I have never owned a SLR before.Please tell me what this lens would be used for vs the pentax DA 50mm f1.8 - would u rec 1 over the other or both? My main goals will be to shoot family photos (3 kids) and my kids sporting events. - Thanks in advance! I have never owned a SLR before.Please tell me what this lens would be used for vs the pentax DA 50mm f1.8 - would u rec 1 over the other or both? My main goals will be to shoot family photos (3... » Read More I have never owned a SLR before.Please tell me what this lens would be used for vs the pentax DA 50mm f1.8 - would u rec 1 over the other or both? My main goals will be to shoot family photos (3 kids) and my kids sporting events. - Thanks in advance! « Show Less
315157
Pentax crop sensor cameras make the 50mm a telescopic lens. The 35mm is more a normal view that may barely be wide enough for group photos without stepping way further back to get some background. I'd recommend the 35mm first unless you have a wide angle lens at least 28mm, preferrably wider a da 21mm. The 50mm is better for closeups.
315158
I bought the 35mm because i need to take pics closer than 50mm. But if you think you will have space between the camera and the object, buy the 50mm. The DA 50mm is better (f1.8) and cheaper because the 50mm lens are simpler than the rest lens. To take a portrait of 4 people (middle plane) you may need at least 3 metros with 35mm (relative close). By the way, if you want to take pics in sports, i think you may need more range, at least 50mm - 200 mm.I so happy with my DA 35mm, is a nice lens...Maybe this can help: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-L-35mm-F2.4-AL.htmlhttp://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/smc-pentax-da-50mm-f1.8.htmlBye.. I bought the 35mm because i need to take pics closer than 50mm. But if you think you will have space between the camera and the object, buy the 50mm. The DA 50mm is better (f1.8) and cheaper because the 50mm lens are simpler than the rest lens. To take a portrait of 4 people (middle plane) you may need at least 3 metros with 35mm (relative close). By the way, if you want to take pics in sports, i think you may need more range, at least 50mm - 200 mm.I so happy with my DA 35mm, is a nice lens...Maybe this can help:... » Read More I bought the 35mm because i need to take pics closer than 50mm. But if you think you will have space between the camera and the object, buy the 50mm. The DA 50mm is better (f1.8) and cheaper because the 50mm lens are simpler than the rest lens. To take a portrait of 4 people (middle plane) you may need at least 3 metros with 35mm (relative close). By the way, if you want to take pics in sports, i think you may need more range, at least 50mm - 200 mm.I so happy with my DA 35mm, is a nice lens...Maybe this can help: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-L-35mm-F2.4-AL.htmlhttp://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/smc-pentax-da-50mm-f1.8.htmlBye.. « Show Less
286640
Donie, No one responded because this forum is for the G2, which is a somewhat specialized model. If you look on the camera and lenses you have for the brand name, like Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, etc., then post your question on the "digital slr" forum, you will get the responses that are relevant. Responses on this forum won't do you much good. Good Luck.
8518
I now have the MarkIV and love it. There's nothing to compare to it to anywhere. I was goofing off with it today at ISO 10,000. Yes, the only drawback is not using the 10-22 wide angle and a few efs lenses.Wouldn't mind having the FF 5DMKII also! I was just looking at some ISO comparisons. Almost as good as the MKIV. DPreview has some comparisons. If you want full frame go with the 5D, if you want fast FPS and more length to your lenses go with the MKIV. They are both excellent. The MKIV is a heavier camera.
1260789
By far the best overall performing lens is the Pentax DA 18-250mm F3.5-5.6. This lens is a miracle performer from wide to zoom. Hunting around you can get this lens for under $400. I would highly recommend having more then one lens so you can shoot in a greater variety of settings. I currently have 3 lenses but my 18-250mm spends the bulk of its time on my K20D.
