Originally posted by deudeu First, i felt like 18mm wasn't wide enough. I want to take some architactural photography and some indoors photography as well. So i have been considering lenses like the sigma 10-20mm or the DA 12-24 (right now sigma wins this one, just cheaper). I haven't really looked in detail at the fisheyes yet, though they look like fun. I just know that the 10-17mm is a bit too expensive for me right now.
Well, that's three different things you're talking about. For architecture you want a lens that's good from centre out to the edges with little variation, and that has minimal distortion or at least distortion you can easily correct. For this I got the 16-45mm since it's very good, inexpensive and doubles as my walk-around lens.
Extreme wide angle down to 10mm will do odd distortion things but can be used creatively. People sing the praises of the Sigma 10-20mm. Even odder will be a fish-eye which I see as a "once in a while" kind of lens. They are fun but to buy one as your second lens seems too limiting. Remember that you can take a rectilinear image and make it all bug-eyed in software but it's a lot harder to go the other way and preserve IQ. (Not impossible.. but pretty difficult to visualise in the viewfinder!)
For indoors photography none of these are fast so you will definitely need a tripod. If you don't want to carry one around or need to capture moving targets (eg. people) then a faster lens will be needed.
Originally posted by deudeu The second thing that i had problem with was the speed of the lens on the long end of the zoom. 5.6 is just a bit limiting. So to have fun with the 50mm zone and do a bit of portrait i have been looking at the FA 50mm f1.4 but also some older lenses like the SMC 50mm f.17 or the asahi 50mm f1.4 or even the more expensive Nokton 58mm.
You can buy manual focus 50mm lenses here on the forum for reasonable prices... outstanding prices when you see what the lenses can do. The FA is also an excellent deal even brand new, as any reviewer would say. Personally I prefer something wider so that group portraits or shots in tight quarters (most rooms) are possible. I couldn't afford the 31mm so got the 43mm, which gives me some small width advantage over a 50.
It's a lot more expensive, though it's a limited -- which really means something once you've tried one.