Do I need the new FA 35mm f2.0?

I currently have two zoom FF lenses which cover 35mm. Apart from the weight saving is it worth me getting this uprated prime? Will it be better in any way than the DFA 24-70mm f2.8 other than the one stop difference? I am tempted by the SRS special PU offer but do I need another lens? Please help me convince myself.

What looks like a bargain proves only a bargain if one makes use of the item purchased. If on the contrary said item sits on a shelf forlorn and gathering dust for x years, then it's a waste of money.

I wonder! Is it need or want that tempts you? Some heart searching may be in order me thinks.

That's hardly convincing him is it


It will save a lot of weight when you want to travel light, it will look great sat on the shelf next to the 24-70mm, it is screw drive rather than SDM so less likely to go wrong, you will get that 5 second "new lens hit" as it arrives and you open the box and most importantly it will most certailnly make you a lot more attractive to the opposite sex.

Of course you do. now get it ordered.

In that respect I need all the help I can get - most convincing argument yet!

If it's an improvement on the original FA 35mm f2.0 then it'll be a very fine lens.

I have the FA35, cracking lens on the K1, my favourite for twilight and night photography. In my film days, I used a 35mm as my "standard" lens
The new version should be even better

Nb. Mine is used less than once per month (just to put a token number on it)

Typical uses ;

Urban / street
Interiors
Indoor events ( weddings, family celebrations etc)
Landscape
Travel

But for indoor court sports it is indispensible and enables me to sit in the court ( usually on the floor) and shoot without a flash. right upbagsinst the action

I have recently built up an image catalogue and website archive for our University Sports Village including the gyms, inter-university sports events and indoor sports tournaments - 90% of the indoor competitoon is shot on this lens and I have over 1000 indoor images archived, so for me it is “the lens” for this

Also I think using a lens infrequently is not really an argument against buying it because most of us will have a “ battery” of lenses to accomodate a very diverse range of subjects and that can mean some lenses are used less than others.

Zooms are very convenient and these days are “almost optically as good as primes” but a prime will usually have a bigger max aperture with little degradation in quality; the most significant advantage by a mile, is in shooting speed due to the that bigger aperture

That point alone makes my 35mm a crucial part of my kit.

The question is, if the lens is worth buying if you have no idea if you will ever use it and have not (at that point) ever had a need for such a lens.

If that is the case it is probably not a good idea to spend your hard earned “dosh.

Some lenses are so special you have to have a special interest or need to justify it’s purchase - but a 35 fast prime is so useful and versatile it is essential for me .

If you can afford it (without to much pain) I would buy a fast 35 mm, it will nevet just sit on a shelf.

My experience is that my FA*/DA* zooms are so good that it's just so easy to use those and leave the small primes behind. Even when I do take the primes they are often unused.

Sometimes I make a point of just taking the FA /FA*/FA Ltd and leave the zooms at home so I have to adopt a different mindset which is absolutely refreshing. You take more time considering the composition.

If you don't already have a 35 ish prime lens then there is nothing to lose by buying one, a great travel companion (FA used on my K-1 is a joy). If you already have the FA or 31 Ltd then there's no point changing in my view (especially when I only paid £200 for my FA) for the HD.

It would be lovely though if a 1.4 appeared.

So go for it

I sold mine a littlevwhile ago and replaced it with Sigma Art f1.4, DG 35mm, which is quite a lot faster and is supr on FF and APS too.

Of course you do not, and I speak as a champion of buying stuff I have not used.
Buy (while you can) an old 16-45 which nicely covers the useful range.
Having said that, I 95% of the time use the 18-270 (on a K-r, K-50, K-70, K-3).
The rest is dust-loving clutter (35, 50 macro, 16-85, 17-70, 18-135, 55-300 [two versions], countless 18-55s - and others forgotten).
Remember the (contextually somewhat irrelevant) words of the proverbial Chinese sage: He who has one watch, knows the time. He who has two, is never sure. And he who has lots…)
Cheers.
PS: the 16-45 is really good (is you like landscapes).
PPS: Some of the lens ranges given above are probably wrong — which shows how often I don't use them).

That's hardly convincing him is it

Lol.. Hardly!

You're not wrong and in hindsight my comment a bit rich considering my signature - when what he was really looking for was support to go and buy.
Looking at this from an LBA standpoint, I don't suppose it really matters whether the lens will ever be used or not as LBA alone can be just as rewarding and satisfying in its own rite as is the medium of photography. There is great pleasure and fun to be had in researching a lens and its qualities, perceived or otherwise. And then the thrill of the search, the excitement of the chase, bid or barter, the eager anticipation of the postmans knock followed by the feverish unboxing and finally culminating with the object of one's desire in hand, the first look, tactile examination and smug feeling of satisfaction. I could drone on more but suffice it to say, if you RobL want a shiny new FA35mm f2.0 then GO FOR IT NOW while the desire is still strong and the tempting offer from SRS still valid.

What more convincing do you need? Indulge and enjoy!

That's more like it

You lot are a bad influence, I have finally been persuaded to hit that button! Daronl & Grodgeman, I have found that I use a new lens in more ways than I might have anticipated, the Samyang 24mm TS is a case in point where I bought it for the shift but love the tilt function in getting a subject sharp front to back without a tiny aperture or focus stacking. And finally tipped by a couple of videos I watched about David Yarrow's extraordinary wildlife shots, he forgoes the usual telephoto for dangerous wild animals but works out how to get close, and I mean really close; only that way he reckons can you get absolutely pin sharp images and you have to see his photos to get what he means: https://www.mastersof.photography/david-yarrow/ I am not getting within a foot or so of a polar bear nor putting my camera on the ground and triggering remotely only for it to get eaten or trampled, but the point can be applied to other fields as well.

When I switched to FF I got rid of a couple of APS-C lenses and now regret losing the cheapo 50mm f1.8 as it delivered some cracking shots. Going through some old images I came across some taken with the 10-17mm fisheye which has since languished in the cupboard, and I was so impressed by how good that lens is I aim to use it again even if it has to be cropped. But both these are so lightweight compared to the new DFA lenses, it has made me think twice about the 50mm f1.4 and the coming 85mm; apart from benefits of sharpness and shallow depth of field the big draw with primes is their relative lightness, or it was until these two came along. Lets hope some more older primes get the same update as this 35mm f2.0.

Ps with The Photography Show coming in a couple of weeks I have now vowed to leave my credit card at home! Let's hope I don't weaken on the day.

Well done, going out without credit card I mean, but beware it ‘ll make you want it more.