatively for coma and other attributes important to astrophotography (my FA 43 Limited, another pancake design, certainly shows this).

DeadJohn · 11-01-2017, 07:27 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Jomar

...I generally prefer to take photos of stationary objects like buildings, & neon skylines. If either/both are halfway decent at star photography, that would be a bonus I'm not expecting...

I see you're new here, 3 posts. How long have you had your K-01 and 18-55? What about the 18-55 hasn't worked well for building and skylines? I'm asking because sometimes we get attracted by new gear when there are ways to use our existing gear.

For buildings, a wide aperture is not especially important even at night. You'll want to use a tripod and long exposure. Wide aperture is more important for stars and the Milky Way because the sky moves if exposure is too long. Some suggestions for architectural shots in low light: Once you're on a tripod you can stop down the lens for good sharpness, making the 18-55 usable. My night settings are RAW picture format, Manual mode, ISO 100 for low noise (or 200 or 400 if very dark to keep shutter speed within 30 seconds), and set shutter speed to however long it needs to be for a good exposure.

If you still want to upgrade your lens, IMO the 35 and 40 are too long a focal length for buildings and stars. Most of my night architecture shots are in NYC with large buildings and not much space to back up, 35mm can't fit a building in the frame. Some lenses that have given me good results for night architectural shots:

Pentax DA 15mm f/4 Limited: A fantastic lens for night shots in crowded cities because it is very flare resistant; nearby street lights don't cause streaks and ghost images. It also has a very good "starburst" effect around bright points of light. This is one of the best Pentax lenses IMO.
Pentax DA* 16-50 f2.8. The flexibility of zoom helps compose architectural shots. Flare and starbursts are not as good as on the DA 15 mentioned above.
Tamron 10-24: Can go very wide for some unique shots.

None of those lenses are ideal for stars and Milky Way shots. Pinpoint sources of light aren't what most lenses are designed for. You can try any of them for the night sky, but IMO the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f2.8 or 24mm f1.4 excel for stars. They have very low coma distortion so stars stay sharp across the entire frame, even when used at their widest apertures. ISO 1600 and 30 seconds is a good starting point for the Milky Way.

Another way to take star shots is to create star trail images. Take continuous photos for at least 30 minutes, then combine them using software. The 18-55 is an adequate lens for that.

Now, having said all that, maybe the 35 or 40 you already suggested will work okay for you if you can back up enough from the buildings.

**pres589** · 11-01-2017, 07:35 AM

Agreed with the statement about the Samyang 14mm f2.8 and stars. I think their 16mm f2 is also pretty good for this. Both of those lenses have been around a while and should be find-able on the used market to get pricing down.

A wide mid-teens prime anchoring the wide end of your kit, with an 18-55 handling everything longer than that, is probably a good combination for a new shooter and someone wanting to carefully build a lens collection. The 14mm in particular seems to be pretty well respected and compared quite well against the Pentax DA 14 f2.8.

**mikesbike** · 11-01-2017, 08:38 AM

As to focal length for your shooting interests, your variable FL kit zoom lens should give you an idea. I think 40mm is a bit long for buildings, etc unless shooting from some distance. If 35mm will do it for you, I'd say go for the excellent FA 35mm f/2. It is a normal view lens on an APS-C camera, neither wide angle nor tele, and it is great for night shots. f/2 is all of 2 stops more than f/4 (quadruple the shutter speed) and one stop (double the shutter speed) over f/2.8 aperture. The very fine DA 15mm f/4 Limited does not have such a wide, fast aperture, which can be somewhat compensated for if you are shooting with a KP or K-70 with their superior higher ISO performance. They can compensate by at least one stop, but even so, a faster wider aperture will always present an advantage for low light when using it on the same camera, even the KP or K-70, when compared to a slower lens.

If f/4 will be good enough with your K-70 or KP, the 15mm Limited would be very nice, but the DA 12-24mm f/4 would provide more framing flexibility. On other camera bodies such as your K-01, you could simply go ahead with using a lower ISO with a tripod and slower shutter speeds for scenic shots, which will create motion blur with moving objects- people, car lights, etc.

The FA 35mm f/2 was designed in the days for 35mm film use, so it is also completely compatible with a full frame body such as the K-1, where it then becomes a moderate wide-angle lens, and is even more useful for night shots!

**Jomar** · 11-02-2017, 06:25 PM

Thanks for all the replies, guys!

@mikesbike, I performed the below analysis on my photo dump's metadata. I haven't considered getting a new camera body instead of a new lens... unless that would really boost the performance of my existing 18-55mm lens?

@pres589, Based on the analysis above it seems like my photos are usually taken at the opposite ends of my zoom range. If I were to buy a prime lens, should I prioritize getting a lens with less than 18mm focal length, or a lens with greater than 55mm focal length?

@DeadJohn, I wasn't aware of the DA 15mm/f1.4 lens previously, thanks for the tip!
I'm not satisfied with the night skyline shots I've been taking because the neon lights are turning into ugly blobs. I shoot at ISO 100, w/maximum shutter speed of 30secs & w/a tripod when taking these photos. Shooting these photos brings out my perfectionist urge so it can take me hours to get done (or get too exhausted), so when my photos look like this, it irritates me.

Sample shots below.

SpecialK · 11-02-2017, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Jomar

...my photos are usually taken at the opposite ends of my zoom range.

This is normally the case - always trying to get longer or wider :-)

**pres589** · 11-02-2017, 06:56 PM

"Based on the analysis above it seems like my photos are usually taken at the opposite ends of my zoom range. If I were to buy a prime lens, should I prioritize getting a lens with less than 18mm focal length, or a lens with greater than 55mm focal length?"

I really couldn't say. This started with night photography as a deciding factor. The DA 50 1.8 is going to be better than either the 35 or the 40 for this. It's a good lens and very good considering the price. Great for portraits on a crop body like your K-01.

Reading through the thread, the DA 1 5 is an f4 max aperture lens, not f1.4. But you say that you're out there using a tripod often and are okay with long exposure times. The DA 15 is amazing at resisting flair and the older SMC version can make awesome starbursts when stopped down. It's a lens that I should have purchased years before I did. Good used copies are around for about $400 USD.

There have been some manual focus 24mm and 28mm primes available over the year with max apertures of f2.0 that would probably be worth considering IF you want to deal with manual focus.

gm4life · 11-02-2017, 07:44 PM

Low light, depending if you want something wide or telephoto I have two suggestions...

Wide angle the 15mm Limited is a great compact lens for wide angles. For more telephoto work the DA 55 * is a gem as well, however these are both 500, 600 dollar lenses BUT are worth it if you can afford them.

DeadJohn · 11-02-2017, 08:45 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Jomar

@DeadJohn, I wasn't aware of the DA 15mm/f1.4 lens previously, thanks for the tip! I'm not satisfied with the night skyline shots I've been taking because the neon lights are turning into ugly blobs.

Not sure if you misread or just typo'ed. It's f4.0, not 1.4. It's a legendary night city lens because of the way it handles flare. Some samples from that lens:

11-01-2017, 02:59 AM	#1
Jomar Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: NYC Photos: Albums Posts: 257	Best Starter Lens for All-Around Night Photography? Hi all, I own a secondhand K-01 with a DAL 18-55mm/f3.5-5.6 kit lens, and recently I got an opportunity to buy a starter prime. Either I buy a DA 35mm/f2.4 lens, or a DA 40mm XS lens. I understand that both are "better" than my kit lens, but I can't decide which one to go for. The DA 35mm seems to be the generally recommended starter lens, but I also get the appeal of having a pancake lens that makes my brick as unobtrusive & portable as possible. So I decided that my tiebreaker is how good they are in night photography. Between the two, the DA 35mm and the DA 40mm XS, which one would be better at all-around night photography? I generally prefer to take photos of stationary objects like buildings, & neon skylines. If either/both are halfway decent at star photography, that would be a bonus I'm not expecting. Also, how good are these starter prime lenses compared to my DAL 18-55mm? Is the difference in quality really that significant? Thanks very much!

