used FA 50mm 1.7 or new DA 35mm 2.4?

hcc · 01-04-2011, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by freshsnapper

Which one do you think I should grab?

You do not have to buy either lens. Why don't you think about it? What lens do you have? Will either lesn complement your line-up? or is it a LBA?

Think twice.... and go for quality lenses that complement your line-up.

Captquin · 04-29-2011, 12:19 PM

I was thinking of a fast prime to replace my manual 50mm 1.7.

Regarding the 35mm 2.4 or the 18-50mm 2.8 zooms mentioned, can you blur the background at those apatures? Are they fast enough in low light?

DaveHolmes · 04-29-2011, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Captquin

Regarding the 35mm 2.4 or the 18-50mm 2.8 zooms mentioned, can you blur the background at those apatures? Are they fast enough in low light?

Depending on distance to subject and distance of subject to background... Yes... Definitely!

I have the 17-50 Tamron and I quite like the bokeh it produces... It's not close to my m-50-f1.7 but still nice...

I far as low light goes... The AF hunts a little when it gets dark but I don't ever find getting a fast enough shutter speed a massive issue due to the K-x's fantastic high ISO capabilities... It's also really quite sharp :-)

radium22 · 04-30-2011, 08:36 AM

I was in the same boat a few months ago and I picked the 35mm f/2.4. 50mm is just too far. The 35mm is even good enough to take pictures of your friends sitting across the table in a restaurant! That full stop does not matter. The 35mm does very well in low light with the K-x.

DaveHolmes · 04-30-2011, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by radium22

The 35mm does very well in low light with the K-x.

And is hands down THE cheapest prime lens to buy new on the market...

I have a question about the 35mm but will post it in the lens section... (If I can't find an answer in other threads...)

HEEGZ · 04-30-2011, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Captquin

I was thinking of a fast prime to replace my manual 50mm 1.7.

Regarding the 35mm 2.4 or the 18-50mm 2.8 zooms mentioned, can you blur the background at those apatures? Are they fast enough in low light?

Originally posted by radium22

I was in the same boat a few months ago and I picked the 35mm f/2.4. 50mm is just too far. The 35mm is even good enough to take pictures of your friends sitting across the table in a restaurant! That full stop does not matter. The 35mm does very well in low light with the K-x.

After picking up a 50mm I also found it too long for me, so I bought the 35mm f2.4 instead. It does do a good job blurring the background as well as solid performance on a K-7 in low light conditions. Here's an example:

Pentax K-7, 35mm f2.4, ISO 1100, f2.4, 1/45

RioRico · 05-03-2011, 06:05 AM

As mentioned, they're quite different lenses. The 35/2.4 will have much thicker DOF than the 501/7. So if you want to separate subjects from backgrounds, go with the FA50. If you want a greater zone of sharpness, get the DA35 -- or stop-down the 50. And yes, 1 f-stop DOES make a difference when shooting in low light, or fast-moving subjects.

The "usability" of any focal length is ambiguous. The old rule is that if you have a 50 and you want 35 coverage, take a step back. With a 24, for 35 coverage, take a step forward. Or two steps if you're short, heh heh. I have several fine 35's, many good 28's, and a couple good 24's. I find that I rarely use the 35's. If I want a 'normal' perspective, I'll mount a 28. For isolating a subject, or just for a narrower viewpoint, I grab a 50-55-58. One of the initial lenses I got with my K20D was the FA50/1.4 and it's still among my most-used glass.

I vote for the 50.

