So this isn't a right / wrong or even definitive answer kind of question... I'm just interested in some thoughts and opinions
I recently sold some ham radio equipment, and it's my birthday (very) soon, so I'd like to treat myself to a new lens.
I use both a K3 and a K5. The K3 is my main camera, while the K5 has become my backup / experiment / beater camera (and usually has an M42 adaptor of some sort on it). For a long time, the only lenses I owned were the Pentax 18-55 WR and 50-200 WR, the Pentax 35mm f2.4 (which I love), and the Pentax 18-270mm. It was this latter lens that stayed on my camera most of the time as it gave OK results and was so versatile, but I was never that happy with IQ - especially the perceived sharpness / resolution. Then I started buying old manual lenses (of which I have several - such as the SMC 50mm f1.7) for silly low money and in many cases I was blown away by the IQ - so much so that my old kit zooms don't get used at all, and the 18-270mm only sees daylight when I'm being *very* lazy (in fact, I'm seriously thinking of selling it along with the WR kit glass). The 35mm f2.4 gets used regularly (great little lens), and a little while ago I splashed out on an HD 15mm f4 Limited (on special offer) which I have fallen in love with - it has become my favourite AF lens.
So... current state of play:
On my K3, I typically use the HD 15mm f4 Limited, the 35mm f2.4, and a handful of fully manual or A-type 28mm & 50mm lenses. The K5, more often than not, has a Helios 44m 2/58 attached (which I really like), or I use it to play with *cheap* old eBay finds. And I'm happy with this... but I'd like to treat myself to a special new lens
I'd particularly like another current AF Limited, given my experience with the 15mm... and I think I've narrowed the choice down to the HD 40mm f2.8, or the HD 20-40mm. I like the reviews and the current price of the 40mm, but really like the flexibility and WR of the 20-40mm, assuming it is as sharp as everyone says it is (I can live with it being a little slower). Then again, the HD 35mm f2.8 is also appealing, with its macro capability!!
But then, I also like the look of the 100mm WR macro. The only other prime I have in this general length is the Pentax-M 135mm f3.5, which is a nice little lens but a little too long for me. And the 100mm excels at macro, which would be a lot of fun. Plus, it seems like it's a Limited lens in everything but name, and has WR which is a big plus.
Lastly... the Sigma 150-500mm. Aside from the 18-270mm and a Tamron SP 60-300mm (neither of which have stellar IQ at the long end), I have absolutely nothing really long in my collection. It would be nice to be equipped for lunar and wildlife photography at some point (sports photography isn't of interest to me), and the Sigma seems like a good all-rounder - plus, right now, my favourite dealer has one heck of a deal going on this particular model.
All of the choices I've mentioned are within budget, although the HD 20-40mm and Sigma 150-500mm would be right at the upper limit of what I'm happy to spend (assuming I buy new).
.... OR (my curve-ball).... Given the fact that I love my K3 and don't lust after a K3ii or the forthcoming FF model, do I retire my K5, move my existing K3 to backup duty, and invest in a second new-lower-price K3 body??
As I said at the start, I'm just interested in thoughts and opinions (and hopefully some of those may be based on ownership of the lenses I mention).
Thanks all !
Mike