759246
Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier... » Read More Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. « Show Less
1922083
The 50 is probably more often referred to as a "standard" lens and works great. The 35 is slightly wider and often used for portraits of more than just one person (when you need to fit more people in the frame). Keep in mind that if you have a camera with an ASP-C sensor (or a "crop sensor"-- this is the Rebel line of Canon canons as well as the 7D, etc), the 50mm is closer to a (1.6 x 50 =) 80mm due to the smaller sensor and a 35 looks closer to a (35 x 1.6=) 56mm lens. What I would suggest before dropping a lot of money on the 35L or 50L is to see what range you use more or what looks better on your camera. Most Canon cameras come with an 18-55 or 24-105 lens. Zoom that lens to the 35mm mark and use that for a day and see how it works. Then do the same thing with the lens at the 50mm mark. If you find that 50 is too narrow or 35 is too wide, there is no sense in dropping $1000+ on a focal length you aren't likely to use.
916479
So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's... » Read More So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider « Show Less
1011445
I shoot weddings and started out with the original 100 macro, I then upgraded to the 100 IS macro (which is amazing) but that lens got dropped and I had to ship it out to have it repaired just before an event so I ordered the 50mm just as a place holder till I got the 100 back. I was able to make some decent images with it and it will certainly get you closer to your subjects than a non macro lens however it doesn't even come close to either of the 100 macro lenses. So short answer: if you have the money go for the 100 2.8 IS it's absolutely worth it, but if money is tight and you're simply looking to add another trick to the back then the 50 will get you by for the moment, what you will be missing is sharpness/clarity but you'll still be able to get in close and get "macro" images.
666909
Great advice in previous post: ..."good glass (lenses) is far more important than the camera body itself, as it has the biggest impact on image quality. so if possible underspend on the camera body and overspend on glass...."However, a 50mm f1.8 prime on the d3200 is equivalent on an older 35mm film camera, to a 75mm lens which is a short tele-photo lens. On 35 mm cameras of old the 50mm was the "normal lens." On the digital Nikon (X1.5 aspect) a 35mm f1.8 would be more of a normal lens and equivalent to a 52.5mm lens for "normal use, when not using the zoom VR lens that comes with the D3200. Great advice in previous post: ..."good glass (lenses) is far more important than the camera body itself, as it has the biggest impact on image quality. so if possible underspend on the camera body and overspend on glass...."However, a 50mm f1.8 prime on the d3200 is equivalent on an older 35mm film camera, to a 75mm lens which is a short tele-photo lens. On 35 mm cameras of old the 50mm was the "normal lens." On the digital Nikon (X1.5 aspect) a 35mm f1.8 would be more of a normal lens and equivalent to a 52.5mm lens for "normal use, when not using the... » Read More Great advice in previous post: ..."good glass (lenses) is far more important than the camera body itself, as it has the biggest impact on image quality. so if possible underspend on the camera body and overspend on glass...."However, a 50mm f1.8 prime on the d3200 is equivalent on an older 35mm film camera, to a 75mm lens which is a short tele-photo lens. On 35 mm cameras of old the 50mm was the "normal lens." On the digital Nikon (X1.5 aspect) a 35mm f1.8 would be more of a normal lens and equivalent to a 52.5mm lens for "normal use, when not using the zoom VR lens that comes with the D3200. « Show Less
809642
I went to Paris (and Provence) in June/July. Here's what I took: 2 X Pentax K-x Digital SLR with 2.7-inch LCD and 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL Lens (Black) Pentax 14mm f/2.8 DA ED (IF) Lens for Pentax and Samsung Digital SLR Cameras Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens for Pentax and Samsung Digital SLR Cameras SIGMA 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM ED SD Rokinon FE8M-P 8mm F3.5 Fisheye Lens for Pentax (Black) These worked very well. If you prefer telephoto, you could just go with the tele-zoom. If you prefer wide-angle, the 14mm is tough to beat. The SIGMA 18-50 f/2.8 is significantly sharper and faster than the kit 18-55. I also own the Pentax DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED Lens for Pentax and Samsung DSLR Cameras which is a very nice lens; but the IQ on the TAMRON blows it away. And it's razor sharp even at f/2.8 and has almost no chromatic aberation. My latest addition is: Pentax 70mm f/2.4 DA Limited Lens for Pentax and Samsung Digital SLR Cameras, which is a fantastic portrait lens. I would also recommend a large flash unit; but if you want to go light weight, the built in flash works well enough for most situations (with a near subject.)
