[MarkJerling]

I don't own one, Mike ... yet.

Keep saving for that Pentax FF!

[Julie Whelan]

Absolutely... My DSLR lost half its value in 3 years - even getting a great deal on a used body to begin with. The kit lens that came with it lost 25% of its value over a 4-year timeframe. Glass that isn't consumer crap holds its value outright.

It's really, really rare that you lose significant amounts of money from owning glass, unless you get ripped off to start with. You may lose Paypal fees and shipping, but usually the glass itself won't sink in price, it's just a slightly-less-liquid asset with some trading fees. Because I'm an incorrigible bargain hunter, I've actually made a decent profit just from buying and selling glass, and I get to keep the real gems. It doesn't come close to funding the hobby, but it helps defray the cost of some nicer toys than I could normally afford.

Now that said, if you did not own a body that is capable of shooting reasonably at ISO 3200 or 6400 (which the OP's K-30 is), then I HIGHLY recommend jumping to a body that can do that. High ISO + fast glass is a wicked combination, and they're not that expensive these days.

Also - if you are willing to lay out some cash, jumping to FF is worth it. It's not the same value proposition as APS-C, but it IS higher performance at a higher cost. A D600 is a really nice shooter, or an A7/r is a serious value/capability proposition if you're into manual focus primes. /activates flame-proof suit



Without question, that's a top-notch lens.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 beats it in terms of value and zoom range - but it can't match the aperture or the performance, and the focusing motor sounds like an angry hornet's nest. If you want to jump to something more than just maximizing your value - the 18-35/1.8 is a great contender.

My other suggestions would be a Sigma 35/1.4 Art or Sigma 50/1.4 Art. Both of those are top-of-the-line primes. If you want to go cheap and are willing to deal with manual focus - the Samyang 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 are both fabulous too, and the value CAN'T be beat. We're talking a top-of-the-line 35/1.4 for $300 if you shop around, that's chump change in Photo Dollars (current exchange rate between $2.0 and $10.0 USD to $1 photodollar depending on your level of addiction ). Buy yourself a $30 focus screen off eBay using the $500 you saved over the Sigma, or maybe even splurge for the katzeye, and focusing will be easier than you ever imagined. I don't trust AF in low light anyway.

What can I say, I like available light shooting, so I favor fast primes (or superfast zooms) and high ISO

Thanks for the sound advice, Paul. With yours and everyone's help here, I've narrowed my new lens choice to these three: 1) Sigma 18-35mm f1.8; 2) Sigma 35mm f1.4 art; or 3) Sigma 30mm f1.4 art. I know choice #3 is the cheapest but not sure how much quality I'd be compromising? I am biased to prime lenses but have read great reviews about choice #1. My gut feeling is that choice #2 will be the one I settle on.


I'm going to take time to consider and do further research. what would be great is if I could find a local place that would allow me to try before I buy.

---------- Post added 11-09-14 at 01:19 PM ----------

Thanks for the sound advice, Paul. With yours and everyone's help here, I've narrowed my new lens choice to these three: 1) Sigma 18-35mm f1.8; 2) Sigma 35mm f1.4 art; or 3) Sigma 30mm f1.4 art. I know choice #3 is the cheapest but not sure how much quality I'd be compromising? I am biased to prime lenses but have read great reviews about choice #1. My gut feeling is that choice #2 will be the one I settle on.


I'm going to take time to consider and do further research. what would be great is if I could find a local place that would allow me to try before I buy.

interested in the Samyang but really wonder how long it would take to get used to manual focus. Do you find it at all a drawback?

[normhead]

The advantage to the Sigma 35 1.4 is if memory sure 's me well, it's an FF lens. The advantage to the Sigma 18-35 ƒ1.8 is, it goes a long way towards eliminating the need for FF, just as the Sigma 8-16 has eliminated my thinking that I needed to go FF for wide angle. The trouble with that is I now have a fantastic APS_c lens that won't work on an FF if I ever get one. But if you're definitely going FF, the 31 ltd is probably the one you want. 35 is barely wide angle on FF.

[Julie Whelan]

The advantage to the Sigma 35 1.4 is if memory sure 's me well, it's an FF lens. The advantage to the Sigma 18-35 ƒ1.8 is, it goes a long way towards eliminating the need for FF, just as the Sigma 8-16 has eliminated my thinking that I needed to go FF for wide angle. The trouble with that is I now have a fantastic APS_c lens that won't work on an FF if I ever get one. But if you're definitely going FF, the 31 ltd is probably the one you want. 35 is barely wide angle on FF.

thanks Normhead. I will most certainly be upgrading my camera in the next 2 years so mostly likely be a FF.

[RAART]

thanks Normhead. I will most certainly be upgrading my camera in the next 2 years so mostly likely be a FF.

and BTW with Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, Sigma is changing mounts to whatever you like if you switch from Pentax (in example to Nikon ). Of course for some amount of money... But you have sure bet there. Just my 2c. YMMV

[AtitG]

And while waiting for the FF, may I suggest for you to try to shoot film (analog FF). Your DA 35 and DA 50 will work well with the mz-6 and mz-7. Try the FF field of view.

[Paul MaudDib]

The advantage to the Sigma 35 1.4 is if memory sure 's me well, it's an FF lens. The advantage to the Sigma 18-35 ƒ1.8 is, it goes a long way towards eliminating the need for FF, just as the Sigma 8-16 has eliminated my thinking that I needed to go FF for wide angle. The trouble with that is I now have a fantastic APS_c lens that won't work on an FF if I ever get one. But if you're definitely going FF, the 31 ltd is probably the one you want. 35 is barely wide angle on FF.

