My lens collection and question

sebberry · 06-06-2011, 03:59 PM

Just got a K-5 and wondering what I should do with my lens collection.

I have:
DA* 50-135
DA 12-24
DA 18-55
DA 50-200
FA50/1.4

I use the DA* 50-135 and the DA 12-24 the most. With the K5's excellent low-light performance, I don't really need the the FA50/1.4, and there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between 135 and 200.

So that leaves me with the 18-55.

I've been wanting something like the 17-70 as I think it would be a better range for indoor photography.

Do I sell my 18-55, 50-200 and FA to make room for a 17-70?

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

SpecialK · 06-06-2011, 04:41 PM

Yes, you do.

imtheguy · 06-06-2011, 04:45 PM

Without knowing your requirements I can only offer my personal preferences. If I had a DA*50-135, the two kit lenses (da18-55, da50-200) would have been gone yesterday. Maybe replaced by a da55-300 or if budget allows, one of the longer da* lenses since you seem to have little need for long tele but gotta have the option. I would keep the FA as difference in DOF between f1.4 and the f/4 of a 17-70 is huge.....IF you sometimes need very shallow DOF.

But it all boils down to what you want to do with the kit.

gp1806 · 06-06-2011, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by sebberry

Just got a K-5 and wondering what I should do with my lens collection.

I have:
DA* 50-135
DA 12-24
DA 18-55
DA 50-200
FA50/1.4

I use the DA* 50-135 and the DA 12-24 the most. With the K5's excellent low-light performance, I don't really need the the FA50/1.4, and there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between 135 and 200.

So that leaves me with the 18-55.

I've been wanting something like the 17-70 as I think it would be a better range for indoor photography.

Do I sell my 18-55, 50-200 and FA to make room for a 17-70?

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

Did the 18-55 come with the K5 as a kit? If it did, it should be a WR lens. Your 50-135 is WR, if the 18-55 is WR then you have rainy day kit with the two WR lenses. Do you ever want to shoot in the snow or at the beach?
I would keep the FA 50mm because a shot at f/1.4 looks different from the same shot at f/2.8.

**Ash** · 06-06-2011, 05:43 PM

If you don't need the 50, you may as well sell it.
If you don't need 200mm of reach, you may as well sell the 50-200.
If you don't shoot landscapes, you could also do away with the kit lens.
But if you want something wider than 50mm for indoor photography, then something like a Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 might do. Or if 30mm is wide enough for you, the Sigma 30/1.4 is even better.

paperbag846 · 06-06-2011, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by sebberry

I've been wanting something like the 17-70 as I think it would be a better range for indoor photography.

I would think that the DA 12-24 would be the indoor photography go-to lens.

If you don't like the 50 1.4 (I would imagine you find the focal length too long) then I think Ash's suggestion to go with the Sigma 30 1.4 for indoors would be a good one. If you want a smaller lens / are happy with high ISO, maybe the DA L 2.4 would work.

So sell kit, 50-200, FA 50, buy sigma 30 / DA L 35...

Then you have 12-24, 30/35, 50-135. Nice and efficient.

sebberry · 06-06-2011, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by gp1806

Did the 18-55 come with the K5 as a kit? If it did, it should be a WR lens. Your 50-135 is WR, if the 18-55 is WR then you have rainy day kit with the two WR lenses. Do you ever want to shoot in the snow or at the beach?
I would keep the FA 50mm because a shot at f/1.4 looks different from the same shot at f/2.8.

No, I bought the 18-55 a few years ago when I got my K10D body.

RioRico · 06-06-2011, 06:24 PM

I agree totally with imtheguy -- keep the FA50/1.4, sell the other two. A 50/1.4 can just do things that no other lens can (except a 5x/1.2 or a 55/1.4).

sebberry · 06-06-2011, 06:25 PM

I find the 18-55 length fine for indoors stuff. I'd love a 18-(55-70) at 2.8, but that's getting pretty expensive.

Anyone want to buy a kidney?

sebberry · 06-06-2011, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

I agree totally with imtheguy -- keep the FA50/1.4, sell the other two. A 50/1.4 can just do things that no other lens can (except a 5x/1.2 or a 55/1.4).

I use it so little, but I agree, it's a good lens.

**rparmar** · 06-06-2011, 06:27 PM

You are missing the FA Limited primes, so you don't yet know what Pentax can do!

elpolodiablo · 06-06-2011, 06:28 PM

Well it would possibly be the gen 1 DA 18-55 which is not up to the standard of the 12-24 and DA* 50-135 then, in which case you may as well get rid of it along with DA 50-200 and FA 50 1.4, you can always crop shots from DA* 50-135 because it offers better resolution, f1.4 is good to have for low light but if you can't find a use for it why keep it?