767674
Oh, and the larger aperture allows you to play with depth of field and shoot in low light conditions without having to crank up the ISO and the associated noise. It's really nice for portraits. If you are looking for top quality in a "normal" lens(like a 50mm was in film formats) you can pay alot for the great Pentax 31mm or (right now) about the same as the 50mm for a DA 35mm that is still a very nice lens. BTW: Pentax is planning on putting out an "improved" series of fixed lenses at a higher price so you might want to take advantage of the clearance sales now.
1028373
Hi B. Sabb,I have use this lens for at least 2 yrs and taking tons of photo with that. It is a very sharp lens after f2.8 and excellent for portraiture.But it is not focus quick. If u want a quick Pentax lens, u might consider the one with "screw-drive" only, say the DA70. It is super sharp and focus quick.Enjoy your shooting.If u want to take your kids photo, i recommend u take the FA31 instead. As kids always move sudden and go closer to u, a wider lens is much better.Adam
1346890
These are 2 different focal lengths and on a crop camera it makes a big difference. I have both, and find the 50 f1.4 works best for indoors, portraits, etc. I use the 85 outside but must admit the 50 is a lot more used. Both wonderful--probably should get the 50 first.
269557
Wow -- you are looking at two completely different focal ranges -- what do you plan to shoot?..If you want distance shots (i.e. nature, landscapes, walk-around shots in the city, being able to zoom in on, well, basically anything, then you really DO need a longer focal range lens like the 55-200 in addition to your kit lens. If you plan on shooting things in "normal mode" -- i.e. the 35mm lens will replicate pretty much exactly what the human eye is looking at, then it is far faster than your kit lens, and it's a great walk-around lens. But if you are a first time dSLR buyer, you have to think about what you are going to shoot. If you are coming from the world of point-and-shoots that start at a standard 3-5X zoom, you will right off the bat see that the 18-55 kit lens is very limiting in zoom. Your typical point and shoot goes from 28 - 210 or so. There is software available that lets you see what focal range you shoot most of your photos in - just google for that. It basically looks at your photo folders and determines what the focal ranges of your photos are. I find that I take about 40 percent of my photos at 35mm and below -- and about 40% of my photos at 200 or above....and the rest sort of scattered. I would not be able to survive with only a kit lens and a 35mm lens (which is the same as a normal 50mm lens on a DX camera like the D5000)...With that setup, you would have a range of 27-80 with duplication of the 35mm smack dab in the middle). That is about 1/3 the normal zoom range of a point and shoot. My take -- get the D5000 with the standard kit lens, and add the 55-200 option. Down the road, you will know if you need a 35mm lens as well. The only reason you would need it with that setup is if you find yourself taking a lot of low-light photos where you need a faster lens (the 1.8)...otherwise you might not need it for your purposes at all.
328799
I would also like to know if there is a lens for the D40x that is similar to the Nikon AF f1.8. I thought it would be OK to focus this lens myself but it seems in low light I can't see well enough to focus the lens. Now I'm sorry I bought it because I can't use it for what I intended. It does take nice landscape photos but there is no focusing to worry about at infinity.
101689
I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit? This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail
735066
I have both lenses. Are different lenses for different uses. With the 50mm 1.8 you can get a great bokeh to 1.8. (In my opinion the great problem for this lens is the quality of imagen is not good in the edges at 1.8). The 50 mm 1.8 is perfect for begins in the bokeh. Personally, I bought the 40mm 2.8, because is the smallest lens in the market. I can carry my camera with this lens every where. This lens (40mm) has a great quality of imagen from 2.8 to 22. If you look for a lens for portrait, buy 50 mm. If you look for a compact lens with excelent quality, I recomend 40mm.