[A.M.92]

Hi guys.
Well here i am lensless i should say,haha... I am starting of from scratch. I am going to try to list all that i am going to get, and if you guys think there is something better let me know. Thanks.

Wide angle: Pentax 12-24mm

Walk around zoom: Pentax 50-135mm

Macro: Pentax 100mm WR, or Sigma 70mm. Which one?

Long zoom/Telephoto: Pentax 60-250mm, or...Prime? This is where i get stuck..

And maybe Pentax 70mm for Portraits.


If you guys think some lens are not needed , or could be replaced with something better let me know. Money is a concirn.

[JeffJS]

Hi guys.
Well here i am lensless i should say,haha... I am starting of from scratch. I am going to try to list all that i am going to get, and if you guys think there is something better let me know. Thanks.

Wide angle: Pentax 12-24mm

Walk around zoom: Pentax 50-135mm

Macro: Pentax 100mm WR, or Sigma 70mm. Which one?

Long zoom/Telephoto: Pentax 60-250mm, or...Prime? This is where i get stuck..

And maybe Pentax 70mm for Portraits.


If you guys think some lens are not needed , or could be replaced with something better let me know. Money is a concirn.

I think having every millimeter from 1 - 1000 covered in a lens lineup is overrated so my advice is with that in mind. Your first two zoom choices are good ones. As for the macro, you'll never get me to choose a third party over the Pentax. Though, some of the third party lenses are stellar performers. If money is really an issue, go with the Sigma (or Tamron 90). As for the DA70, if portrait is your only intended use for it, the Macro lenses will fill that need very nicely. Spend the money (or save it) on something else. As for the 60-250, you can get a 70-200 Sigma or Tamron for about half the price, again, if money is a concern.

You could also of course go all Manual focus with K,M,A or M42 type lenses and save a fortune (to buy more lenses with).

Good luck and show us some pictures from whatever you choose to buy.

[apemen]

Wide angle: Sigma 8-16 - maybe it is early? / DA15 Ltd. if you like primes

Put here 31mm Ltd. or Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you can't afford the first one

Walk around zoom: Pentax 50-135mm, you may not need a portrait -prime-lens if you got this one. Maybe a Sigma 50/85mm , Voigtlander-Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 in the future if you'll want f/1.4

Macro: Pentax 100mm WR definitely

Long zoom/Telephoto: Pentax DA* 300mm if you get 50-135mm, Otherwise DA* 200mm is an option.

for 16-50mm there is 16-45 ; DA* 16-50 ; Tamron 17-50mm , Sigma , kitlens, etc.
don't have a recommendation on this one.

[SpecialK]

The 50-135 and 60-250 have a lot of overlap. I'd look at a the 300mm or maybe a longer zoom instead of the 60-250. Of course that will mean not a new Pentax lens.

The Tamron macro may still have a rebate going, which makes it a very good value.

[A.M.92]

I had the 16-45mm, it was okay, not sharp wide open. i and for the 16-50mm, i have concidered it, but again many say it is not that good wide open 16-20mm . which is a concirn to me.

[A.M.92]

I appreciate the help. Yeah well i am trying to be versatile. But what would you recommend for a wildlife telephoto lens. Pentax prime, maybw 200mm/300mm/ pricey though, or a 3rd party zoom? like sigma 100-300mm?

[JeffJS]

I had the 16-45mm, it was okay, not sharp wide open. i and for the 16-50mm, i have concidered it, but again many say it is not that good wide open 16-20mm . which is a concirn to me.

They Are prone to sample variance. Shouldn't be that way, especially on a flagship lens, and it's more at 16mm than anywhere else. In the case of the 16-50, early copies were prone to misaligned elements that would cause a slightly shifted image. Some had it, Some didn't. If you can test before buy, it would be a good idea. SDM issues aside, it is a fantastic lens and compliments the 50-135 very nicely.

I appreciate the help. Yeah well i am trying to be versatile. But what would you recommend for a wildlife telephoto lens. Pentax prime, maybw 200mm/300mm/ pricey though, or a 3rd party zoom? like sigma 100-300mm?

Primes do not equal zooms (in my opinion). I'll take a bag of primes over a few zooms any day for image quality. Some samples from my DA*300

DA*300mm SDM - a set on Flickr

That isn't to negate the convenience of the Zoom lens, some are quite nice. If you really want to cover the ranges and have arms like Popeye, The Bigma (Sigma 50-500).

Sigma 50-500 - a set on Flickr

PS. Just to be friendly, Concirn is spelled Concern.

[Marc Sabatella]

It isn't clear to me how experienced you are. I ask because you refer to the 50-135 as a "walkaround zoom". While it *could* be used for that purpose (anything could, really), by far most people would prefer something that cover wide angle and normal focal lengths, not a lens that is telephoto only. Either you have highly unusual tastes and know it - in which case you'd need to communicate this to others in order for them to make meaningful recommendations - or else you are perhaps too inexperienced to know what focal lengths you really need. In which I'd hesitate to recommend such an expensive collection of lenses until you understand your needs better.

It also isn't clear if you realize you are proposing around 6 lbs worth of lenses...

[SpecialK]

The few long zooms (and not particularly fast ones) seem to be from Sigma at this time.

I opted to get the 150-500 over the 50-500 for a few reasons - it's $600 less, I had up to 200mm (actually 300mm) already covered, and it was available.

