When I don’t want to carry my whole kit, the setup I keep in the trunk of my car is my K-x with the DA 35 macro.
I find that with macro I need a range of fields of view just as much as I do with normal photography because I want to choose how much I have in the background. There are also some times when I don’t have the room to move my camera any further back and need the wider field of view. To my surprise the lens that just stays on my K-5 II is the 16-50/2.8. It’s weather sealed, covers the most needed ranges and is fast enough in most lighting situations. I’ve got the 31/1.8 ltd and have used that as my walkaround prime. There are a surprising number of times that I could really use the extra 2/3 stop that I’d get with an f/1.4 lens. I have the DA 40/2.8 ltd. I bought it because it was cheap (at the time) and looked fun. I was surprised by how much I liked it’s image quality, and for ages I kept it on my K-x as my “pocket SLR” combo. I got the DA 35 macro because when I want to walk in the woods I often want to take macros of flower, mushrooms etc. and the DA40 just doesn’t get close enough. I’m embarassed to say that I’ve hardly used it in ages. If I were smart I’d talk you into buying mine. Of the lenses you mentioned, I’d say that the DA 35 macro is probably your best bet for a single walk around lens. If you do a lot of work indoors and in low light, I’d suggest looking at either the sigma 30/1.4 or 35/1.4, especially since you already have a macro lens. Those two stops of speed can really come in handy. On May 21, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Daniel J. Matyola <danmaty...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, if I do acquire a "new to me" K-5II or IIs, I should get a good > fixed focal length lens to go with it. Currently, I use the 18-135 > zoom, the 100mm f2.8 macro and the DA 50mm f1.8 with my K-r. > > I was looking at the 21mm f3.2 DA AL Limited, the 35mm f2.8 macro > limited and the 40mm f2.8 DA limited. Which have people here found > the most useful and versatile? Which (if any) do you prefer for image > quality? > > I am concerned that the 40 might be too close to the 50 I use now. Is > it significantly better in image quality? > > I have the 100 macro; will the 35 macro allow me to do things I can't > with the 100? I know the 35 limited is a lot more modern, but I > really have no complaints about the 100 macro, aside from the shaky > hand behind the lens. > > Any thoughts and recommendations will be greatly appreciated. > > Dan Matyola > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
