So, I am trying to determine how best to upgrade/update my lens collection. I want to move more toward autofocus; price is an issue; and I want to keep my relatively wide range of coverage. Curious what you folks think of the following plan. First, what I presently have; then what I am thinking of aiming for. Then a bit about my photography.
HAVE NOW:
Zenitar 16mm f2.8 fisheye
Tamron adaptall-2 24mm, f2.5
Pentax-M 28mm f2.8
Pentax-M 35mm f2
Pentax-A 50mm f1.4
Tamron adaptall-2 90mm macro f2.5 (w/1:1 extension tube)
Pentax 100mm-A Bellows lens f4
Pentax-A 35-105mm f3.5
Pentax DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6
Sigma A 50-500mm f4-6.3 (aka Bigma)
Sigma A 70-200mm f2.8
(also have Sigma 1.4x EX AF teleconverter)
TENTATIVE GOAL:
Pentax DA 14mm f2.8
Pentax DA 16-50mm f2.8
Pentax DA 21mm f3.2
Pentax FA 50mm f1.4
Sigma 180mm Macro f3.5
Sigma A 50-500mm f4-6.3 (aka Bigma)
Sigma A 70-200mm f2.8
(Sigma 1.4x EX AF teleconverter)
So, essentially, keep the Sigma zooms and teleconverter, double my macro coverage, and add Pentax autofocus primes and a zoom up to 50mm.
As an amateur (sometimes successfully an advanced amateur), I still make photos of many different kinds of subjects, from macro to portraits to landscapes to birds to events to...
I have a K10D and expect to sell my only other camera, a PZ-1p. So, my lenses' angle of view gets multiplied by 1.5. That Zenitar stops having a 16mm AOV and becomes a not-as-wide 24mm on the K10D. The 14mm would become essentially a 21mm, and the 21mm would become essentially a 32mm, giving me very wide angle and wide angle prime lenses. While the 16-50 zoom is some serious ammunition, I assume the primes are somewhat sharper, and the 14mm would be noticeably wider than the 16mm (again, it becomes a 24mm) at the wide end.
Comments? Foolish? Unnecessary? Bold? Risky? Silly? Naughty?
Last edited by sholtzma; 03-06-2008 at 07:02 PM.