[superbass]

I have an itch to buy a new lens, and since I just sold my k10d ... I can actually afford one.

I previously bought the 16-50mm DA* lens, but sent it back because I didn't feel like dealing with the qc issues etc. Also after using the lens for about a week and a half I realized that I had used the lens at 16mm for just about every shot. I made an executive decision and bought the 14mm 2.8 after I returned the 16-50mm. This was a great learning experience because I now know that I prefer to use primes.

My lenses

DA 14mm 2.8
FA 50mm 1.4
DA 50-200mm

and 3 old pentax lenses I use with my k1000, a 135mm and two 50mm

For my next lens purchase, I ruled out the DA limiteds in favor of the FA limiteds because an LX is in my near future (hopefully) and I want to be able to use my lenses on both the k20d and the LX. For now, I have also ruled out the FA 43 limited because I have the 50mm 1.4 and I think that would be a bit of an overlap since I only have a few lenses. So this has left with a seemingly easy decision ...

FA 77mm Limited
FA 50mm Macro
FA 100mm Macro
DA* 50-135mm
DA 35mm Macro Limited


The 77mm is one of the legendary FA limited lenses, and I feel like I need it to be cool. I would like a macro lens, but I've been told that I should save my money and just use my other lenses as macro lenses with the macro filters. However, I had really bad luck focusing with those filters on my lens. I'm looking for advice/ reasons why macro lenses are better, and opinions on what focal length is better suited for ____ purpose. Even though I don't prefer zooms, I do enjoy bragging that my camera is weather sealed. So a weather sealed lens only seems logical, especially with some of the wonderful shots I have seen posted with the 50-135mm. My only reservation about that lens is that I feel it's too short.


Any advice, sample pictures, or lens suggestions are welcome.



Thanks

Daniel

[kjao]

Well Daniel, if money is not an issue, I would grab the FA77 definitely.

As for which macro lens, I prefer longer one. I actually have FA50/2.8 and Tamron 90/2.8 and prefer Tamron 90/2.8 for bug macro as it gives me longer working distance. I also use Tamron as a portrait lens. That said, FA50/2.8 is a fantastic lens that I would never sell!

Kenny

[aegisphan]

Don't ever use filter as a subtitution for a true macro glass, it would destroy the whole experience (especially with cheap fitler) . If you're on a budget, use bellows, extension ring, or reverse adapter to get high magnification. For macro, if you want to get close to the subject, then the 35/50 would be good. If you want to comfortably shoot at further distance, the 100mm is the one. Personally, I would get a manual macro if you plan to get either the 50 or 100. It's cheaper (no IQ suffering, however).

If you feel the 135mm is too short, then DA* 200 is your answer. And what Kenny said for the 77.

[NaClH2O]

Agree with the others on the macro issue, get a true macro lens. I dearly love my Tamron 90mm F2.8. I'd get either the FA 77 ltd. or, if you don't mind manual lenses, look around for a Pentax SMC 135mm F2.5. This is one of my favorite lenses, fast, sharp sharp sharp, contrasty and great color rendition.

NaCl(walk on the wild side, get the 135 F2.5)H2O

[superbass]

Well, that's about what I figured. I will probably get two lenses. The one thing about the macro lenses that I didn't really understand was when I would want to be close and when I would want to be far away. The only macro stuff I have done is with the filters and those were mostly of flowers and other non moving objects.

So my decision is going to be the 77mm and something else. Besides the 135mm Pentax what other manual focus macros would you guys suggest? I have ruled out the current Pentax macros, but I'm still teetering on just getting the 50-135 because I hardly use my 50-200mm now. I can't really see myself needing something long anyway, so I guess it really wouldn't be that short.