11-01-2017, 07:27 AM - 1 Like	#3
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,833	Originally posted by Jomar ...I generally prefer to take photos of stationary objects like buildings, & neon skylines. If either/both are halfway decent at star photography, that would be a bonus I'm not expecting... I see you're new here, 3 posts. How long have you had your K-01 and 18-55? What about the 18-55 hasn't worked well for building and skylines? I'm asking because sometimes we get attracted by new gear when there are ways to use our existing gear. For buildings, a wide aperture is not especially important even at night. You'll want to use a tripod and long exposure. Wide aperture is more important for stars and the Milky Way because the sky moves if exposure is too long. Some suggestions for architectural shots in low light: Once you're on a tripod you can stop down the lens for good sharpness, making the 18-55 usable. My night settings are RAW picture format, Manual mode, ISO 100 for low noise (or 200 or 400 if very dark to keep shutter speed within 30 seconds), and set shutter speed to however long it needs to be for a good exposure. If you still want to upgrade your lens, IMO the 35 and 40 are too long a focal length for buildings and stars. Most of my night architecture shots are in NYC with large buildings and not much space to back up, 35mm can't fit a building in the frame. Some lenses that have given me good results for night architectural shots: Pentax DA 15mm f/4 Limited: A fantastic lens for night shots in crowded cities because it is very flare resistant; nearby street lights don't cause streaks and ghost images. It also has a very good "starburst" effect around bright points of light. This is one of the best Pentax lenses IMO. Pentax DA* 16-50 f2.8. The flexibility of zoom helps compose architectural shots. Flare and starbursts are not as good as on the DA 15 mentioned above. Tamron 10-24: Can go very wide for some unique shots. None of those lenses are ideal for stars and Milky Way shots. Pinpoint sources of light aren't what most lenses are designed for. You can try any of them for the night sky, but IMO the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 14mm f2.8 or 24mm f1.4 excel for stars. They have very low coma distortion so stars stay sharp across the entire frame, even when used at their widest apertures. ISO 1600 and 30 seconds is a good starting point for the Milky Way. Another way to take star shots is to create star trail images. Take continuous photos for at least 30 minutes, then combine them using software. The 18-55 is an adequate lens for that. Now, having said all that, maybe the 35 or 40 you already suggested will work okay for you if you can back up enough from the buildings.

11-01-2017, 08:38 AM	#5
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	As to focal length for your shooting interests, your variable FL kit zoom lens should give you an idea. I think 40mm is a bit long for buildings, etc unless shooting from some distance. If 35mm will do it for you, I'd say go for the excellent FA 35mm f/2. It is a normal view lens on an APS-C camera, neither wide angle nor tele, and it is great for night shots. f/2 is all of 2 stops more than f/4 (quadruple the shutter speed) and one stop (double the shutter speed) over f/2.8 aperture. The very fine DA 15mm f/4 Limited does not have such a wide, fast aperture, which can be somewhat compensated for if you are shooting with a KP or K-70 with their superior higher ISO performance. They can compensate by at least one stop, but even so, a faster wider aperture will always present an advantage for low light when using it on the same camera, even the KP or K-70, when compared to a slower lens. If f/4 will be good enough with your K-70 or KP, the 15mm Limited would be very nice, but the DA 12-24mm f/4 would provide more framing flexibility. On other camera bodies such as your K-01, you could simply go ahead with using a lower ISO with a tripod and slower shutter speeds for scenic shots, which will create motion blur with moving objects- people, car lights, etc. The FA 35mm f/2 was designed in the days for 35mm film use, so it is also completely compatible with a full frame body such as the K-1, where it then becomes a moderate wide-angle lens, and is even more useful for night shots! Last edited by mikesbike; 11-01-2017 at 09:13 AM.

11-02-2017, 06:25 PM	#6
Jomar Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: NYC Photos: Albums Posts: 257 Original Poster	Thanks for all the replies, guys! @mikesbike, I performed the below analysis on my photo dump's metadata. I haven't considered getting a new camera body instead of a new lens... unless that would really boost the performance of my existing 18-55mm lens? @pres589, Based on the analysis above it seems like my photos are usually taken at the opposite ends of my zoom range. If I were to buy a prime lens, should I prioritize getting a lens with less than 18mm focal length, or a lens with greater than 55mm focal length? @DeadJohn, I wasn't aware of the DA 15mm/f1.4 lens previously, thanks for the tip! I'm not satisfied with the night skyline shots I've been taking because the neon lights are turning into ugly blobs. I shoot at ISO 100, w/maximum shutter speed of 30secs & w/a tripod when taking these photos. Shooting these photos brings out my perfectionist urge so it can take me hours to get done (or get too exhausted), so when my photos look like this, it irritates me. Sample shots below. Last edited by Jomar; 11-04-2017 at 09:50 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Canon Elph 100HS + freebies (great photography starter kit for a kid!!)	bpv_UW	Sold Items	15	12-22-2016 10:25 PM
Best "Starter" strobe light kit for wedding/receptions ?	Isnwm	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	18	09-08-2012 09:33 PM
Best options for starter lens KR	monarcmarc	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	13	07-23-2011 02:06 PM
Best Starter lens under $550 Aus	Pentax Kid	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	12-11-2010 05:54 AM
Best film camera for a starter	anpqnguyen	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	37	09-16-2009 05:07 PM

11-01-2017, 05:04 AM	#2
GodsPetMonkey Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 134	Well the 35 has a half stop advantage over the 40, so there is that - half a stop of extra light gathering power can be critical in low light situations, but you obviously like the size of the 40 - so it is a trade off between extra aperture and extra convenience. Not sure I could recommend either for star photography - not wide enough for Milky Way shots, not long enough for inter-stellar detail. The range would be limiting, though that isn't necessarily a bad thing when starting out. If I had to pick one, probably the 35, and even then only on the assumption that the pancake build on the 40 involved compromising on the optical design negatively for coma and other attributes important to astrophotography (my FA 43 Limited, another pancake design, certainly shows this).

11-01-2017, 07:35 AM	#4
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	Agreed with the statement about the Samyang 14mm f2.8 and stars. I think their 16mm f2 is also pretty good for this. Both of those lenses have been around a while and should be find-able on the used market to get pricing down. A wide mid-teens prime anchoring the wide end of your kit, with an 18-55 handling everything longer than that, is probably a good combination for a new shooter and someone wanting to carefully build a lens collection. The 14mm in particular seems to be pretty well respected and compared quite well against the Pentax DA 14 f2.8.

11-02-2017, 06:35 PM	#7
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Originally posted by Jomar ...my photos are usually taken at the opposite ends of my zoom range. This is normally the case - always trying to get longer or wider :-)

11-02-2017, 06:56 PM	#8
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	"Based on the analysis above it seems like my photos are usually taken at the opposite ends of my zoom range. If I were to buy a prime lens, should I prioritize getting a lens with less than 18mm focal length, or a lens with greater than 55mm focal length?" I really couldn't say. This started with night photography as a deciding factor. The DA 50 1.8 is going to be better than either the 35 or the 40 for this. It's a good lens and very good considering the price. Great for portraits on a crop body like your K-01. Reading through the thread, the DA 1 5 is an f4 max aperture lens, not f1.4. But you say that you're out there using a tripod often and are okay with long exposure times. The DA 15 is amazing at resisting flair and the older SMC version can make awesome starbursts when stopped down. It's a lens that I should have purchased years before I did. Good used copies are around for about $400 USD. There have been some manual focus 24mm and 28mm primes available over the year with max apertures of f2.0 that would probably be worth considering IF you want to deal with manual focus.

11-02-2017, 07:44 PM	#9
gm4life Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 602	Low light, depending if you want something wide or telephoto I have two suggestions... Wide angle the 15mm Limited is a great compact lens for wide angles. For more telephoto work the DA 55 * is a gem as well, however these are both 500, 600 dollar lenses BUT are worth it if you can afford them.

11-02-2017, 08:45 PM - 1 Like	#10
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,833	Originally posted by Jomar @DeadJohn, I wasn't aware of the DA 15mm/f1.4 lens previously, thanks for the tip! I'm not satisfied with the night skyline shots I've been taking because the neon lights are turning into ugly blobs. Not sure if you misread or just typo'ed. It's f4.0, not 1.4. It's a legendary night city lens because of the way it handles flare. Some samples from that lens: