[A.M.92]

Hello, and good day to all of you.
I need some advice in which lens i should buy, i would appreciate all of your feedback and opinions.
I want a good wide angle lens and a set focal lengh lens like 40mm for example
I was thinking of buying the 16-50mm but now i am kind of skeptical , since i heard about all the defects. This is my question;
Should i buy 2 prime lens, a wide angle one around 10-30mm, and a good 40-70mm prime. And which is better the 40mm limited, or the 70mm limited, in terms of IQ? I would prefer to use this lens for portrait. Or should i get the fa 50mm f1.4
So what is better, to go ahead and get the 16-50mm, for wide angle, portrait.etc. Or get 2 seperate lens one for wide angle, and one specificly for portrait? Let me know what you think, thanks. A.M.

[northcoastgreg]

I would buy one prime and one zoom, but instead of the *16-50, I would consider getting the 12-24, which will cover both wide and ultra-wide angle needs. For the portrait prime, I would try to make do with the 50 f1.4, because (1) it's faster and (2) it's full-frame. I know that it may be years before we see a Pentax FF camera and the APS-C sized sensor is still going strong, but there's always the fear in the back of my mind (hopefully a misplaced fear) that somewhere down the road Pentax will no longer support APS-C. Now when it comes to wide angle, there's no way to get around the need for an APS-C lens. Not so for longer focal lengths, which is why I would always prefer the FF lens at those ranges. The DA 40 and DA 70 are terrific little lenses, but I would always be afraid that ten, fifteen years from now they could be transformed into pretty little over-glorified paperweights.

[Marc Sabatella]

Your questions in both this and the other very simlar thread you started are too broad to get good answers. If there was one best lens for everyone, there wouldn't be so many options, and you haven't narrowed down your needs well enough to make reasonable recommendations. Some prefer nothing but zooms, others prefer nothing but zooms, others prefer a mixture, and it all depends on one's personal preferences.

But to answer some specific questions, betwene the 40 and 70, they are both so good in IQ that wouldn't even come *close* to being a deciding factor. The fact that one is a 40 and the other is a 70 is the big differentiator. For portraits in particular, the 70 is the obvious choice - 40 is too short. 50 is borderline. As for the 16-50, I think you'll find most of the problems reports were with older lenses not ones sold recently, but if you are nervous and want that focal length range, the Tamron 17-50 seems to be the most popular alternative (and it's cheaper).

[Lowell Goudge]

one additional thing to consider now that you are expanding your lens collection is where you may be headed overall.

My own opinion, and I have posted it many times, is that you need to consider covering a range of focal lengths from 10-12 mm at the short end up to 135-200mm at the long end.

The decision of 135-200 is a function of whether you shoot wild life to some extent, as well as whether you are going to get a long tele like a 300F4 or use the 70-200 with teleconverters etc.

the other condition I think is important is that you should cover this range with zooms first, with as much of the range as possible at F2.8.

This can be done with 3-4 lenses. If I stay entirely within pentax, you can get a 12-24, the 16-50F2.8 and the 50-135F2.8. If you need extra reach you can add the 300F4.

My base kit is made up differently, I cover a wider range with 4 zooms, and 2 teleconverters. I have a sigma APO 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC, a SMC FA-J 18=35 F4.-5.6, a tamron 28-75 F2.89 and sigma APO 70-200F2.8 EX plus sigma's 1.4x and 2x TCs.

If I want to cut lenses out, the first to go is the 18-35 and if I am city bound I will drop the 70-200F2.8 and the TCs in place of either an 85mmF1.4(with SMC-F 1.7x af TC) or 135mmF2.5.

I find the 85 and 135 both excellent lenses to have in a city environment for tight framed shots and casual portraits, and much much lighter than the 70-200F2.8.

How you build your kit is up to you, but ideally all of the peices shoudl fit together to cover the range.

Primes are great, generally much faster than zooms and sharper, and lighter. but zooms are more flexible. In my view you need both, primes are more specific use, zooms are general use.

[axl]

As Lowell said think where are you heading, how many lenses you want to have in your kit.
My recomendation is not all that differet to that of northcoastgreg. Get one UWA-WA zoom like 10-20 or 12-24, one normal FOV prime (28-30-31-35) and one short tele prime (50-55-70-77-85).
Combination of the primes would depend on your personal choices and inividual preferences..
My line up(s)?:
Heavy:
10-20+31+50/1.2+85/2 (saving for either 77ltd or K85/1.8)
Light:
43+55/1.8 (saving for FA*24)