Worth Getting 35/2.4 if already have 16-45 f/4?

Started Mar 11, 2012 | Discussions thread
Ari Aikomus
Ari Aikomus Veteran Member • Posts: 9,351
I have DA 35/2.4, although...


I have DA 35/2.4, although/ even I have Tamron 17-50/2.8... ;-D

I like DA 35/2.4 a lot. It's sharp lens, produces nice colours and beautiful bokeh.


magomago wrote:

35mm is such a great focal length on crop (also a great length for a different perspective on FF)

I also have the 16-45 and it is a great lens, but f/4 can be blegh sometimes on a K-20D. And no, that camera isn't changing anytime soon...unless the K-5 wants to drop to about 500 dollars (fat chance LOL)

I'm going to be taking a trip to Hawaii and I was curious to know if at 35mm, this lens performed better than the 16-45.

I did a search on google as well as this forums, and what I largely found was people deciding which lense to buy first--> most went for the 16-45 because it gave them the ability to zoom, the latter could be more quickly bought later on since it was cheaper...but none of these really said if it was worth purchasing 4 of them.

The main reason to get a 35 would be, (A) faster and (B) I'm a fixed lens whore, and would my 50mm more often if it wasn't simply too long for outdoors use.

I was thinking of goiang
16-45 ; hiking trails and all that natur stuff
35mm ; fun at the beach and enjoying touristy areas

55-300 ; far away zoom shots (is it honestly even worth bringing this? In all my trips I find that only 2-5% of the time I wish I lad a longer lense)

-- hide signature --

  • Ari Aikomus -

'Why should I feel lonely ? is not our planet in the Milky way?'

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow