[richardwong]

Jezza - Nice coverage for sure now. I do have a small collection of lenses that I like and not sure if I will give up for awhile.

well now i have covered, with modern AF lenses

10-20mm
30mm
35-70mm
70-200mm
150-500mm

so only 50mm of overlap, pretty sure I can ditch the TC's now though

I also have 85mm, 135mm & 300mm covered with fun Russian M42s

[Dat_Bokeh]

At least I'm not the craziest one here, I've only got 10. However 8 of those I've bought in the last 6 months or so....

[addess765]

I only got 3 lenses for my K-5IIs.
FA 43
DA 18-135
DFA 100

and it fits all of my needs. Despite I wanna switch the 43 to 31 because of my curiosity.

[Quasimodo]

I have 23 lenses and I really want to build up my collection more and more. I'm a Canon guy but I love Pentax forum. I started using DSLR just for 4 months but I've taken photos for around 5 years, mostly with my Powershot SX1IS. I got lots of information from Pentax forum to decide which lens to buy and I'm glad that all of my lenses so far are really good. The Sears 135/2.8 I purchased from Hinman I'm really happy with it.
Today I rearrange all of my lenses and make a system like what I made in the attached photo (the washed out lenses are the ones I'm going to buy). Do you have any opinion to build it up? I mainly focus on MF prime lenses with really good quality and unique characteristics and not really interested in Carl Zeiss or Leica, which are too expensive and not really worthy. However I may consider some if I get a good deal. Most of these lenses I bought with really low price and some I have two copies if I really love and they're cheap, such as the Vega-11U (I have two that look totally different).
Should I be proud of my collection ?

[Lowell Goudge]

At least I'm not the craziest one here, I've only got 10. However 8 of those I've bought in the last 6 months or so....

Based upon the upward momentum I think you will hit 30 before you are done

[devouges]

Only 5..... but wishing for more

[dansamy]

Only 5..... but wishing for more

Aren't we all? I thought I had just three more lenses on my list. Then, I bought one of the ones on my list & promptly added two more to it. In addition to the one that was on my list, I also bought 2 other lenses & a teleconverter... that weren't on the list...

[ducdao]

Only 5..... but wishing for more

You don't have to. One camera can only accept 1 lens at a time unless you stack them... so 5 is still plenty.

[normhead]

The list

1. Sigma 8-16
2. Pentax 10-17
3. Tamron 17-50
4. Pentax 18-55 (2) (Came with a couple of cameras).
5. Pentax 18-135
6. 21 ltd
7. 35 2.4
8. 40xs (came free on my K-01
9. FA 50 1.7
10. DA* 60-250
11. Sigma 70-300
12. Perntax F 70-210
13. Sigamm 70 macro
14. Tamron 90 macro
15. Vivtar M 135
16. Pentax FA 35-80
17 Pentax A 50 ƒ2
18 Pentax a-400
19. Pentax FA 1.7 TC.

It may seem like a lot... but it's also divided among 2 people so it's only half as bad as it looks. A few of them, the FA 35-80 and A 50 ƒ2, we picked up pretty cheap, just to have something to put on the old film camera in the camera case. That's pretty much what the 18-55s get used for, for older digital cameras...so that's 4 that are being used as body caps. Everything else gets used on a regular basis, as in at least 4 or 5 times a year. We also have a Minolta 50, and a couple of 645 lenses bringing our total to 22, if I haven't missed anything. Only 11 per person...
The DA 18-135 and Sigma 70 macro (me), Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 90 macro (Tessfully) , and the DA*60-250 and SMC A-400 5.6 (me) are the most often used. With the 21 ltd and 50 1.7 getting the most use of the rest.

The Sigma 70-300 and Pentax 70-210 are fun lenses and used for recreational value only... the 35 and 40, hardly ever get used.... the 21 ltd is the lens both of us want at the same time most often followed by the TC... she likes the 50, I like the 35... so really we both have about 6 lenses that we use on a regular basis, with a couple of lenses that overlap, that we both like to use.

