[paperbag846]

Good point. Kind of pokes a hole in the idea of a set of WR or * DA Limiteds. Yes, a WR DA40 might be cool, but if the weather's bad you won't be swapping it for a WR DA15...

IMHO, the only options where a WR prime makes sense is a 1:1 macro lens, because you just can't put that in a zoom as far as I know.

[Canada_Rockies]

Hmm... the 12-24 is looking more attractive.

Is the front element exposed and prone to scratches? Do you guys use a UV filter?

I never use the lens (or any other lens except the macro) without the lens hood. I do not own any UV filters. The front element is not horribly exposed, compared to some other lenses. It is prone to vignetting with filters because the filter ring is far enough forward to require very expensive filters and/or filter ring step ups. I find, myself, that using a polarizer on this lens when the sky is blue results in an unrealistic appearing sky because of the fading of the blue from one side to the other, even though that is in fact how the blue sky looks anyway but we never see 100 degrees of it at once with the naked eye. So, I don't use a filter with the lens. I hope this helps!

[NeverSatisfied]

Albert definitely knows his way around the 12-24! Yes I've used a CPL on mine and occasionally get the uneven sky he describes, but not always. I might add that I always use a UV filter on mine, and do not experience any problems, but, if you stack filters (CPL + ND, for example), you WILL get vignetting at 12mm for sure.

[ShowMeTheMoney]

I had the same dilemma as well - but for me, the main reason I moved to Pentax was because of all the compact primes. So I initially went in with the intention of going primes, until a got a really good deal on the 16-50, so I just jumped on it. And while I would never have thought of getting this lens if paying full retail price (about USD $1260 here), I do find that I actually enjoy using it.

Right now I'm thinking of going 15/21/35/70 + still keeping the 16-50.

Although, personally, I find the 16-50 to be too bulky as an everyday lens. However, it earns its keep when I travel. I prefer zooms when traveling, especially to new places, when I'm not quite sure what I'll encounter.

But again, obviously, that all depends on how you shoot, since some prefer the compactness and weight of the primes for travel.

I live in Metro Manila, in the Philippines. A metropolis of over 20 million people, and it can get really crowded. Think of Manila as a cross between NYC, Bangkok and Delhi. For general walking around, going out to dinner, to the mall etc.. I always take the primes. I never take the 16-50. I just find it too bulky.

But if I'm traveling out of town, to some small fishing village or a sleepy little beach town or mountain village, or when shooting fiesta's (festivals/parades) then I prefer the 16-50.

Although for travel to large urban places, say NYC or Bangkok, I'll probably still use the primes because they're more unobtrusive.

So generally, I'd say go with what you prefer first. Then slowly add the others by looking at used stuff.

Though for some, there are other considerations I guess, like local pricing. Here, the DA15 goes for the equivalent of USD $800, which can be a bit hard to swallow when looking at US street prices.

Cheers.

[mysticcowboy]

You know, the question probably won't end up whether you buy primes or zooms but which you buy first. That's if you're like most of us.

Lens buying can easily become an addiction.

[JHD]

I would just like to point out, in the most respectful way possible, that I think the above statement is a big fat steaming pile of horsepoo.

DUH? Obviously you live a sheltered life and don't get out much. Try changing lenses in the rain or in windy conditions and see how that works for you!

[Impartial]

DUH? Obviously you live a sheltered life and don't get out much. Try changing lenses in the rain or in windy conditions and see how that works for you!

I don't think anyone objected to the part of the statement that changing lenses is risk-prone under certain circumstances. (TRUE whether you are switching zooms at 50-55mm or switching primes.)

I think the objectionable statement was that "changing primes in the field sucks". Some of us do it all the time. And it is certainly no worse than changing zooms . . .

---

Last edited by Impartial; 11-21-2010 at 10:13 AM.

[dankoBanana]

I think the objectionable statement was that "changing primes in the field sucks". Some of us do it all the time.

and for some of us it sucks

[Impartial]

and for some of us it sucks

And for others of us, it only sucks under adverse conditions.

[paperbag846]

Both Canon and Nikon have 2.8 standard zooms, but it seems that premium pancake-(ish) primes are unique to Pentax. (One would be remiss if he/she does not own some of these fine creations?)

I just had another idea due to the fact that: the SDM, reliable or not, is slow.

Buy the tameron 17-50 2.8 zoom (apparently, great optics) and DA 70 2.4 ltd. That way you cover the range of 17-70 at 2.8 or faster, for the same price as the 16-50. You get a taste of the prime experience, and still have access to a convenient zoom. You lose weather sealing (to be honest, I don't see SDM as a desirable feature and wish they would ditch the whole idea).

[dankoBanana]

yay for diversity?

[curiouspeter]

Is SDM really that bad? They are putting it in the new 55mm 645 lens.

If I am to buy an SDM lens, I may get some kind of extended service plan.

[johnmflores]

And for others of us, it only sucks under adverse conditions.

I go hiking with a K20d around my neck, with a DA21 mounted and a DA70 and DA40 in my cargo pockets. The DA* 16-50 usually stays at home because it too big.

If it rains, I'm usually too busy being miserable to take photos

[NeverSatisfied]

I think the SDM "teething problems" have been worked out. Maybe I haven't paid that much attention lately but I haven't seen many complaints recently with regard to SDM failure. You can certainly buy an extended warranty if you're worried though.

As far as AF speed, sure there are lenses that have faster AF, but (correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't the K5 offer significantly improved AF speed with SDM lenses? I don't have a K5 so I can't say for sure. (Well I don't have one yet! )

[RonHendriks1966]

Well if macro is not your need then I would go for 21 - 40 - 70 Ltd lenses. A good spread and you could add the 15 later.