[Conqueror]

So now ive got

K7 18-55 wr + 50-200 wr (I probably would not of bought the 50-200mm but it came bundled when I bought thr k7 from someone)
100mm wr macro

I figure at the next 2 lenses will be 1 wide angle and some prime between 31 and 50ish mm

Something fast would be useful perhaps... as none of my lenses are that fast


pentax 35mm 2.4 - might be a good option, cheap and light
pentax 31mm 1.8 FA - not sure it justifies the price tag? or is it "one lens to rule them all"?
samyang 35mm 1.4 - no AF and about £350

voightlander 58mm 1.4 - tempting.. no AF and 58mm quite long?


pentax 15mm - definite buy at some point for the UW



maybe the pentax 15mm + 35mm 2.4 might be the most cost effective solution... or get the FA 31mm and wait a long time to sort the WA?

what would you do?

[Docrwm]

When these questions get posed I recommend that folks look at the photos they have taken and see what focal lengths their photos cluster at by using the exif data.

[northcoastgreg]

what would you do?

Since different photographers have different shooting requirements depending on what kind of photography they are doing and differing assessments of lenses, I'm not sure how useful a question that is. I personally would start out by replacing those kit lenses with a DA 16-45 and perhaps the F 70-210. Then I'd probably get a 28mm lens, either one of the 28/3.5 lenses from the 70s or the F 28/2.8. And then I'd get an inexpensive manual focus fast fifty, either a 50/1.4 or 55/1.8. From that base I could later start adding more expensive glass, like the DA 15 or FA 31.

[rbefly]

First off, I'd agree with Greg;
"I personally would start out by replacing those kit lenses with a DA 16-45 and perhaps the F 70-210."
Since I got the DA 16-45mm, I've never looked back. Ended up giving the18-55m to my sister, which made us both happy!
At f4.0 constant, it is a slightly faster than the kit lens and miles sharper.
You may find that having the 16-45mm will postpone your need for a wide angle prime for a while.
But Doc is correct also; by reviewing your photos, do you have a certain focal length (or range) you seem to favor? If it is in the 24mm-28mm length, I'd certainly consider a fast prime. Same for 31-35mm or 70-85mm etc.
A fast 50mm is never wasted, whether it's an old manual lens or a newer AF version. An 50mm f1.7 or f1.4 is a lens you'll never trade or sell.
I almost always have a 100mm or 135mm prime with me, it's nearly ideal for portraits, informal concerts/shows, close-ups and unobtrusive shooting. Again, a manual K, M or A series in the f2.8 speed won't cost a fortune and is quite versatile.
Whenever I upgrade lenses, I have a saying..."Faster, sharper, cheaper".
Generally, you can do the first two easily, it's the third that causes problems! But if you're willing to try used lenses from the 1970's, all three qualifications are possible.
Just some ideas,
Ron

[wlachan]

Just use what you have till you have an idea what FL you use the most.

[RioRico]

I vote for "use what you have, then decide what you need" As suggested, shoot with your kit lenses and see what focal lengths you use, and what focal lengths you WISH you could use. Also decide how badly you need autofocus. Decent-to-great manual-focus prime lenses are still much much less expensive than new AF zooms, and have greater speed and image quality. Ah, that's the path to LBA -- LENS BUYING ADRENALINE!

I sometimes take a numerological approach to prime-lens kit selection. I find it useful to have a set primes whose focal lengths are roughly 2x the next lens, which means any lens will have about half the AOV (angle of view) of the prior lens. This makes previsualizing shots easy. So I might carry a 16-28-55-105mm prime kit, or a 21-40-85mm kit. Of course I'll have my 10-24mm and 18-250mm zooms in my bag, just in case.

[Docrwm]

ExposurePlot is a very nice freeware program that can analyze an entire folder and give you an overview of where your focal lengths cluster from the photos you have already taken. This allows a more informed decision as our memories and guesswork on such things are often wildly wrong.

[Conqueror]

thanks for the responses...

I appreciate it was vague.. "what would you do" .. but that was the point - to get a variety of views...

I'd though about the DA 16-45 .. but I'm finding the 18-55mm isn't a bad lens... the DA 16-45 is also f4 (sure the IQ is probably better, but how much?)... the 16mm would give me something wider though.. but it would pretty much be a replacement for the 18-55mm

I'm finding the 50-200mm doesn't get used much... maybe if I had the extra reach of say the55-300mm id use that more

I need something fast for night time... right now my fastest lens is the 100mm at f2.8

Definitely want a wide as well

The priority is probably the fast lens right now though... the 35mm f2.4 is tempting due to price weight and reviews seem good... but its 2.4.. some people saying this is ok though

[RioRico]

I'd though about the DA 16-45 .. but I'm finding the 18-55mm isn't a bad lens... the DA 16-45 is also f4 (sure the IQ is probably better, but how much?)...