My travel bag includes the Sigma 8-16 and 70 macro, And DA 21, 18-135, 60-250 and A-400, and whatever other primes I can comfortably fit in, and the TC. Those 6 lenses and the TC cover everything really well, from 8mm to 680mm, equivalent 12-1000mm.

[richardwong]

Dat_bokeh - you're getting LBA 8 in the last months after a year that would be around 16 so you're getting it

At least I'm not the craziest one here, I've only got 10. However 8 of those I've bought in the last 6 months or so....

---------- Post added 02-12-14 at 07:39 AM ----------

Address - you've got it under control, good control then.

I only got 3 lenses for my K-5IIs.
FA 43
DA 18-135
DFA 100

and it fits all of my needs. Despite I wanna switch the 43 to 31 because of my curiosity.

---------- Post added 02-12-14 at 07:43 AM ----------

Dansamy - where do you put them all lol

Aren't we all? I thought I had just three more lenses on my list. Then, I bought one of the ones on my list & promptly added two more to it. In addition to the one that was on my list, I also bought 2 other lenses & a teleconverter... that weren't on the list...

---------- Post added 02-12-14 at 07:46 AM ----------

The list

1. Sigma 8-16
2. Pentax 10-17
3. Tamron 17-50
4. Pentax 18-55 (2) (Came with a couple of cameras).
5. Pentax 18-135
6. 21 ltd
7. 35 2.4
8. 40xs (came free on my K-01
9. FA 50 1.7
10. DA* 60-250
11. Sigma 70-300
12. Perntax F 70-210
13. Sigamm 70 macro
14. Tamron 90 macro
15. Vivtar M 135
16. Pentax FA 35-80
17 Pentax A 50 ƒ2
18 Pentax a-400
19. Pentax FA 1.7 TC.

It may seem like a lot... but it's also divided among 2 people so it's only half as bad as it looks. A few of them, the FA 35-80 and A 50 ƒ2, we picked up pretty cheap, just to have something to put on the old film camera in the camera case. That's pretty much what the 18-55s get used for, for older digital cameras...so that's 4 that are being used as body caps. Everything else gets used on a regular basis, as in at least 4 or 5 times a year. We also have a Minolta 50, and a couple of 645 lenses bringing our total to 22, if I haven't missed anything. Only 11 per person...
The DA 18-135 and Sigma 70 macro (me), Tamron 17-50 and Tamron 90 macro (Tessfully) , and the DA*60-250 and SMC A-400 5.6 (me) are the most often used. With the 21 ltd and 50 1.7 getting the most use of the rest.

The Sigma 70-300 and Pentax 70-210 are fun lenses and used for recreational value only... the 35 and 40, hardly ever get used.... the 21 ltd is the lens both of us want at the same time most often followed by the TC... she likes the 50, I like the 35... so really we both have about 6 lenses that we use on a regular basis, with a couple of lenses that overlap, that we both like to use.

My travel bag includes the Sigma 8-16 and 70 macro, And DA 21, 18-135, 60-250 and A-400, and whatever other primes I can comfortably fit in, and the TC. Those 6 lenses and the TC cover everything really well, from 8mm to 680mm, equivalent 12-1000mm.

Normhead - you have both the Sigma 8-16 and the Da 10-17 which cover off mostly the same range, which lens do you like better? Do you use the 8mm range that often? Just interested as I have the Sigma 10-20 and wonder if I would live to have the extra range at times and supposedly better IQ of the 8-16 vs. the 10-20?

[Eyewanders]

Enough. And yet, never enough.

[normhead]

Normhead - you have both the Sigma 8-16 and the Da 10-17 which cover off mostly the same range, which lens do you like better? Do you use the 8mm range that often? Just interested as I have the Sigma 10-20 and wonder if I would live to have the extra range at times and supposedly better IQ of the 8-16 vs. the 10-20?

