[kiwi_jono]

Its going to depend on the photographer and what they like to shoot, of course.

For me, I now have my dream set of princesses (for K-1): FA 31 Limited, FA 43 Limited, and FA 77 Limited. While I sometimes supplement them with a lens, they do 80% of what I want (and to be fair 95% of what I really need). The one extra is often something around 20mm (currently using a Sigma 20mm f1.8 but don't often take it as its just too bulky and just adequate optically) - would love to have a relatively compact 21 limited for FF (the FA20 is hard to come by and now expensive in NZ)! Often pop in my kit a Pentax 17mm f4 fisheye as its quite fun and so compact!

For travelling lite with APS-C (K-01), I take a DA15, DA40 xs and DA70, which does a good job for me. Given that I really love the FA31 on FF, I'm sure I would like the DA21 on APS-C, so I guess thats on my dream list.

[clackers]

only three?

(Laughs)

[clackers]

On crop, DA15, 21 and 70.

On FF lightweight, FA31, DA*55, FA77. On FF more serious, Sigma 35mm Art, DA*55 (would be DFA* 50 if I could afford), Sigma 85mm f1.4.

Retro kit: K28, K55, M85 f2.

[hypermodern]

As
I do get the charm of primes and would prefer them on many occasions, but adding a zoom or two to your kit can give you a lot more flexibility.

My K3ii outdoor kit includes Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and Pentax 50-135mm, so I do use zooms, but there is something grab-and-go that I like about little primes.

[fehknt]

My K-1 prime kit is usually something like:
DFA50, Rokinon 24, DFA100WR

Where the DFA50 (or, if I'm feeling like saving weight, the 40XS is acceptable in a pinch if you don't care about corner sharpness) will be my "walkaround" and I'll swap to the 24 or 100 as the situation calls for it. On a trip two days ago I took the 40 instead of the 100 as I was planning on the wider end; didn't end up taking the 40 out but it's so light it often rides along because why not... Sometimes I'll swap in a Helios44 or Takumar 55mm if I'm feeling like a break from modern glass.

[que es tu]

Oooh! This is fun! I would say

1. 15mm ltd, 40mm ltd, and 100mm macro OR

2. 21mm ltd, 40mm ltd, and 100mm macro OR

3. 21mm ltd, 40mm ltd, and 70mm ltd (of course, I could substitute the 21 with the 15 ltd!)

Ideally, I think 21, 40, 70 would work nicely for the smallest, lightest kit!

[mikesbike]

For me on APS-C, and if going with only primes, I would emulate the same FOV I would choose for FF. In this case it would be my HD DA 15mm f/4 Ltd (which lives perpetually unnoticed in the front zipper pocket of my holster-type camera case), my FA 28mm f/2.8 (with the hood of my HD FA 43mm Ltd screwed on it since it is taking the FA 43's place if it were on my K-1 II), and either the HD DA 70mm or the HD FA 77mm Ltds if needing more reach or working in dimmer lighting.

If I were allowed 4, I might work in either of the DA 21mm or the HD DFA 21mm Ltds if working in dimmer lighting.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 02-12-2023 at 03:37 PM.

[bdery]

In my lightweight kit I have the 21mm Limited, the 35mm f/2.4 and the 70mm Limited, but I might make some changes at some point. What would be your dream three prime kit? Doesn’t have to just be Pentax glass, anything in K mount is allowed.

21, 40/43, 70/77/100 (the latter depending on whether you want macro or not).

only three?

[Jonathan Mac]

In Pentax APS-C: 15mm, 35mm and 70mm DA Limiteds.

[ChristianRock]

Things have changed since I posted back in 2019... I haven't had the SMC-A 24mm f/2.8 in a while, so now in its place the HD DA 21mm f/3.2 Limited would be one that I will always end up with because it's my widest prime.

I might have a 50 along with it but honestly, I haven't used 50s much since I got the SMC DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited. So now it's been those two. I still think a 2-prime set is a great small set, especially with the K-S1.

