Originally posted by qdoan Hrm.. Now I'm thinking about 2 packages... Each slight over the 1000 mark, but are similar cost wise. Here goes:

Package 1: FA 31 LTD and FA 77 LTD

Package 2: Sigma 20mm f1.8, FA 35 f2.0, and FA 77LTD

So many decisions! Darn LBA...

With your stated objective of low light, I will have more inclination to go with package #2 above for the price and usefulness to have a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 for the low light that you look for. and to save cost, I wonder if you can swap the 77ltd with 70.

With a lot of discussion on prime lens, I end up having a plan along the line for limited lens in 21/43/70 as a trio and the trio will use 43 mm f/1.9 limited to cover the usage of FA 35 f/2.0 and FA 50 f/1.4. When you think about it, the cost of 43mm f/1.9 is roughly 35 and 50 combined. And there are various discussions that find the 43mm f/1.9 doing excellent job to cover the use of FA 35 f/2.0 and FA 50 f/1.4. Just another thought. I personally love my FA 50 f/1.4 and it will be hard for me to depart from the lens for low light shooting and portraits indoor. And I am more likely to have primes in the thinking in terms of focal length. I chose 70 over 77 mainly for cost saving.

21/35/50/70 or

21/43/70 or

20/35/77 (as in your package #2 with Sigma 20)

I actually do have a question for you, how you like your DA 10-17 and do you find it without fisheye effect at 17 as I see a great of photos without fisheye effects at longer end of the zoom and the pictures are great from that lens but I will think the Sigma 10-20 or DA 12-24 focal length are of more usual range that get used more often. Your comments on comparing DA 12-24 and DA 10-17 will help me greatly as I need to decide with order of liking at the moment for

1. Sigma 10-20

2. Pentax 10-17

3. Pentax 12-24 (the cost put this on 3rd choice)

You get great companions in LBA and you are never alone.

Thanks,

Hin