Can't comment on the 17-70 myself as I don't have one, but I got a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which serves me very well for a very reasonable price, but I also found the 50mm end a bit too short sometimes. Why don't you consider getting a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for this range because a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 would have too much overlapping with your 12-24, whereas the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 got glowing reviews everywhere and fills your focal length gap very nicely.

My 2 cents

Edgar_in_Indy · 06-06-2011, 06:34 PM

Somebody else mentioned the DA 55-300mm, and I agree that would be a nice addition to your lens collection. It will significantly extend your reach, and since the DA L version can be had for a little over $100, it's a relatively painless purchase.

Having 300mm outdoors can be great for shooting sports, nature, etc. But I found that I mostly used mine as a portrait lens. It makes a very nice budget portrait lens due to it's range, decent sharpness, and very, very creamy bokeh. And with the high ISO performance of cameras like the k-x and k-5, it can even be used indoors for fast action (see my Taekwondo picture below). In short, it's a very versatile, easy to carry, high quality lens that you don't have worry about taking an insurance policy out on.

Here are some of the shots from mine over the last year or so:

Marc Sabatella · 06-06-2011, 08:55 PM

You might not notice much difference between 135 and 200 right now, but some day you'll go to shoot a small object at a distance and realize there just isn't enough resolution to capture it at 135. I'm not saying you can't do without for now, but no way would wait to go for long with a 135 as my longest lens, even though it might be the longest I carry regularly.

twitch · 06-06-2011, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by sebberry

I've been wanting something like the 17-70 as I think it would be a better range for indoor photography.

Do I sell my 18-55, 50-200 and FA to make room for a 17-70?

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

I wouldn't sell either of those, what you nett is just not worth it, but yes go ahead and buy the DA17-70 or alternatively the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75. None of these are particularly expensive.

06-06-2011, 03:59 PM	#1
sebberry Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Frozen white North Photos: Albums Posts: 1,135	My lens collection and question Just got a K-5 and wondering what I should do with my lens collection. I have: DA* 50-135 DA 12-24 DA 18-55 DA 50-200 FA50/1.4 I use the DA* 50-135 and the DA 12-24 the most. With the K5's excellent low-light performance, I don't really need the the FA50/1.4, and there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between 135 and 200. So that leaves me with the 18-55. I've been wanting something like the 17-70 as I think it would be a better range for indoor photography. Do I sell my 18-55, 50-200 and FA to make room for a 17-70? Any suggestions? Thanks.

06-06-2011, 08:55 PM	#14
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	You might not notice much difference between 135 and 200 right now, but some day you'll go to shoot a small object at a distance and realize there just isn't enough resolution to capture it at 135. I'm not saying you can't do without for now, but no way would wait to go for long with a 135 as my longest lens, even though it might be the longest I carry regularly. Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 06-07-2011 at 08:58 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
lens collection compairson	CEWren	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	09-26-2010 08:05 PM
For Sale - Sold: Lens Collection	shutterbob	Sold Items	31	12-16-2009 06:34 AM
Storing the lens collection	Pentastic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	11-12-2009 09:58 AM
The lens collection thread	blu3ness	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	11-02-2009 01:03 PM
Lens collection question	mkawada	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	07-23-2008 10:24 PM

06-06-2011, 04:41 PM	#2
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Yes, you do.

06-06-2011, 04:45 PM	#3
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	Without knowing your requirements I can only offer my personal preferences. If I had a DA50-135, the two kit lenses (da18-55, da50-200) would have been gone yesterday. Maybe replaced by a da55-300 or if budget allows, one of the longer da lenses since you seem to have little need for long tele but gotta have the option. I would keep the FA as difference in DOF between f1.4 and the f/4 of a 17-70 is huge.....IF you sometimes need very shallow DOF. But it all boils down to what you want to do with the kit.

06-06-2011, 04:59 PM	#4
gp1806 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Chicago suburbs Photos: Albums Posts: 848	Originally posted by sebberry Just got a K-5 and wondering what I should do with my lens collection. I have: DA* 50-135 DA 12-24 DA 18-55 DA 50-200 FA50/1.4 I use the DA* 50-135 and the DA 12-24 the most. With the K5's excellent low-light performance, I don't really need the the FA50/1.4, and there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between 135 and 200. So that leaves me with the 18-55. I've been wanting something like the 17-70 as I think it would be a better range for indoor photography. Do I sell my 18-55, 50-200 and FA to make room for a 17-70? Any suggestions? Thanks. Did the 18-55 come with the K5 as a kit? If it did, it should be a WR lens. Your 50-135 is WR, if the 18-55 is WR then you have rainy day kit with the two WR lenses. Do you ever want to shoot in the snow or at the beach? I would keep the FA 50mm because a shot at f/1.4 looks different from the same shot at f/2.8.