That's the crux of the matter -- how much 'better' is worth the money? How much of the expenditure will be noticeable when a picture is presented? If you're not making big images for close inspection, the DA18-55 may be entirely sufficient for its range.

I'm finding the 50-200mm doesn't get used much... maybe if I had the extra reach of say the55-300mm id use that more

My basic lens is the DA18-250, which goes from almost-ultra-wide to pretty-damn-long, and it's real useful for dynamic situations. In enough light. But on sunny streets, it's great to go from full-context to remote-detail without swapping lenses.

I need something fast for night time... right now my fastest lens is the 100mm at f2.8

Definitely want a wide as well

You can go far if you skip autofocus. My Vivitar-Kiron 24/2 wasn't cheap at US$130 but it cost less than anything comparable. My Vivitar-Komine 28/2 *WAS* cheap at US$18 and it's with me always. A superb M50/1.7 or M42 SuperTak 55/1.8 will likely cost about US$50. Fast longer lenses (85/2 or f/1.5, 100/2.5, 135/2.5 etc) cost more but not nearly as much as their AF counterparts.

Wide is a different matter. Are very few ultrawides available for not-much money. The Samyang-Vivitar-Phoenix-etc 14mm gets good reviews; I haven't tried it. The fishy Zenitar 16/2.8 is a bargain winner at around US$200. Of the ultrawide zooms, I chose the Tamron 10-24 over Sigma 10-20s and DA12-24 because of cost, warranty, and Sigma's QC issues. Alas, the Pentax 14mm and 15mm offerings are beyond my budget.

[baro-nite]

You're right that the 18-55 is a fine performer. I did a bit of direct comparison with the 16-45 and found that the 18-55 is just about as sharp, has more barrel distortion, and has cooler color rendition (the 16-45 seemed to give very accurate color rendition). AFAIAC color rendition is a non-issue when shooting digital if you shoot RAW. Barrel distortion is pretty easily corrected also, although that's not quite as trivial as correcting color cast. For me the 45-55mm range is more useful than the 16-18 range. Indeed, 55mm is a favorite of mine for portraits. Then again, I don't usually shoot portraits at f/5.6.

I had gone through the same question several months back, and decided on the 16-45 as an upgrade to the 18-55. It's a fine choice for that, but since then (having acquired many manual focus primes) I've realized that it was the wrong question to ask in my case. I'll probably sell the 16-45 -- fine lens, but I'm not using it much.

From every report I've read the 55-300 is clearly better IQ than the 50-200, as well as having more reach.

You've mentioned two very different focal lengths for fast lenses -- 100 and 35. I'd start with the FL you really want and then look at options.

[sterretje]

what would you do?

Let's say what I did

Bought K10D with kit lens, added DA55-300 within a month (wildlife country so a telezoom is a must-have but I barely use it) and added FA31Ltd and flash after a year.

[northcoastgreg]

If you're not making big images for close inspection, the DA18-55 may be entirely sufficient for its range.

That's pretty much the truth. Of course, using something better than the 18-55 gives you the option of printing big, just in case you happen to get something spectacular and you want to enter it in a local contest/exhibition or sell it. In either situation, you're essentially competing with other photographers, many of whom will be using better glass than the 18-55.

[twitch]

Don't buy a prime in the 30-50 range slower than f2. I think the FA31 really is the one lens that rules them all. However the Sig30 and FA35 are excellent lenses.

[lytrytyr]

Don't buy a prime in the 30-50 range slower than f2.

I would not endorse that advice,
as it would rule out the excellent value of the DA 35/2.4,
or the various qualities of the DA Limiteds at 35 and 40mm.

Personally, I went for the DA 35 Macro first, then the DA15,
later adding the Voigtlaender Nokton 58/1.4.

[Conqueror]

Interesting points about replacing the 18-55mm ....

Came across these whilst thinking about it

Tamron SP AF17-50 f2.8 Di II lens for Pentax - saw a good price on this .. any thoughts?
Samsung 16-45mm - struggling to see difference between it and Pentax version ... Samsung comes without hood, but is a lot cheaper
Pentax SMC DA 17-70mm - photozone seems to suggest this might be a better option than thr 16-45mm



Heart says 31mm FA

Head says 35mm f2.4 + find a fast 50 something a some point without spending a huge amount