Should I add a prime or a zoom? Which one?

Buschmaster · 01-02-2010, 06:42 PM

Right now I have 1 body (K110D) and 3 lenses.

I have the kit lens (original version, not II or WR) a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di LD, and the M 50mm f/2.

I'll soon be adding a K20D. Now here's my dilemma. I feel like a K20D will truly become better if I get a better standard zoom lens and I've been told that. Another advantage to this is that I can pair one of the zooms with one body, and the kit lens with the other.

However, since none of my lenses are real fast, should I maybe consider adding a prime instead?

I'm hoping to find a lens that can focus fairly quickly and has a decent aperture as well.

If I go new some of my options right now would be:
Edit, see below:
Most likely either the DA 35mm Macro Ltd or DA 40mm Ltd

Although, I feel better about some of these than others...

Any advice would be great!

Last edited by Buschmaster; 01-02-2010 at 08:27 PM.

Damn Brit · 01-02-2010, 06:50 PM

Take a look back on the photographs you've taken and see what focal lengths you use most.

Ratmagiclady · 01-02-2010, 06:55 PM

Few of these are things I would consider bad choices.

I'd enthusiastically say 'A good prime!'

Cause that's what I get psyched about.

Our own marketplace here is generally full of things sold at fair prices... I'd just try something on.

Buschmaster · 01-02-2010, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Damn Brit

Take a look back on the photographs you've taken and see what focal lengths you use most.

Looking back I kinda hop around, but I wouldn't likely miss the range under 28mm so much, especially considering I'd still have the kit lens around. It would just be nice to have two short-rangish lenses on at the same time.

I could probably easily get away with a prime of some sort.

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

Few of these are things I would consider bad choices.

I'd enthusiastically say 'A good prime!'

Cause that's what I get psyched about.

Our own marketplace here is generally full of things sold at fair prices... I'd just try something on.

Care to share which would be the few bad choices or which would be the best? I've been browsing the marketplace quite a bit, just can't make up my mind!

Edit: Speaking of primes, when reading through reviews and browsing sample images it looks like I should definitely consider the 35mm limited macro! As well as the 40mm limited!

Last edited by Buschmaster; 01-02-2010 at 07:41 PM.

**Ash** · 01-02-2010, 08:25 PM

You've noted too many options.

Narrow it down to the focal length you're definitely after in a prime, then the decision can be made much easier.
You won't go wrong with either the DA 35 or 40 - but are you also after macro capabilities?

Buschmaster · 01-02-2010, 08:27 PM

I love macro photography and it would certainly be nice to have a lens with that capability around as well. People make it seem as though the DA 35mm Ltd Macro is more than capable of taking any type of picture, not just macro.

How would people feel about the 35 vs. the 40? Those are the two I'm looking into the most right now, and the 35mm seems slightly more expensive.

01-02-2010, 06:42 PM	#1
Buschmaster Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 806	Should I add a prime or a zoom? Which one? Right now I have 1 body (K110D) and 3 lenses. I have the kit lens (original version, not II or WR) a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di LD, and the M 50mm f/2. I'll soon be adding a K20D. Now here's my dilemma. I feel like a K20D will truly become better if I get a better standard zoom lens and I've been told that. Another advantage to this is that I can pair one of the zooms with one body, and the kit lens with the other. However, since none of my lenses are real fast, should I maybe consider adding a prime instead? I'm hoping to find a lens that can focus fairly quickly and has a decent aperture as well. If I go new some of my options right now would be: Edit, see below: Most likely either the DA 35mm Macro Ltd or DA 40mm Ltd Although, I feel better about some of these than others... Any advice would be great! Last edited by Buschmaster; 01-02-2010 at 08:27 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
prime vs. zoom	a_brooke2006	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-23-2010 01:59 PM
limited prime vs zoom	trevorgrout	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	06-04-2010 01:01 PM
are you a zoom or a prime?	nostatic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	69	09-17-2009 12:51 AM
Prime vs. Zoom	magnum1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-25-2008 05:12 AM
Zoom v. Prime	stafford588	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	01-14-2008 04:10 AM

01-02-2010, 06:50 PM	#2
Damn Brit Guest	Take a look back on the photographs you've taken and see what focal lengths you use most.

01-02-2010, 06:55 PM	#3
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Few of these are things I would consider bad choices. I'd enthusiastically say 'A good prime!' Cause that's what I get psyched about. Our own marketplace here is generally full of things sold at fair prices... I'd just try something on.

01-02-2010, 07:27 PM	#4
Buschmaster Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 806 Original Poster	Originally posted by Damn Brit Take a look back on the photographs you've taken and see what focal lengths you use most. Looking back I kinda hop around, but I wouldn't likely miss the range under 28mm so much, especially considering I'd still have the kit lens around. It would just be nice to have two short-rangish lenses on at the same time. I could probably easily get away with a prime of some sort. Originally posted by Ratmagiclady Few of these are things I would consider bad choices. I'd enthusiastically say 'A good prime!' Cause that's what I get psyched about. Our own marketplace here is generally full of things sold at fair prices... I'd just try something on. Care to share which would be the few bad choices or which would be the best? I've been browsing the marketplace quite a bit, just can't make up my mind! Edit: Speaking of primes, when reading through reviews and browsing sample images it looks like I should definitely consider the 35mm limited macro! As well as the 40mm limited! Last edited by Buschmaster; 01-02-2010 at 07:41 PM.

01-02-2010, 08:25 PM	#5
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	You've noted too many options. Narrow it down to the focal length you're definitely after in a prime, then the decision can be made much easier. You won't go wrong with either the DA 35 or 40 - but are you also after macro capabilities?

01-02-2010, 08:27 PM	#6
Buschmaster Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 806 Original Poster	I love macro photography and it would certainly be nice to have a lens with that capability around as well. People make it seem as though the DA 35mm Ltd Macro is more than capable of taking any type of picture, not just macro. How would people feel about the 35 vs. the 40? Those are the two I'm looking into the most right now, and the 35mm seems slightly more expensive.