They are very different lenses... the 10-17 gives a good interpretation of what your eye sees, the 8-16 gives a corrected image, great for architecture, and for those landscapes where there are trees near the borders and having them curved is a distraction, we got the 10-17 first, and just can't get rid of it... way to many great images taken with it...

DA 10-17.. (people in the picture)




SIgma 8-16
If there's going to be a person in the picture try and use the 10-17 or you're going to get a squat looking little person that is totally out of proportion..


My grandson was standing completely balanced, the leg on the right side of the picture was not extended towards the camera... that's the distortion necessary to straighten the architecturally straight lines.

But for keeping those lines straight in architecture, the 8-16 excels...







I'd love to tell you which one to buy...but you either want one or the other, it's rare you could use one for what the other does. People or architecture... two different subjects, two different sets of problems addressed, two different designs, and on a day when I'm expecting UWA images to be taken, i take both.

I suspect your 10-20 is closer to the 10-17 than to the 8-16, which really is a technical lens. The 10-17 was described to me by a Pentax rep as a fun lens... and it really lives up to it's rep. The 10-20 is probably the compromise between the two.

PS
8 mm gets used quite a lot, it's handier than you might think.

[richardwong]

Thanks Norm - you gave a good explanation and images of where each can be used. You have given me something to think about as I also have the DA 15 which I love for the IQ which I think is better than the Sigma 10-20. I understand the the people in the picture concept with the 8-16 and the 10-17.

They are very different lenses... the 10-17 gives a good interpretation of what your eye sees, the 8-16 gives a corrected image, great for architecture, and for those landscapes where there are trees near the borders and having them curved is a distraction, we got the 10-17 first, and just can't get rid of it... way to many great images taken with it...

DA 10-17.. (people in the picture)




SIgma 8-16
If there's going to be a person in the picture try and use the 10-17 or you're going to get a squat looking little person that is totally out of proportion..


My grandson was standing completely balanced, the leg on the right side of the picture was not extended towards the camera... that's the distortion necessary to straighten the architecturally straight lines.

But for keeping those lines straight in architecture, the 8-16 excels...







I'd love to tell you which one to buy...but you either want one or the other, it's rare you could use one for what the other does. People or architecture... two different subjects, two different sets of problems addressed, two different designs.

I suspect your 10-20 is closer to the 10-17 than to the 8-16, which really is a technical lens.

[normhead]

Thanks Norm - you gave a good explanation and images of where each can be used. You have given me something to think about as I also have the DA 15 which I love for the IQ which I think is better than the Sigma 10-20. I understand the the people in the picture concept with the 8-16 and the 10-17.

Most lenses like the DA 15 are compromise lenses, they do correct lens distortion but not completely. They try and find a balance between that and what looks natural for photographing people, so they correct the distortion enough to keep the image from going fisheye, but not enough to make subjects look un-natural. It's one of those secret arts of lens design that gets completely ignored with 2D images on testing sites. That could be why there are a lot more wide angle lenses than there are telephotos. Every wide angle is another kick at the curvature vs. strait lines can, and who knows which might be the right balance? With telephotos it's pretty easy to correct, and because you stand further away, distortion is not so much of an issue.

[richardwong]

Most lenses like the DA 15 are compromise lenses, they do correct lens distortion but not completely. They try and find a balance between that and what looks natural for photographing people, so they correct the distortion enough to keep the image from going fisheye, but not enough to make subjects look un-natural. It's one of those secret arts of lens design that gets completely ignored with 2D images on testing sites. That could be why there are a lot more wide angle lenses than there are telephotos. Every wide angle is another kick at the curvature vs. strait lines can, and who knows which might be the right balance? With telephotos it's pretty easy to correct, and because you stand further away, distortion is not so much of an issue.

Norm - That's interesting. I'm too new to be as discerning yet on lens construction and the effect on the human eye when it comes to photography. What do you think about the IQ of the Da 15 then from a distortion point of view compared to other Pentax UWA lenses?