As skittish as I am about the Pentax SDM failure reports, my 150-500 HSM version is in the serial number range of possible problem lenses, though I have not had the thing fail in the week I've had it :-)

[JeffJS]

The few long zooms (and not particularly fast ones) seem to be from Sigma at this time.

I opted to get the 150-500 over the 50-500 for four reasons - it's $600 less, I had up to 200mm (actually 300mm) already covered, and it was available.

As skittish as I am about the Pentax SDM failure reports, my 150-500 HSM version is in the serial number range of possible problem lenses, though I have not had the thing fail in the week I've had it :-)

This is Not directly aimed at you but the less adventurous out there.

I look at the SDM issues and fears this way.. If it fails, I'll deal with it then. So far, 3.5 years in, not a single failure (knocks wood). In the meantime, I continue to enjoy using them while others leave them on the shelves due to a Possible failure. (Pentax could squash most of the complaints and fears by allowing us to switch focus type from SDM to screw drive on those lenses that support both).

Another lens I see people recommend a Lot is the FA50 f1.4, though I haven't seen it in this thread. I've seen no less than 3 separate reports, with photo proof, that the lens has simply come apart due to some plastic clip? That lens, optically, is gorgeous. No questioning that. Let's assume these are more isolated cases than SDM failures but tell me this. Which lens is more useful? One that never gets purchased (that's option A), one that the focus motor fails on but can still be used (and repaired) (Option B), or one that breaks in half and unscrews itself due to a cheap part that, apparently, is no longer available (Option C).

I'll take option B. I could post all over the internet that one should not purchase the FA50 because it's going to break. Could probably use the examples I've seen as proof that it Will happen, just a matter of when (where have I seen that before?).

[axl]

Hi guys.
Well here i am lensless i should say,haha... I am starting of from scratch. I am going to try to list all that i am going to get, and if you guys think there is something better let me know. Thanks.

Wide angle: Pentax 12-24mm

Walk around zoom: Pentax 50-135mm

Macro: Pentax 100mm WR, or Sigma 70mm. Which one?

Long zoom/Telephoto: Pentax 60-250mm, or...Prime? This is where i get stuck..

And maybe Pentax 70mm for Portraits.


If you guys think some lens are not needed , or could be replaced with something better let me know. Money is a concirn.

a) 24 - 50 is quite a gap to have it without lens
b) Sigma 70 + Pentax 70 and you say money is a concern?!?
c) 50-135 and 60-250 create huge overlap... again, is money a concern???
d) no "normal-ish" lens
e) no lens faster then f2.8 (OK, 2.4 if you get DA70)

as you can see I'm not a big fan of this proposed line up... If money is a real concern then here's what I'd recommend

V1=
Wide: Sigma 10-20/4-5.6
Normal/Macro: DA35ltd
Long zoom/Portrait: DA*50-135
Low light/short portrait: F/FA50/1.7

V2=
Wide: DA12-24
Normal: Sigma 24-60/70 f2.8
Long: DA*60-250
Macro: any 90/100/105 of your choice (you really can't go wrong with any)
(since you didn't include any really fast lens in your original line up, I'll leave it out from this proposition)

V3=
Wide: Sigma 10-20
Normal: Sigma 30/1.4
Walkaround zoom/portrait: DA*50-135
Long/semi macro: DA*300

my 2p

[HEEGZ]

Walk around zoom: Pentax 50-135mm

Macro: Pentax 100mm WR, or Sigma 70mm. Which one?

Long zoom/Telephoto: Pentax 60-250mm, or...Prime? This is where i get stuck..

And maybe Pentax 70mm for Portraits.

Wide angle choice seems fine, though I would probably go with 10-17 for the extra distortion. I would go with the 100mm WR for macro, and I have seen some nice portraits taken with it as well, so it could do double duty here possibly.

Another option is to go with primes only and take the DA* 55 and DA* 300 telephoto. If money is a concern, you might consider both of the WR kit lenses, which is the route I've gone. Not sure what body you are using or if you need weather resistance.

[SpecialK]

A)
B), or
C).

That is all true, logical and good, but the Pentax world essentially stops at 300mm for us autofocus or $1,000-limit types, so Sigma it was. And I thought 70-200 is more useful to me than 50-135, so Tamron it was.

[JeffJS]

That is all true, logical and good, but the Pentax world essentially stops at 300mm for us autofocus or $1,000-limit types, so Sigma it was. And I thought 70-200 is more useful to me than 50-135, so Tamron it was.

Actually, in my first post, though I didn't lay it out in a column, I did suggest the 70-200 as an alternative to the 60-250. There's plenty of crop room on the K7 to cover that extra 50 if need be. It comes down to what are you going to use of course. Option D would have been to fill your bag with lenses that never see the camera for one reason or another (which makes them as useful as the ones still on the store shelf) .


As I stated earlier. Wasn't aimed directly at you.

[SpecialK]

Actually, in my first post, though I didn't lay it out in a column, I did suggest the 70-200 as an alternative to the 60-250. There's plenty of crop room on the K7 to cover that extra 50 if need be. It comes down to what are you going to use of course. Option D would have been to fill your bag with lenses that never see the camera for one reason or another (which makes them as useful as the ones still on the store shelf) .


As I stated earlier. Wasn't aimed directly at you.

I didn't take it personally even if it had been. It's all opinions, anyway.