And sometimes in between there will be a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art, or less commonly the SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited. The SMC DA 35mm f/2.4 that I mentioned in a previous post is still in the house but I gave it to my son along with a K-50 so I haven't used it in a long time. It's been sitting on his desk for months so I might just take it back until he misses it, which might not happen because he is more into video (typical teenager).

And to be honest - and I'm probably in the minority here - for my personal use, the DA 35 2.4 makes more sense than the DA 35 2.8 Limited for one simple reason: it gives better skin tones. It's rendering is just perfect for people, while the Limited over-saturates skin colors and is a bit to contrasty for that purpose. Reducing those hues affects other parts of the picture and the result doesn't really live up to what the Plastic Fantastic gets right out of the box. I'm not getting rid of the 35 Limited because it's such a beautiful, great lens. Plus it's my only 1:1 macro lens.

So there you have it - DA 21 LImited, Sigma 30 1.4 Art and DA 70 Limited is the answer to the question. But there's other lenses that can bump the latter two on occasions

[que es tu]

Things have changed since I posted back in 2019... I haven't had the SMC-A 24mm f/2.8 in a while, so now in its place the HD DA 21mm f/3.2 Limited would be one that I will always end up with because it's my widest prime.

I might have a 50 along with it but honestly, I haven't used 50s much since I got the SMC DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited. So now it's been those two. I still think a 2-prime set is a great small set, especially with the K-S1.

And sometimes in between there will be a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art, or less commonly the SMC DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited. The SMC DA 35mm f/2.4 that I mentioned in a previous post is still in the house but I gave it to my son along with a K-50 so I haven't used it in a long time. It's been sitting on his desk for months so I might just take it back until he misses it, which might not happen because he is more into video (typical teenager).

And to be honest - and I'm probably in the minority here - for my personal use, the DA 35 2.4 makes more sense than the DA 35 2.8 Limited for one simple reason: it gives better skin tones. It's rendering is just perfect for people, while the Limited over-saturates skin colors and is a bit to contrasty for that purpose. Reducing those hues affects other parts of the picture and the result doesn't really live up to what the Plastic Fantastic gets right out of the box. I'm not getting rid of the 35 Limited because it's such a beautiful, great lens. Plus it's my only 1:1 macro lens.

So there you have it - DA 21 LImited, Sigma 30 1.4 Art and DA 70 Limited is the answer to the question. But there's other lenses that can bump the latter two on occasions

I gave this thread a bump even though it is old because I knew tastes and priorities change, plus lots of new members have joined. It is always nice to hear what everyone else is doing and why, and maybe get some new ideas!! I didn’t know that about the plastic fantastic 35! Thank you!

[ChristianRock]

I gave this thread a bump even though it is old because I knew tastes and priorities change, plus lots of new members have joined. It is always nice to hear what everyone else is doing and why, and maybe get some new ideas!! I didn’t know that about the plastic fantastic 35! Thank you!

I think I've posted something similar before, but here's a comparison between the DA 35 2.4 and the SMC DA 2.8 Limited...

-Plastic Fantastic is faster. f/2.4 vs f/2.8 doesn't seem much but the Plastic Fantastic is a bright f/2.4. It really does make a difference.
-The 1:1 macro on the Limited is awesome. The 35 2.4 focuses reasonably close (better than most 50s) but still, the Limited has it beat.
-The DA 35 Limited is awesome at any focal length
-They are both amazingly sharp. The f2.4 is not less sharp then the Limited, if anything it might give the impression of being slightly sharper.
-The f2.4 has a weak spot with some of my cameras, particularly the K-S1: shutter shock. The bit of tiny rattling I hear inside it is the tolerances that aren't very tight. With the K-S1, shock is absorbed by the lens and internal elements rattle. Pictures around 1/60s-1/320s are affected, especially around 1/100s or so. Putting a flash on the camera mitigates most of the issue. The 35 2.8 seems to be very tightly built and there's really no issue with shutter shock.
-Colors, as said: the f2.4 has a more "bland" look but it gives you what you see. If you have good light and composition it can give you files that have great color, contrast and are a pleasure to edit. The Limited is the same but it adds a bit more of its own "signature look" of higher contrast and more saturated colors. This can work with some subjects but on others such as people, I think it's not quite as good as the f2.4. More editing is required in that case.
-You can't beat having the f2.4 on a small camera because it's so light, it makes you feel like you're carrying a smaller/lighter camera.