I'd tend to agree with all of this.

If you want to build an upgrade path - the 35/1.4 is a GREAT lens, with a great focal length on both APS-C and FF. 35mm is one of my favorite all around FLs on film (FF). Very nice indoors where you want to go a bit wider to deal with close quarters, or outdoors for environmental-type portraits, usable for landscapes, etc. But not so wide that shooting people becomes problematic. And of course on APS-C it's your 50mm equivalent normal lens.

One thing to remember is that most FF bodies DO have an APS-C auto-crop mode, which produces a 10-15 MP image using the APS-C image circle. So you can use your fantastic APS-C lenses on a FF body, you just will be giving up a bit of your resolution compared to shooting on a real APS-C body.

I think the 30/1.4 is definitely the weakest of the three choices there. The Sigma 18-35 is going to easily beat the performance from f/1.8 on for a similar-ish price - so what you're really buying is the f/1.4 aperture, and it's not going to be super sharp wide open like the 35/1.4 would be. You won't miss the extra half stop of light compared to the 18-35, it's just a non-factor given the high-ISO capabilities of modern sensors.

re: field of view, I think things have gotten a bit out of hand nowadays if 35mm is "barely wide". In the Takumar days the 35mm was the "wide", the 28mm was the "super-wide", and the 24mm was the "extreme-wide". Nowadays if you're not shooting a 14mm equivalent lens people think it's not a "wide".

To me 43mm is a "wide-normal". I consider 35mm equivalent to be a "semi-wide" (wide but generally pretty well-behaved in terms of perspective), 28mm is a "strong wide" that's very capable of doing some perspective distortion, and I generally don't shoot much wider than that. I had a 22.5mm equivalent for my Pentax 67, it was hard to fill the foreground properly and it didn't bring anything to the table that my 55mm (27mm equivalent) didn't offer (in terms of perspective).

[MarkJerling]

I'd tend to agree with all of this.

If you want to build an upgrade path - the 35/1.4 is a GREAT lens, with a great focal length on both APS-C and FF. .

I think you're onto something here, Paul. I think I need to start looking out for a 35mm!

[jsherman999]

Everyone thinks I'm joking or crazy but my most-used (and almost favorite) lens on FF is a $110 50 f/1.8D.

I think the $200 used FA 50 f/1.7 + $200 used FA 28 f/2.8 + K-FF body would be a great kit all in itself, so much power and utility (YES, they are sharp enough for 36MP!) Maybe throw in a $300 used Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and $650 new Tamron 70-200 2.8 and you're buried in IQ riches.

[Paul MaudDib]

interested in the Samyang but really wonder how long it would take to get used to manual focus. Do you find it at all a drawback?

Missed this earlier, but: it depends on your setup. With a stock focus screen and no focus assist? Yes, focusing a f/1.4 lens on equipment that maxes out at f/2.8 is problematic. With a focus screen (DSLR) or focus peaking (MILC)? It's not too bad at all.

Again, I actually prefer it in some senses, because it's simply a problem of getting the lens to the proper place at the proper time to shoot your image. There's no equipment problems with "focus hunting" or anything like that - if your shot is out of focus, it's your fault. With some practice and the proper tools, it's not too hard to hit focus. The screens or the digital assist (highlighting the in-focus area) really help with that.

I think you're onto something here, Paul. I think I need to start looking out for a 35mm!

Don't discount the 18-35 either, it's a real solid lens for APS-C, and I doubt you'll lose much by holding on to it for a couple months if you buy used. I really like primes - but f/1.8 with prime-like sharpness is really attractive too. The half stop doesn't really matter if it can keep up in sharpness and offer a zoom range too.

Everyone thinks I'm joking or crazy but my most-used (and almost favorite) lens on FF is a $110 50 f/1.8D.

I don't at all. I have a preference to 35mm equivalent for a walk-around lens just because I think it's more versatile, but 50mm is very, very popular for a reason, and I shoot my 50mm equivalent lenses a lot. A lot more than I shoot anything longer in FL (except for portraits). Some people have an eye for telephoto landscapes - I've never been able to do that.

If I take 1 lens, it's 35mm equivalent. If I take 2 lenses - it's 28mm and 50mm.

Something like the 43mm Ltd would probably be nice too.

[Julie Whelan]

Everyone thinks I'm joking or crazy but my most-used (and almost favorite) lens on FF is a $110 50 f/1.8D.

I think the $200 used FA 50 f/1.7 + $200 used FA 28 f/2.8 + K-FF body would be a great kit all in itself, so much power and utility (YES, they are sharp enough for 36MP!) Maybe throw in a $300 used Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and $650 new Tamron 70-200 2.8 and you're buried in IQ riches.

No, you're not crazy! At the moment the 50mm 1.8 is my favourite lens as well. I just want something slightly wider and more versatile.

[VoiceOfReason]

If Pentax released a FF with ISO 50-104k and wider dynamic range, lower noise, then selectable crop factors I may take a hard look at it.

[Julie Whelan]

My Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART lens has arrived! It is so pleasingly heavy and oh so quiet. I feel like Christmas has come early. Now need to get snapping! thanks all for your advice and views. I've learned a lot

[RAART]

Glad that you made right decision... Share some results after snapphappy fever has slightly faded!

[Julie Whelan]

Glad that you made right decision... Share some results after snapphappy fever has slightly faded!

Thanks for the reply! Got some great shots of my dog's nose just to test the depth of field lol. Will post later