04-29-2011, 12:19 PM	#17
Captquin New Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Louisiana Posts: 14	I was thinking of a fast prime to replace my manual 50mm 1.7. Regarding the 35mm 2.4 or the 18-50mm 2.8 zooms mentioned, can you blur the background at those apatures? Are they fast enough in low light? Last edited by Captquin; 04-29-2011 at 12:26 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
35mm or 50mm?	chattphotos	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	12-10-2010 04:20 AM
For Sale - Sold: ME Super SE, ZX-M, M 35mm f/2, M 50mm 1.4, 2.0, A 50mm 2.0, others (Worldwide)	jjdgti	Sold Items	9	03-31-2010 10:27 AM
FA 35mm F/2 or FA 50mm F/1.4?	badfish	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	12-02-2008 08:51 PM
For Sale - Sold: F 24-50mm 4, A 24-50mm 4, M 35mm 2, M 50mm 1.4, A 35-105mm 3.5, A 70-210mm 4	raybird	Sold Items	7	08-29-2008 01:06 PM
A vs. FA - 35mm and 50mm	raybird	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-29-2008 10:29 AM

01-04-2011, 02:19 PM	#16
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,002	Originally posted by freshsnapper Which one do you think I should grab? You do not have to buy either lens. Why don't you think about it? What lens do you have? Will either lesn complement your line-up? or is it a LBA? Think twice.... and go for quality lenses that complement your line-up.

04-29-2011, 02:12 PM	#18
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	Originally posted by Captquin Regarding the 35mm 2.4 or the 18-50mm 2.8 zooms mentioned, can you blur the background at those apatures? Are they fast enough in low light? Depending on distance to subject and distance of subject to background... Yes... Definitely! I have the 17-50 Tamron and I quite like the bokeh it produces... It's not close to my m-50-f1.7 but still nice... I far as low light goes... The AF hunts a little when it gets dark but I don't ever find getting a fast enough shutter speed a massive issue due to the K-x's fantastic high ISO capabilities... It's also really quite sharp :-)

04-30-2011, 08:36 AM	#19
radium22 Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Milpitas, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 44	I was in the same boat a few months ago and I picked the 35mm f/2.4. 50mm is just too far. The 35mm is even good enough to take pictures of your friends sitting across the table in a restaurant! That full stop does not matter. The 35mm does very well in low light with the K-x.

04-30-2011, 10:11 AM	#20
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	Originally posted by radium22 The 35mm does very well in low light with the K-x. And is hands down THE cheapest prime lens to buy new on the market... I have a question about the 35mm but will post it in the lens section... (If I can't find an answer in other threads...)

04-30-2011, 06:13 PM	#21
HEEGZ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Missouri Photos: Albums Posts: 258	Originally posted by Captquin I was thinking of a fast prime to replace my manual 50mm 1.7. Regarding the 35mm 2.4 or the 18-50mm 2.8 zooms mentioned, can you blur the background at those apatures? Are they fast enough in low light? Originally posted by radium22 I was in the same boat a few months ago and I picked the 35mm f/2.4. 50mm is just too far. The 35mm is even good enough to take pictures of your friends sitting across the table in a restaurant! That full stop does not matter. The 35mm does very well in low light with the K-x. After picking up a 50mm I also found it too long for me, so I bought the 35mm f2.4 instead. It does do a good job blurring the background as well as solid performance on a K-7 in low light conditions. Here's an example: Pentax K-7, 35mm f2.4, ISO 1100, f2.4, 1/45

05-03-2011, 06:05 AM	#22
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	As mentioned, they're quite different lenses. The 35/2.4 will have much thicker DOF than the 501/7. So if you want to separate subjects from backgrounds, go with the FA50. If you want a greater zone of sharpness, get the DA35 -- or stop-down the 50. And yes, 1 f-stop DOES make a difference when shooting in low light, or fast-moving subjects. The "usability" of any focal length is ambiguous. The old rule is that if you have a 50 and you want 35 coverage, take a step back. With a 24, for 35 coverage, take a step forward. Or two steps if you're short, heh heh. I have several fine 35's, many good 28's, and a couple good 24's. I find that I rarely use the 35's. If I want a 'normal' perspective, I'll mount a 28. For isolating a subject, or just for a narrower viewpoint, I grab a 50-55-58. One of the initial lenses I got with my K20D was the FA50/1.4 and it's still among my most-used glass. I vote for the 50.