Which lens to get?

I have a bit of money for a new lens, but which one to get.

My choices are either the 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited or the 70mm F2.4 Limited.
I can't afford both, so which should I get?

I do a lot of Portraits, and landscapes, with the occasional Macro.

Currently I use the 50-135 for portaits, so would having a fix lens such as the 70 be a good addition (plus it is small so would be great for travel, unlike the 50-135)
However the 50-135 is too long, focal wise, for group images.

This is where the 35mm comes in, would it be good for group portraits, I have heard that is not just good for macro, but as a general lens too.

One advantage with the 35mm, is the macro too, but is it better than my old manual Tamron 90mm? you can get closer of course, but is it too short for macro?

Of course both should be good for Landscape, albeit differing perspectives, but would the 35mm be better than my 16-45 for landscapes at 35mm?

Advices please.

For my portrait lens this year I'm saving for the Pentax FA77.f1.8 £509 from SRS, if cost is the main factor then I would go for the 70.f2.4 as I like to shoot without flash if I can.


Edit Typo.

Have you considerd the Tamron 90 mm it has some very good reveiws.
Ian

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/282-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-test-report...

The 70mm is indeed a fine portrait lens although since you''ve the 50-135mm which is already quite stunning at that range comes the question of course how much would you use it?

The 35mm is a standard lens and you can do landscape with that although I would go a bit wider and like you said you already have the 16-45 so would you use it???
The 35mm is also designed to be a macro and so I've readed some reviews that the bokeh can be a bit nervous if you shoot at normall focus range and you have the tamron 90mm so would you need the macro?
I also had the choise between the 35mm and the 40mm and you can see it has become the 40 because I didn't need the macro. The lens focus like the devil the only thing is that it's a bit soft wide open but around f/4 it's sharp enough across the frame.

For group shots and landscape the DA 21mm Ltd might be a better choise TBH. Since you have the 50-135 which is perfect for portrait I would go for that lens to get some more quality with landscapes.
Sorry for pushing you to another lens but it's how I see it.

My concern is that you are asking which one of two totally different types of lenses, rather than which of two similar types.

Have you decided what you want the lens for? When that choice is clear then the choice of lens may be clearer.

Thanks all,

In response to John, I have a budget of up to £350 (so that means the 77mm is out ) but I have been look for a great prime, and these two have really caught the eye.
Although they are two different focal lengths, there are valid reasons for this.

With the 35mm, I wanted an excellent wider prime to what I currently have (namely the fab FA50mm F1.4) which no only would do group photos, but would be nearer to "standard" on APS-C crop. Plus, with a lot of reading and browsing the web, it is also a cracking walkabout lens which is unheard of with a macro in the past (my Tamron 90mm macro is certainly not an excellent general lens, only a great macro). I have not used the 16-45mm for group shots as yet, (until tomorrow night) so, I don't know if it will be a suitable portrait lens. Plus, being a prime, it is less prone to pincushion than the zoom of a similar length.

With the 70mm, not only is it small, but would be a perfect partner on travel, along with my fifty and 16-45mm. The 50-135 was just heavy to carry around with other kit whilst on a trip to Budapest. Again I have read how good this lens is, and very discreet.

If I had the available funds, then no question, I would buy both, but I don't, hence the question.

So, do I go for the extra flexibilty of the 35mm, or do I go for the compactness of the 70mm?

I think I am leaning towards the 35mm, just because of the macro, yet still a cracking walkabout lens. Then, at a later date I can go for the 70mm.

Anvh, 21mm? not though of that, any good?

There is a third way, ditch buying a lens, and buy the 160 ringflash instead!

On dear!

OK, you've narrowed it down and know what you want to achieve. It looks to me as though you are leaning towards the 35mm Macro. However, it is worth mentioning that the 16-45mm is absolutely good enough for group shots and even for portraits, and certainly more versatile in use. I use this lens most of the time.

The 70mm would make a good portrait lens so I might be tempted by that along with the 16-45mm that you already have.

As a macro lens, the 100mm is much more generally useful.

This all depends on your individual need though, so really only you know precisely the sort of images you shoot.

Thanks John, that is a great help.
The Tamron, although great, is a bit of a pain on the K20D And K10D, yet perfect on the DS, probably due to my eyes, I just don't seem to get the diopter just so on the K cameras, but that is another matter.

Macro is not the be all and end all for me, I have even been using extension tubes with my m42 mount lenses on the DS, so you could say that in many ways I am covered for macro.
What I might do, is that I will try the 70mm DA and see if it will suit, plus, if I can stretch the funds, try the 77mm as well, not that any shop on Manchester has the 77mm . So that would mean blow the budget! But it would have the advantage of useability on my Film cameras too.

Does anyone want to go on a local photoshoot, who have the 77mm?


Oh the choices! Now I am more cunfused than ever.

Are you coming to the meet? I dare some someone going will have one.

That's a good idea, we could bring along the 35mm & 77mm LTD's to have a play with, that is if you can wait that long!

I think I mssed this, what meet?

May the 9th & 10th at Sherwood Forest 10am--16.00 ish.

Sat 9th hopefully a Pentax man will be there and not sure but Chris from SRS might be there on the Sunday.