[chaude]

v

The DA10-17 @17mm defishes to the equivalent of about 12.5mm. A 10mm shot defished would be equivalent to LESS THAN 1mm!! (I just check my AOV calculator for that.) Downside is that such defishing introduces lots of distortion, and kills edge resolution. After defishing a 16-17mm shot, I find I must downsample by about 50% to keep the edges from looking too sh!tty.

I'll compare your choices to my first dSLR kit: DA10-17, DA18-250, and FA50/1.4, for the fishiness, the super-zoom-ness, and the Fast Fifty speed. But I also quickly found that this kit was limiting. My basic kit now includes those three, and a Tamron 10-24, and an old F35-70 sometimes, and some selected MF primes: 24/2 or 28/2, 85/2, 135/2.5. With money, I'd look for a Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 to carry instead of my F35-70. Such suit my needs. Everything I carry has its purposes.

If I translate your lens choices to my FF/135 FOV mindset, they would be 46mm, 75-200mm, and 15-27mm FE -- not unreasonable, but not comprehensive either. Those are respectively a 'normal' focal length, a good portraiture zoom, and a wide special-effect zoom. Are those all you need?

God that was a good analysis and in fact very helpful, and especially your last question, which is YES at the moment, I don't have the patience, nor the mood to go snapping wildlife at 500mm, won't bother lugging a 60-250 f2,8 around and the 3 lenses pretty much sums up what I'd need, I could do with a more "normal" UWA but again, if it's for landscape I doubt I couldn't get away with stitching pictures from the 31mm, when I have the spare pennies I'd no doubt get the 15mm, but as far as I can come to a conclusion the superzoom might be on it's way out and the 50-135 on the way in! (plus I've just realised, it's weather sealed so that'd be a BIG bonus for me!)

pics from the weekend:

[Lowell Goudge]

So, here's my current situation, I've got the 10-17mm fisheye, DA 18-250mm and 31mm f1.8 and a K5
I tend to bring them along when I'm backpacking, or if I'm heading out to the hills or somewhere interesting. If I'm travelling I'll most likely take all 3 if not I'll just take one of my pick.

I've always liked the thought of the 15mm f4 ltd though, and have also considered something like the 50-135mm or sigma 50-150mm instead of the superzoom, but that'll leave me with a 15mm prime, 50-135/150 and either 31mm or fisheye, which I'm not sure if I want to sacrifice the versatility at the wider end on the zoom, but I know with the resolution I could easily crop at the tele end.
Weight and size also comes into concern, if necessary I'll just take 2 lenses.

It has even came to me to cash in on the 31mm and swap for the 15mm and 50-135mm, and probably eventually getting rid of the superzoom.

What would you guys do? I'm struggling here really!

Thanks
Adrian

Time to sit back and rethink your lens priorities. Personally I don't like super zooms, you give up way too much for the occasional need, but if you want something different, I can see a case for the 17-70 or 18-135 in place of the 18-250, that should get you a better all around IQ, and also weather sealing, which could be a factor.

You don't give up a lot on the long end in my opinion, so I see no loss there.

Replacing the fisheye with a prime gets you smaller and lighter, but I see it as more of a in the city or landscape lens that would get very little use.

Out of curiopsity, how much do you use the 10-17 now. If the overall question is not a lot, will you use the 15 any more?

[chaude]

I've decided not to get rid of the FE, the only change that might happen would be the superzoom going and a 50-135 coming in eventually.
The FE doesn't get used all the time, but certainly when I'm out bouldering (which is quite often) it quite often is the only lens I take because I can creep up super close to take some quite dramatic pictures!
The 15mm will just be a great addition, I will use it when I'm travelling light, for landscapes and to stitch photos, but it will also serve well if I want to hide my camera into a small bag!