[RioRico]

In practice, I use the 18-250mm nearly 80% of the time, and the fast prime Nokton 58mm in low-light conditions primarily.

I quite agree with you on the handiness of the superzoom and a Fast Fifty. My original K20D kit was the DA10-17, DA18-250, and FA50/1.4. I've used them in weather with no problems. Now I'm more likely to substitute a Zenitar 16/2.8 for the 10-17, and round-out my minimal kit with manual Soligor 24/2.8, Nikkor 85/2 and Raynox DCR-250. If I can get my Vivitar 24/2 fixed, it'll replace the Soligor. And I recently got a small F35-70/3.5-4.5 (CHEAP!) that's seeing action because it's so compact.

So what's a good kit? The superzoom, and faster glass at 16-24-50-85. And macro and fisheye and a long mirror, if so inclined. Of course, if more reach is needed, replace the superzoom with a 16-50 and a Bigma 50-500. But don't blame me for back problems.

[Loren E]

Thank you all for the input! .....

Special-K, great comparison! Looks like these lenses definitely accomplish different things. I didn't realize that in this instance the focal length means little in comparing them, as it is the field of view that tells the story... well too bad to hear my hopes shouldn't be high for a weather resistant 12-24, I was hoping they were going to Weather Proof the entire DA series over the next however many years. Makes the Olympus 12-60 look damn appealing, but I guess going that route has a lot of downsides linked to the fact you could never pull-off 12-60 without the smaller sensors of the 4/3 system.

Boris, my issue with the Weather Proofing: unlike most photographers my need for weather-proofing is not just for inclement weather, though I spend plenty of time in the rain up here in the Pacific northwest. Most of my shooting will revolve around fly fishing, for publications like the mag in my little profile photo, and so even on a beautiful sunny day I am likely to be around crashing surf, wading across rivers, etc while I'm fishing. I haven't seen any weather-proofing solutions for lenses not designed to take the beating yet, but I am new to this so please inform me if there is something I don't know about!

Cheers -LE

[interested_observer]

I'll just add a bit on the 10-17 vs 12-24. The two lenses do not compete, they are complementary. The focal lengths are very misleading here. To understand how they complement each other, you need to look at their respective field of views:

• 10-17 field of view 180 to 100 degrees
• 12-24 field of view 99 to 60 degrees

The 10-17 is the fish eye, while the 12-24 is a rectilinear lens, thus they handle the view differently. SpecialK's images essentially says it all. You can see that there is some bend in the images of the 10-17, but you the photographer can control that to a large degree. Also, I have found that the 10-17 does very well in landscape situations, and you can "hide" the bend from the Fish Eye effect to some degree in terms of how you frame the picture.

[Lowell Goudge]

Since this comes up a lot, and I post my own ideas usually, I decided to start a poll to see what other forum members thought.

Not brand related just focal lengths and zooms vs primes

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/120286-lens-kit-design-poll.html