[Pentaxor]

At least K lenses can be used on m4/3, 4/3, NEX & EOS via adaptors when needed.

True, but you know that I wanted a FF dslr or a mirrorless version for that matter.

[Impartial]

@impartial. Thanks for your thoughtful lens map for me. I think option 1 sounds good and i think i will also skip the FA50.

@pentaxor. I think i will indeed go for the DA35 Ltd as u suggest.

I believe i have the solution now. - DA15, DA35 Ltd and DA70.

I will skip the FA77, FA43, DA40, DA21.

3 primes should be sufficient for me for a long long time.

Many thanks for all your comments and help again.

Well, I am glad you have found something that will work for you. Those are three elegant lenses! And I agree that an AF 50mm is dispensible; I don't have one either. Yours would be roughly equivalent to a 24mm/55mm/105mm trio in film days; not exactly 28/50/135, but more versatile in many ways. And much lighter at the long end!

Actually if I were to suggest a fourth lens to add to those three, it would be something between 15 and 35, such as a Sigma 28/1.8. I find that 28 and 35 each have their place, in framing a shot, and that would also give you a chance to play with the shallow DOF of a fast normal prime without venturing into used lenses. Just a thought.

[wed7]

well I have an officemate, she was small built and relatively thin after acquiring her D90 for 3 weeks, she sold t to another friend complaining that the said camera was too heavy for her and opted for a lighter system.

[raider]

she was small built and relatively thin after acquiring her D90 for 3 weeks

I am sure i read you wrong but did you say she became thin after getting the D90 for 3 weeks? the D90 is that good to make u lose weight? joking of course

[Freak]

Thank you all again.
I really want to know what i should get for my setup. I do not know who else to ask these questions.

I do believe that Pentax are actually king in Primes under around 100mm.. I think the DA70 is very close to the Nikon 85 1.8, and i believe the FA77 is actually even better than the Nikon in terms of portrait lens.

You seem to want AF and i guess that does cut the choices of some of the great older glass with MF in Pentax range especially in the price range you mention. Nikons bodies and accessories are expensive, but they same can be said for Pentax's quality glass.

The FA77 and FA43 are superb pieces of engineering, and are some of the main reasons i have recently chosen Pentax over Nikon 300s & Canon 7D myself.

Certain DA models are also very top notch in comparison to the competition, so i think 100mm & under Pentax are actually hard to beat. I don't believe same can be said for Pentax 200 or 300mm and onwards primes which are not the best in their class however. I hope one day they address that but doubt they will..

Meanwhile I'll keep looking for a Cosina f/1.2 for my K-7...

[Marc Sabatella]

I think the 15/35/70 setup is an excellent one, and for the money and flexibility it provides, and the small size and low weight of the combo, nothing in Nikon can come close to touching it.

Just to address a couple of earlier comments:

- Yes, sure, raising ISO is *one* weapon against blur. SR is another. With Pentax, you get *both*. Of course, with the particular lenses in question, you also lose a stop in maximum aperture, which is another third weapon. But using that weapon comes at a price in DOF that will be tough to swallow in many situations. So with Nikon, it's high ISO and larger aperture; with Pentax, it's high ISO and SR. I really do believe the latter is going to be more more generally useful. And of course, you can always add a larger aperture lens later if you really like - even a manual focus 50/1.7 for under $50. I know you expressed a preference for AF, nd your main lenses will be AF, but don't rule out MF entirely, as it does open some doors not easily opened in any other way. As I often point out, people did just fine with MF for a century. Somehow, people did manage to take pictures before 1980.

- As for the notion that the only reason to buy Pentax cameras is for the Pentax lenses, I think that's ridiculous. There are *lots* of other reasons, including SR, ergonomics, and price/performance. But I also don't think it's a relevant concern here - there are no third party lenses that strike me as a good fit for what you are looking at.

[Pablom]

Depends on where you are in the world. Here in the UK the preorder price is £179, whereas the Nikon sells for about £165. So essentially the same price, for a lens which doesn't have silent focusing and is nearly a stop slower.

lol @ another negative comment of a product that nobody even tried yet

lol @ another negative comment of a product that nobody even tried yet

Yeah, especially as there are zero enthusiastic comments of a product that nobody even tried yet.

[robjmitchell]

15ltd/35ltd/70ltd is a very nice combo, only issue is that the 35ltd is not that fast, not that useful for macro, and can be slow to autofocus if it starts hunting because it does not have a limiter. It is a very nice lens though.

alternative three lens setup would be
15ltd/43 or 40ltd/sigma 70 macro. essentially what I have (i'd like to swap my 14 for a 15) I love my 43ltd and would buy the 40ltd over the 35 for general use. The sigma 70macro is simply superb in every way except one, it weighs a ton! 70mm is a much better length for APS-c than some longer lenses by the way, especially if you live in a small flat like me

four lens alternative
15ltd/43 or 40ltd/70ltd/100macro WR
This covers everything you could need in a light package,
cheers

[deadwolfbones]

Another possibility is the Sigma 30/1.4.

[ladybug]

Thanks for all the input again and esp. your comments Marc. I now appreciate SR better after u explained it.

Do you guys recommend i buy new or buy used? If i buy used, is there a high element of risk that the lens will back focus or front focus with my K-x, esp. my K-x hasn't got the AF micro adjustment feature?

[interested_observer]

Excellent thread with wonderful and informative discussions!

I have a mixture of Pentax new and used lenses. I was apprehensive about used initially, and now after 3 used acquisitions, I have no fear. Purchasing from the marketplace here, I tend to feel a bit better, since folks seem to take very good care of their equipment. KEH is another excellent used source.

Obviously, YMMV.....

[deadwolfbones]

Do you guys recommend i buy new or buy used? If i buy used, is there a high element of risk that the lens will back focus or front focus with my K-x, esp. my K-x hasn't got the AF micro adjustment feature?

The other way around, I think. If you buy used, you can get the info from the seller of how the lens focused on his/her camera. If it focused correctly on their camera without adjustment, there''s a pretty good chance it'll do well on yours. If you buy a new lens it's a total crapshoot.

[Marc Sabatella]

is there a high element of risk that the lens will back focus or front focus with my K-x

High risk? No. Slight discrepancies of focus have been part of life with AF ever since the thign was invented 30-some-odd years ago. It's just in the last couple of years people have started obsessing over this, and this obsession often causes people to "find" problems that aren't really there.

You chance of having a real problem with focus is about the same as that of coming down with the avian flu, of getting an anthrax-laced envelope in the mail, or of killer bees invading your neighborhood. But that never stopped people from, at various times over the last few years, getting really worked up about those risks too.