[Taobat]

I'm looking for a decent low-cost prime to add to my 18-55 kit and Sigma 70-300.

I am seeing this new 35 and ancient 50 at very close prices at Adorama. The DA 35 is only $40 more than the aged 50...

Any thoughts about which would be a better match for the K-r.
I am assuming catch in focus would be helpful in manually focusing the 50 1.7. I'd be worried about manual focus withe the K-r's vf and stock focusing screen.

I would appreciate any advice and comments on these lenses and their suitability for the K-r.

Thanks!

---

Last edited by Taobat; 05-18-2011 at 09:51 AM. Reason: typo

[joe.penn]

The 35 2.4?

I just ordered that same lens today, seems to be one of the best lower cost primes out there. As for CIF, yes, that is a huge help when using an MF lens, especially with moving subjects.

BTW, that 2.4 is at an incredible price right now @ B&H... -> Pentax 35mm DA L F2.4 AL Lens 21987 B&H Photo Video

Also, if you already haven't read them, here are the reviews on the DA 35 2.4 -> https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-L-35mm-F2.4-AL.html



-------

[Taobat]

Thanks Joe!
That is the same price as Adorama... Pentax must be pushing these.

[loco]

I have both lenses. I love both lenses. I was able to get the A50 for $61 off eBay, so the price difference was much greater. But I got the 35/2.4 too because I wanted access to a wider field of view for indoor shots and autofocus for when I want to catch moving objects (like my cats!).

They really are different animals. But the image quality of both lenses is pretty much equal IMO. This is my personal opinion, but I think the DA 35/2.4 seems to result in less noisy images than any lens I own (which are the A50, kit 18-55, and DA L 55-300). I have nothing but personal observation to back that up.

If the price is really that close, I think you get the DA 35/2.4. You get autofocus, it's almost as fast, and it's new. But if you can find the A50/1.7 in the $60-70 range as I did, I would go that way. MF takes practice, but once you get the hang of it, it's quite fun.

One other thing - the A50 is not very close focusing. If that 15cm of difference is important to you, go with the DA35. I use a Raynox DCR-150 with both and it works really well if you want to get closer.

Good luck, they are both really good lenses!

[eddie1960]

I am looking at the 35 myself. I have 20 + lenses right now but no 35, and it's a very useful focal length. most of my lenses are MF, and though I like MF it has quite a few drawbacks speed of focusing being a big one. most of mine are not A lenses so also no flash functionality....
everything i've see shot with the DA35 2.4 tells me its an amazing lens for the price - it's not going to best a 31 limited but then i could get 5 - 6 of them for the price of the 31 (or add a 43 ltd and have change left over)

[mattt]

You may find the 50 long for around the house or group shots. Good for portraiture I'd say.
I have FA50f1.4 and FA35f2... I very much like the 35 for the purpose of group shots or catching the kids around the house. A much more friendly fov.

[twitch]

It's a no brainer to buy the 35, auto focus is very handy

[Taobat]

Thanks for the excellent advice and informed perspectives.

I found your shots on Flickr before posting the question, Loco!
Lovely Cats! ..and all that other stuff.

Three things I've learned:
1. The DA 35 2.4 is the obvious choice.
2. ebay is a much better place to look for used lenses than Adorama.

I respect their need for a markup to keep the business profitable, but the difference is stark. I would prefer to buy from Adorama or B&H -- I don't like Paypal -- but the premium is excessive.

3. I am suffering strange compulsive cravings for new lenses... I need to work on technique with what I have to diffuse this financially untenable condition.

Thanks everybody!

[joe.penn]

but the premium is excessive

You say that now, wait until you get a bad copy of a lens off of ebay, you will quickly realize that paying a premium from a good reputable company is not always a bad thing...

[loco]

So that was you! Thank you, Taobat. I have those same cravings for lenses, but my funds aren't going to allow any more purchases real soon!

[Eriol]

I'm looking for a decent low-cost prime to add to my 18-55 kit and Sigma 70-300.

I am seeing this new 35 and ancient 50 at very close prices at Adorama. The DA 35 is only $40 more than the aged 50...

Any thoughts about which would be a better match for the K-r.
I am assuming catch in focus would be helpful in manually focusing the 50 1.7. I'd be worried about manual focus withe the K-r's vf and stock focusing screen.

I would appreciate any advice and comments on these lenses and their suitability for the K-r.

Thanks!

Hi,

the 35/2.4 for $ 179 is definitely a great choice. From my point of view, these two primes are completely different: the 35 mm is a "normal prime lens" that reproduces perspective that looks "natural" to a you under normal viewing condition.

The 50 mm is a much better choice for portrait photography, where quick focusing is often not needed so badly. Remember, the Pentax-A 50mm is often rated amongst the overall top 10 prime lenses (covering all manufacturers)!

I got my Pentax-A 50mm for $20 at eBay and it's a great copy. I would recommend to get them both. You can easily sell any primes later without loosing money!

Eriol

[joe.penn]

A really impressive characteristic of the 35 2.4 is its resistance to flare. Here are a few shots I took late last night, taken directly at the light sources (the purple you see in upper right is coming from a purple light, not from flare):

[joe.penn]

Here is another pic shot with that same lens, this was shot through a (not so clean) window at that restaurant:

[Frogfish]

No brainer. The 35 gives you more options and is a helluva sharp lens that will crop well. If you can only have one of those two then it's no contest.

[snoop21]

have you tried the 35 at night, I bought one and refunded it, the AF doesn't focus well with it for landscapes or street views ? blurry
same experience ?