35mm 2.4 vs 2.8 macro or 40mm 2.8 Ltd

Hi,
Guys i am proud owner for Kr for 3 months and want to excel myself by buying an all rounder lens(my use is mainly Potrait and landescape), but i am confused as 35mm 2.4 attracts me because of less price and better value, 35mm 2.8 attracts me because of being jack of all traits and 40mm 2.8 attracts me because of being called as best walk around lens.
Please recommend me which one to buy (price to iq comparison)as being a new to dslr world i am really puzzled which one to have

You know this a very personal question right?
It's like asking what car to get.

All three lenses are very good but also different, go to a store to try them out or meet up with someone that has them, that's the only way to get to know for sure which one you like the most.

As for me personal i would go for either one of the two limiteds because of the better build quality.
i think since you said landscape that the slightly wider 35mm f/2.8 would be the one would go for.
Also when you're shooting landscapes you can do macro as well.

The sigma 30mm f/1.4 might also be an interesting option.

Oh no! This thread have the potential to reactivate my doubts on the exact same issue.

I decided on the macro (and tried to order last night, however PayPal killed that attempt. For now!)

Looking at it soberly, the 35mm 2.4 offers most bang for the buck. I am a sucker for build quality, though. The lack of quick shift is the biggest con for me. It still might be a good place for you to start - maybe you find out that being restricted to one focal lenght doesn't suit you, or that you are simply too lazy to change lenses. Selling it later, you would loose very little.

I'd go with either of the 35s. Build quality is nice but I prefer the bokeh of the faster, cheaper one. The close focus of the limited lens appeals too though! A tough choice so I just went for the cheapest. Oh and the fact it is 'full frame' is also great if you plan on shooting film or suspect Pentax will one day release a full frame dslr.

The sigma 30mm as Stefan suggests, would be another great choice. That one would allow you to play with narrow depth of field more than the others. It is a larger lens though.

To be honest the build quality of the 2.4 is astonishingly good considering the price and weight. Yes it's plastic but the focus is smooth and has some damping when used manually. It feels much better than a lot of current consumer goods and I can see it lasting for a good length of time.

I'd love to see a return to the K series build quality but it just won't happen. People want light lenses with AF, which isn't compatible with building them to similar standards to a railway bridge. The only way to get the old MF feel back would be if Pentax fitted some form of clutch system with an AF/MF switch. Change to MF and a resistance would be engaged to give the old damped focus feel, which can't be used with AF as it would over load the motor.

what about used fa 35/2? small, fast, and better build quality than 35/2.4, but not in line with limiteds. sadly no quick shift. many of them selling for good prices recently on forums.

Another vote for the 35mm f2.4 what a great lens that is, bargain too...

I owned the 40mm but found it a little too small and also the focal length didn't seem quite right for me - difficult to explain why but having now bought the FA35mm F2 I find it suits my needs much better although to be honest it's not a lens I use very often

Simon

Good comparison of the DA35 vs FA vs 35 macro. http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/118765-da-35mm-2-4...

Makes me wonder why people are seeking out used FA 35s and paying nearly twice as much as for a new DA35. I guess the FA has the hood and the aperture ring...

Call it what you will - "Plastic Fantastic", "Pocket Rocket", "Budget Barnstormer", the DA35 F2.4 is one excellent lens. As I have said before, it's Pentax's little secret - a lens that is cheap, yet out performs lenses many times the price.

But I can understand if the DA35 Limited is more suited, if only for the build and Macro ability, or the FA35 for its aperture ring, and therefore able to be used on all Pentax film cameras (the DA's can't for this reason - My MZ-5n cannot control the aperture of my DA35)

So, it comes down to what you want to do with the lens.
If you want macro too - get the DA35 Limited
If you want to use the lens on film too - get the FA35
If neither of the above are of interest, then get the DA35 F2.4, you won't be missing anything from the image quality at all.

There is also the Pentax FA 31mm F1.8 Limited.

Just look it up and start dreaming
One day i'll get, i'm sure of it

I did'nt want to put the OP off Anvh.......

I too are dreaming of the day of the lottery win to get hold of one of these beauties.....

I've got one!.....Black and it's gorgeous!

He it's good to have something to work to right
I'm still looking for a fast 30 to 35 mm, i whised pentax did make the DA*30 to still that hunger but now i've set my mind on the FA31 but first i'll get the FA77.
The 77 is a more usefull forcal length for me and then i'll get the rest of the FA limited as well.
Luckely the FA43 isn't that expensive...

@Ken
Jealous...
I do want the silver one though, it looks more special.

Good question - I bought the DA35mm F2.4 when it was first released and thought it was very good for the money, sold it after a short while though as the images didn't really "pop" for me, maybe I'm just too fussy. Reviews suggest little difference between the DA & FA but I do think the FA produces nicer looking shots, slightly better contrast I think - not sure it's so significant as to justify the price difference but I do prefer the FA over the DA

Simon