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art is in the similar focal range and it's every bit as good as the Pentax offerings, is faster which really makes a difference for people pictures, but is also much larger and heavier... I guess I'm spoiled for having all 3 (and the SMC-M 28mm f/3.5 and its wild colors for fall and nature pictures...)

[Jonathan Mac]

I think I've posted something similar before, but here's a comparison between the DA 35 2.4 and the SMC DA 2.8 Limited...

-Plastic Fantastic is faster. f/2.4 vs f/2.8 doesn't seem much but the Plastic Fantastic is a bright f/2.4. It really does make a difference.
-The 1:1 macro on the Limited is awesome. The 35 2.4 focuses reasonably close (better than most 50s) but still, the Limited has it beat.
-The DA 35 Limited is awesome at any focal length
-They are both amazingly sharp. The f2.4 is not less sharp then the Limited, if anything it might give the impression of being slightly sharper.
-The f2.4 has a weak spot with some of my cameras, particularly the K-S1: shutter shock. The bit of tiny rattling I hear inside it is the tolerances that aren't very tight. With the K-S1, shock is absorbed by the lens and internal elements rattle. Pictures around 1/60s-1/320s are affected, especially around 1/100s or so. Putting a flash on the camera mitigates most of the issue. The 35 2.8 seems to be very tightly built and there's really no issue with shutter shock.
-Colors, as said: the f2.4 has a more "bland" look but it gives you what you see. If you have good light and composition it can give you files that have great color, contrast and are a pleasure to edit. The Limited is the same but it adds a bit more of its own "signature look" of higher contrast and more saturated colors. This can work with some subjects but on others such as people, I think it's not quite as good as the f2.4. More editing is required in that case.
-You can't beat having the f2.4 on a small camera because it's so light, it makes you feel like you're carrying a smaller/lighter camera.

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art is in the similar focal range and it's every bit as good as the Pentax offerings, is faster which really makes a difference for people pictures, but is also much larger and heavier... I guess I'm spoiled for having all 3 (and the SMC-M 28mm f/3.5 and its wild colors for fall and nature pictures...)

I have found the 35mm Limited to be every bit as good at the wide end as it is at telephoto

I assume you mean focus distance.

My 35/2.4 was quite disappointing with front or back focus I never got 100% rid of. My Sigma 30/1.4 was disappointing up to f/2.8 and had very unreliable AF, though that was back in my K200D days so the camera was probably partially responsible.

The HD FA 35/2 is a much better standard prime on APS-C than the 35/2.4 but I still prefer the Limited overall.

[Kerrowdown]

For me it would depend on the genre of what I was going to shoot that day, but most certainly the base three for full frame are always... Good Lady Pentax-A 20mm F2.8, Special Lady Pentax-A 50mm F1.2 and Lady Luck Pentax-A*135mm F1.8.

[ChristianRock]

I have found the 35mm Limited to be every bit as good at the wide end as it is at telephoto

I assume you mean focus distance.

My 35/2.4 was quite disappointing with front or back focus I never got 100% rid of. My Sigma 30/1.4 was disappointing up to f/2.8 and had very unreliable AF, though that was back in my K200D days so the camera was probably partially responsible.

The HD FA 35/2 is a much better standard prime on APS-C than the 35/2.4 but I still prefer the Limited overall.

I think you probably had a DA 35 2.4 with issues... A prime should never have inconsistent focus unless it (or the camera) has a problem... And the old Sigma 30 1.4 is totally different from the Art version. The Art version actually peaks in sharpness at f2.5 according to lensrentals. My copy probably does too. It's stupid sharp from f1.8 and sharp enough (with purple fringing) from wide open.
But I guess copy variation is playing a huge part here with your plastic fantastic...