Fast prime or prime macro?

MarkR

Ok, here's the deal: I want a "nifty fifty" for my Pentax. I also have some money coming soon (~$250) without which, none of this is happening-- i.e. this is my total budget. I currently have the 18-55mm kit lens and the DA 50-200, and I like shooting with both, as long as there's plenty of light.

So I was strongly considering the Pentax 50mm FA f/1.4. It's a well-regarded, very fast prime.

Then I started looking at the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro.

Now, I don't shoot a lot of macro, but this seems to be a very capable lens even without the macro capability. (Among other things, it seems to have good performance at 2.8, and from what I've read the Pentax's performance isn't the best wide open.)

My primary shooting is during family outings and events. I haven't shot a lot of "macros" but I certainly enjoy it.

So, Pentax (two extra stops), Sigma (Macro capability), or fix the radiator leak in the wife's car/ keep saving up?

swintonphoto

Hey you might also consider the Sigma 28mm 1.8. It is the same price ast the 50mm 2.8 (around $250), but it would provide you more light than the 50mm 2.8 (over a stop more light). It also has macro capabilities - though the 50 is more of a true macro lens, the 28mm still is labeled by Sigma to be a macro. I also prefer the wider view of a lens around 28mm than that of a 50mm. I find 50mm on a crop sensor to be confining. If you want to use this at family outings, I think 28mm would serve you better than 50mm. If you do any group type shots you will need to back up a fair distance with the 50mm. Here is a great review on the 28mm 1.8 - they say it is a pro-quality lens:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/325/superspeed-sigma-trio.html

I have been considering picking up one of these myself. If it was me - I would go for that one. More light, high quality, can do macro. This way you get the fast prime and you get the macro all in one lens for a really decent price. I figure it's a win win.

ziggy53

I have to tell you that I "really" like the Pentax 50mm, f1.4 SMC lenses:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38398

If you want low light capability, the modern Pentax 50mm FA f/1.4 is still a very competent lens. At f1.4 the Canon equivalent is also a little soft, but still gets the job done with a bit of USM and contrast. Both lenses, the Pentax and the Canon, firm up nicely by f2.

It also works pretty well with extension tubes to give more magnification, so you could use it for close focus and some macro work.

I almost forgot, the lens also works great reversed for true macros.

MarkR

swintonphoto wrote:

...If you do any group type shots you will need to back up a fair distance with the 50mm.

That's funny; wherever I aim my camera, people start backing away quite rapidly. I don't even have to move. Wonder why that is. Still, point taken. Thanks for muddying the waters for me.

Ziggy: Point taken about macros. Actually, the 18-55 I use is a damn nice macro stopped down (1:3), and even the 50-200's given me some nice closeup shots (1:4.) I think it's interesting that "macro" has become one of those terms like "Four wheel drive" and "router" that seems to be based more on what the manufacturer wants to label it than anything else.

SavedByZero

Sure an F1.2 or F1.4 will be brighter in the view finder but your DOF is going to be paper thin at that opening. How many times do you see yourself shooting that wide open??

MarkR

SavedByZero wrote:

Sure an F1.2 or F1.4 will be brighter in the view finder but your DOF is going to be paper thin at that opening. How many times do you see yourself shooting that wide open??

One of the reasons the Sigma entered into my thoughts is that it seems (based on the few tests I've seen) to "hit the ground running" at 2.8, whereas the Pentax needed to be stopped down to 2 or 2.8 for better IQ.

I'm still cogitating ...