[future_retro]

A lens with a significantly wider or longer focal length or a significantly wider aperture - to get new shots that your current lens collection can't (portability, autofocus, weather resistance, metering and other features could also be a factor here, anything that helps "get the shot")

or a lens that can't do anything significantly different or get different shots than your current collection, but has better image quality when taking the same pictures.

it seems simple enough, choose number 1...however there are plenty of people who have lenses that fall well into the second category and they must have had reasons for purchasing

---

Last edited by future_retro; 08-02-2010 at 12:21 AM.

[Ash]

There will be users who already have their focal ranges covered, and those who have already their premier quality lens collection complete. Then there are those with both those satisfied.

[axl]

I voted b.
Last example, I returned DA*55 and kept K50/1.2 even though the DA had AF, AE, WR and such it would let me get shots that I don't get with K. But those I take with K just look better... IQ all the way IMO

[future_retro]

There will be users who already have their focal ranges covered, and those who have already their premier quality lens collection complete. Then there are those with both those satisfied.

Ok well I guess this applies more to people like me trying to build a capable collection off their kit lenses on a reasonable budget, everyone must have been there once

often, if you want to keep the cost under 500 per lens then you have to choose one or the other, lenses with both seem to be at least 700+

[future_retro]

I voted b.
Last example, I returned DA*55 and kept K50/1.2 even though the DA had AF, AE, WR and such it would let me get shots that I don't get with K. But those I take with K just look better... IQ all the way IMO

I totally forgot about those other features, I went back and added them to the original question. In that specific instance though it seems that both fall into category 1 in their own unique ways, I mean 1.2 is definitely something special that few lenses can compete with.

Also, wow I thought that with Pentax's history of primes and the quality of the * series I though that the DA* 55 would have IQ of the gods, was it unsatisfactory or is the f/1.2 just an incredible lens no matter what it's compared to?

[Ash]

Ah, with a budget that changes things.
But anyway, I get the point.
I too voted for IQ - after tasting the limited variety, most other lenses are bland...

[future_retro]

Ah, with a budget that changes things.
But anyway, I get the point.
I too voted for IQ - after tasting the limited variety, most other lenses are bland...

I'm succumbing to the limiteds as well. I haven't even gotten my 40 in the mail and am already ordering the DA 15 in leu of the Sigma 10-20mm, In my fantasy land of unlimited money I'm trying to work the 70 into the budget. That's just a wish though I definitely wont buy another lens for quite a long time

[Ash]

Don't stop there - you've still got the 21 and 35 macro to go!

[future_retro]

I'm drawing the line at the 15 and waiting to see if I could possibly make some money off photography before I spend more money, I'm determined to not let severe LBA get to me.

[sajah]

Resistant is futile

[Mike Cash]

Ok well I guess this applies more to people like me trying to build a capable collection off their kit lenses on a reasonable budget, everyone must have been there once

often, if you want to keep the cost under 500 per lens then you have to choose one or the other, lenses with both seem to be at least 700+

You know......there's nothing that says quality lenses have to cost $500+ per lens.

[future_retro]

You know......there's nothing that says quality lenses have to cost $500+ per lens.

good point, most of the AF lenses I'm looking at though seem to fall into the 300-500 range. I'm not going to totally ignore MF lenses, but so far using my M 50 1:2 has proven quite hard in everyday situations

[twitch]

Well the DA70 is no slouch in IQ that's for sure. That said, I'll be the voice of reason and say enjoy your new lenses for a couple of months..... and by then you'll probably find a way to afford a DA70

[Mike Cash]

good point, most of the AF lenses I'm looking at though seem to fall into the 300-500 range. I'm not going to totally ignore MF lenses, but so far using my M 50 1:2 has proven quite hard in everyday situations

If you're trying to do it with the stock focusing screen that is quite understandable; it is crap for manual focus. Practice also helps. Let us not forget that for the vast majority of the history of photography the only choices were 1a)manual focus 1b)zone focus or 2)fixed focus. Generations of photographers focused manually. I only mention it to sort of emphasize the point that autofocus is a relatively recent innovation and that it is still perfectly possible to shoot without it.

Not trying to suggest it for all situations. But becoming proficient in this once common and now practically obsolete skill can help free you up from being stuck paying multi-hundreds for lenses.

[Pentaxor]

it depends in my opinion. let's say a little bit of both IQ and what the lens can do. the thing is, when you got lenses other than the kitlens, then you know it's not just AF and WR alone.