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

Started Mar 11, 2012 | Discussions
magomago Regular Member • Posts: 214
Worth Getting 35/2.4 if already have 16-45 f/4?

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)

Pentax K-5
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Jack Simpson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,684
Re: Worth Getting 35/2.4 if already have 16-45 f/4?

magomago wrote:
Hi M_M,

I believe you've ....

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.

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.

.... answered your own question

Cheers and Mahalo

Jack

-- hide signature --

STREET PHOTOGRAPHY DOCUMENTARY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kkHKP4Gnd0

( UPDATED NOV 16th )MY BLOG.... http://www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com

MY EMAIL ADDRESS IN IS MY 'VIEW PLAN'

It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing

 Jack Simpson's gear list:Jack Simpson's gear list
Canon PowerShot G2 Ricoh GR Pentax *ist DS Pentax K-r Pentax K-50 +7 more
Ian J G Contributing Member • Posts: 726
Re: Worth Getting 35/2.4 if already have 16-45 f/4?

Well answered. As for the 55-300, it really depends on you; some people will give that FL a lot of use other not.

It's not a more testable thing – like is lens A sharper than lens B? etc.
my 2¢
Ian
--
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/iangoldring

 Ian J G's gear list:Ian J G's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F2.8
photogerald Senior Member • Posts: 1,798
Re: Worth Getting 35/2.4 if already have 16-45 f/4?

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.

Yes, the DA35/2.4 is worth getting, especially if you own a K20D. It is very good at f2.4/2.8 and that extra stop (compared to the f4 of the DA16-45) does make a difference with the K20D in indoor settings.

Ari Aikomus
Ari Aikomus Veteran Member • Posts: 9,354
I have DA 35/2.4, although...

Hi,

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.

Ari

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?'

stern Senior Member • Posts: 1,735
Re: Worth Getting 35/2.4 if already have 16-45 f/4?

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)

Here some 16-45 shots from Ankara/Beypazari, Turkey. At least my copy of the 16-45 is tack sharp. You probably wouldn't believe that a zoom and not a prime was behind these photos. Save the size (and slightly better low light/DOF control) the 35 would be a duplication and I can't imagine that IQ would be much better if at all (the 21mm lens IMHO would be a more useful prime lens than the 35, o.k. the 21 is 3-4 times as expensive...):
http://sternbild.zenfolio.com/p666532850

-- hide signature --
 stern's gear list:stern's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Pentax K-3 HD Pentax DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 ED Limited DC WR +1 more
Benny Lee Junior Member • Posts: 27
Re: Worth Getting 35/2.4 if already have 16-45 f/4?

in last year's trip brought the 16-45 & 50-200, using 16-45 95% of the time, & mostly at 16mm; later using the 35/2.4 & feel much more fun & creative experience (& it's a silver one ); this year's trip will be much lighter I plan to bring the 35/2.4 & 15/4 only, & I suspect will be using the 35 more.

 Benny Lee's gear list:Benny Lee's gear list
Pentax K100D Pentax K-7 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Pentax smc DA 40mm F2.8 Limited +13 more
Twong Contributing Member • Posts: 849
Re: Worth Getting 35/2.4 if already have 16-45 f/4?

I bought a 35 f/2.4 recently even though I already have a Tamron 17-50. They serve different purposes. For travel, I don't bring any prime. But primes are great for specific applications and when I know I have time. The only exception is the Samyang 14 f/2.8. It is a big lens but I don't have a large aperture UWA.

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)

 Twong's gear list:Twong's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM2 Pentax K-3 II Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +18 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads