[jwmster]

Been done before. But for each it's a tad different. Have the 15mm, 50mm and 70mm. Seems like 35mm is the midpoint. Yes, I READ about the 31mm but that's a new VW (back when I was a kid). Read the 35mm is plastic. Um.... New 35mm HD is pricey. Next option of the 21mm seems like it's too close to the 15mm to make enough difference. Then of course there's the 20-40mm... but my experience is fixed focal forces a creative thinking process zooms slide over. Maybe that's just me. Happy to zoom in the telephoto range - they're about the same size, but I do love the small lightweight primes. So 21mm vs 35mm... thoughts, recs? Appreciate any thoughts.

[jatrax]

F 28mm f/2.8?

[alamo5000]

I have bypassed the 35mm limited on purpose. It's too close to the 40mm in my taste and not 'quite' what I am looking for. I will definitely +1 the F28mmf2.8.

Since I got that lens it is by far my most used lens. The FOV is roughly equivalent to a 40mm on a full frame...and I like it!

I have the 15 and 21...(as well as the 40, F50 f1.7, 70mm limited...) and all have their places... I hate to say 'get them all' but it's true. That said if I had to prioritize and knew then what I know now... I would probably have the 31mm (on my list)...but I have the 28mm and I like it a lot. I use a standard screw in metal lens hood because it does flare if you shoot too much into the sun... but that's minor.

The F28 is a fantastic option. Even if I get the 31mm later on (after all these Christmas bills are done getting paid off) I will probably still keep the 28mm. For walking around the 28mm (or 31mm) are the best.

That said, the 21mm does have a place among things. And on the low end... 6mm difference is HUGE. 15 vs 21...two different animals.

[savoche]

F28 sounds like a good idea. And the FA35/2 is supposed to very nice. As is the DA35/2.4 even if it is plastic.

And there is definitely room for a 21 next to the 15

[jimr-pdx]

How about the other side of things, 100/105mm macro? I'm quite happy with 21/50/70/105 right now, though it seems I've left space for a 20-40 zoom I picked up the Sigma 105 (discontinued) for half the 100WR's price, but maybe some day I can step up.

And I agree w/ others here, the 15 and 21 have enough space between them. Surprising what a few mm can do at the wide end.

[SpecialK]

Read the 35mm is plastic....but my experience is fixed focal forces a creative thinking process zooms slide over. Maybe that's just me.

Nothing wrong with plastic for $175.

I frame things with my eye and use a lens to match that framing rather than squeezing something into an arbitrary rectangle. Different approaches.

The black Friday sale on the 35 Ltd was the best deal. It's huge (compared to the 21 :-)

There's is room for both FL's, however, I like wide so I would go with the 21 and its disappointing barrel distortion.

[Colbyt]

Sometime back one of the established members here made the statement that 6mm makes a noticeable difference. The statement went unchallenged so I have tended to believe it.

That would make the 35 an overlap of your 40. The 21 would would be enough different than the 15. The 21 is such a cute little light bundle and half the the price of a new bug when you were a kid.

[mbukal]

F 28mm f/2.8?

We agree 100%!

[alamo5000]

Sometime back one of the established members here made the statement that 6mm makes a noticeable difference. The statement went unchallenged so I have tended to believe it.

That would make the 35 an overlap of your 40. The 21 would would be enough different than the 15. The 21 is such a cute little light bundle and half the the price of a new bug when you were a kid.

It's just my opinion but 6mm isn't just 6mm. It depends on where it's at and on what.

15mm vs a 21mm has a pretty noticeable difference.

On the other end of things...say 100 vs 105mm or something like that... its much less noticeable.

For example the FOV of a 15mm @ 5 feet from subject has a horizontal FOV of 76 degrees on a Pentax sensor.

The 21mm all things the same has a 58 degree horizontal FOV.

Now just on a 50mm lens the horizontal FOV is about 26 degrees and on a 55mm lens the FOV is 24 degrees.

18 degrees difference in FOV vs 2 degrees on the longer lens...

[Adam]

Been done before. But for each it's a tad different. Have the 15mm, 50mm and 70mm. Seems like 35mm is the midpoint. Yes, I READ about the 31mm but that's a new VW (back when I was a kid). Read the 35mm is plastic. Um.... New 35mm HD is pricey. Next option of the 21mm seems like it's too close to the 15mm to make enough difference. Then of course there's the 20-40mm... but my experience is fixed focal forces a creative thinking process zooms slide over. Maybe that's just me. Happy to zoom in the telephoto range - they're about the same size, but I do love the small lightweight primes. So 21mm vs 35mm... thoughts, recs? Appreciate any thoughts.

The 35mm is way better optically (IMHO) than the 21mm, and the HD 35mm has virtually no ghosting or aberrations. I can't help but recommend the HD 35 as a walkaround + macro lens!

[jwmster]

Thanks for the very helpful suggestions and input. Have read similar posts, as well as looking at reviews on these lenses and those also struggling to choose between them. Looks like the 21mm is definitely a favored (or should I say "valued") lens. Having just gotten the 15mm and seen the convergence of perspective lines pushed hard in this... I can see where a "still wide" but "less wide" could be a better everyday lens. So I'm looking into "used" offerings for a 21mm now... looking at offerings on ebay. Don't see particular reason why a "used" lens won't work for me. Seems like a good way to evaluate the focal length.... and MAYBE if you need to, you can upgrade to a better version of the same later??? Dunno.

BUT the question of a normal lens clearly is more difficult to settle. Have been reading about the Limited lenses 1) 28mm FA 2.8, 2) the DA Limited 35mm Macro, and 3) the Limited 40mm. Tending to favor the DA's just because they're light weight... though 28mm doesn't weigh in all that much more. Not sure that macro bug photos are my bit. See there is a Sigma 28mm but read that is one honking big (heavy) piece of glass. Read the 31mm fits in that big honking, heavy class, too... and one person wrote that while having both a 31mm and a 28mm, tended to use the latter for that reason. 31mm seems more than I want to spend at the moment, too... with cheap now in the $900 range and more typical $1200 and up.

All 3 - 28,35 and 40 are pretty close with the 35 in the center. Again with the 21mm, the 28 seems close again... which would push back toward the 35... though I feel like I'm paying for macro I won't use. Anyway... seems like lens trading is almost a separate hobby... and you try this and that until you find what you like and what works. There are some Pentax M 28's out there for very little $ that I'm not sure how they fit / work on an K5 (my camera).

What I'm finding... or think I'm finding is that we can get wrapped up in conniptions about stuff that's not really going to be part of most of our pictures. Read the complaints about the K5 and you'd think I was crazy to buy it. But it does take very good pictures. And yeah... maybe I just haven't run into the problems yet... or been pushed to solve them as a result. Same probably holds for the lenses? I like small and light weight, bokeh, color rendition, focus and ease of use. Who doesn't? What I still wonder is how hard really.... is it to work with these older lenses? FA's and M's? Yes, I have an old Sekonic meter from film days.... but seriously... do we really go there or what?

Thanks for your encouragement. Any further thoughts are appreciated!

[jatrax]

Don't see particular reason why a "used" lens won't work for me. Seems like a good way to evaluate the focal length.... and MAYBE if you need to, you can upgrade to a better version of the same later??? Dunno.

I've bought almost all of my lenses used. No reason why a used one would not be better than a new one. A 'good' copy is always a 'good' copy And by buying used you miss out on the instant depreciation and if you decide to sell it on you can generally do so at very close to what you paid as long as it is in good condition. just be aware of what you want and the going price.

[Bagga_Txips]

35 macro is not really the perfect bug macro, and people are too obsessed with bug shots anyway, IMO. 35 is an excellent flower macro lens. And walkabout lens. And street/candid lens.

But you can shoot and crop with a da21 for street and flowers, and the 21 is a much better walk around/street lens. However there,s nothing wrong with the 20-40, it's not a very zoomy zoom, after all. Not like a 16-50 or 18-135, it just allows a useful extra bit of control, I would imagine.

With the range of lenses you already have, I would strongly recommend the 100 macro WR. It is beautifully built, is bug and flower compatible, and is a nice mid length tele. Also it is sharp enough to crop for even more apparent magnification as a tele. And WR. And it is beautifully built. Limited level of quality, imho. (My next purchase)

I have a 21, 40XS, 70, and when I tried them in my small Nat Geo shoulder bag with the 100 WR I had a wonderful range of capability that weighed almost nothing, yet still had room left over for when I buy a flash, and to carry spare battery, remote, and all the other tiny extras I always carry. Can't wait till Xmas when I buy the 100!

How about this for your road map? 15, 20-40 Ltd, 50, 70, 100 WR?

[jwmster]

Thanks for the responses. Pentax F28 2.8 does seem about the best rated (by this forum's users) for the money. Bokeh isn't high, but 5 blades (I think) can only take you so far? Looked at the Sigma 28mm which rates lower on Sharpness, Abberation, AF, Handling... and must be a honking big hunk of glass... and while it does have macro... I'm just not that into macro (especially bugs). The Pentax F28mm seems a good fit between a 15mm, 50mm and 70mm... and then sort of edges out the 21's and 35's. But if you go with the 35mm, then you have "room" for the 21mm. And the 35mm does seem to rate better than the 28 on all but Autofocus and "value".

Question of how much to put into these ratings? The case that's been made is that 35mm is a little longer than normal and 28 at the shorter end which I guess leaves a happy place for those plunking mega $'s for a 31mm. Yet you see plenty suggesting the real happy focal length is 28. So many headaches lead inevitably to ('scuse the vernacular) just WTF... go ahead, try it and if you don't like it dump it. What you miss is macro... which by my old Nikon days used to be a short tele anyway.

Any final thoughts or suggestions before sending me out into the wild marketplace to hunt up a specimen?

[savoche]

Nah, sounds to me like you have made an educated decision (if one can say that...). I went the 21+35 way, but when the LBA strikes again I might well fill in with a 28 - it's a FL that fits me well (but so is 35 mm).

Happy hunting!