06-06-2011, 05:43 PM	#5
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	If you don't need the 50, you may as well sell it. If you don't need 200mm of reach, you may as well sell the 50-200. If you don't shoot landscapes, you could also do away with the kit lens. But if you want something wider than 50mm for indoor photography, then something like a Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 might do. Or if 30mm is wide enough for you, the Sigma 30/1.4 is even better.

06-06-2011, 06:04 PM	#6
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by sebberry I've been wanting something like the 17-70 as I think it would be a better range for indoor photography. I would think that the DA 12-24 would be the indoor photography go-to lens. If you don't like the 50 1.4 (I would imagine you find the focal length too long) then I think Ash's suggestion to go with the Sigma 30 1.4 for indoors would be a good one. If you want a smaller lens / are happy with high ISO, maybe the DA L 2.4 would work. So sell kit, 50-200, FA 50, buy sigma 30 / DA L 35... Then you have 12-24, 30/35, 50-135. Nice and efficient.

06-06-2011, 06:05 PM	#7
sebberry Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Frozen white North Photos: Albums Posts: 1,135 Original Poster	Originally posted by gp1806 Did the 18-55 come with the K5 as a kit? If it did, it should be a WR lens. Your 50-135 is WR, if the 18-55 is WR then you have rainy day kit with the two WR lenses. Do you ever want to shoot in the snow or at the beach? I would keep the FA 50mm because a shot at f/1.4 looks different from the same shot at f/2.8. No, I bought the 18-55 a few years ago when I got my K10D body.

06-06-2011, 06:24 PM	#8
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I agree totally with imtheguy -- keep the FA50/1.4, sell the other two. A 50/1.4 can just do things that no other lens can (except a 5x/1.2 or a 55/1.4).

06-06-2011, 06:25 PM	#9
sebberry Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Frozen white North Photos: Albums Posts: 1,135 Original Poster	I find the 18-55 length fine for indoors stuff. I'd love a 18-(55-70) at 2.8, but that's getting pretty expensive. Anyone want to buy a kidney?

06-06-2011, 06:26 PM	#10
sebberry Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Frozen white North Photos: Albums Posts: 1,135 Original Poster	Originally posted by RioRico I agree totally with imtheguy -- keep the FA50/1.4, sell the other two. A 50/1.4 can just do things that no other lens can (except a 5x/1.2 or a 55/1.4). I use it so little, but I agree, it's a good lens.

06-06-2011, 06:27 PM	#11
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	You are missing the FA Limited primes, so you don't yet know what Pentax can do!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-06-2011, 06:28 PM	#12
elpolodiablo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,637	Well it would possibly be the gen 1 DA 18-55 which is not up to the standard of the 12-24 and DA* 50-135 then, in which case you may as well get rid of it along with DA 50-200 and FA 50 1.4, you can always crop shots from DA* 50-135 because it offers better resolution, f1.4 is good to have for low light but if you can't find a use for it why keep it? Can't comment on the 17-70 myself as I don't have one, but I got a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which serves me very well for a very reasonable price, but I also found the 50mm end a bit too short sometimes. Why don't you consider getting a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for this range because a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 would have too much overlapping with your 12-24, whereas the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 got glowing reviews everywhere and fills your focal length gap very nicely. My 2 cents

06-06-2011, 06:34 PM	#13
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Somebody else mentioned the DA 55-300mm, and I agree that would be a nice addition to your lens collection. It will significantly extend your reach, and since the DA L version can be had for a little over $100, it's a relatively painless purchase. Having 300mm outdoors can be great for shooting sports, nature, etc. But I found that I mostly used mine as a portrait lens. It makes a very nice budget portrait lens due to it's range, decent sharpness, and very, very creamy bokeh. And with the high ISO performance of cameras like the k-x and k-5, it can even be used indoors for fast action (see my Taekwondo picture below). In short, it's a very versatile, easy to carry, high quality lens that you don't have worry about taking an insurance policy out on. Here are some of the shots from mine over the last year or so:

06-06-2011, 09:13 PM	#15
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by sebberry I've been wanting something like the 17-70 as I think it would be a better range for indoor photography. Do I sell my 18-55, 50-200 and FA to make room for a 17-70? Any suggestions? Thanks. I wouldn't sell either of those, what you nett is just not worth it, but yes go ahead and buy the DA17-70 or alternatively the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75. None of these are particularly expensive.