[Michi Joel]

LBA tells me I need something to cover 21mm down. True, I do not have anything below 21mm.
LBA shows me the Sigma 10-20mm EX DC for 250 €.
What do you think?

[Conqueror]

LBA tells me I need something to cover 21mm down. True, I do not have anything below 21mm.
LBA shows me the Sigma 10-20mm EX DC for 250 €.
What do you think?

Samyang 10mm f2.8 + Pentax DA 15mm f4

[Michi Joel]

Samyang 10mm f2.8 + Pentax DA 15mm f4

Nice! but... 460+ 538 = 998€

[Conqueror]

Nice! but... 460+ 538 = 998€

The price of LBA?!

[pen_tax]

I have 5 lenses

[maryjo]

I also have just four. I wish they were really good ones! I think if I were a better photographer, I could justify spending more on some great lenses. Then I wonder if I would be a better photographer if I bought the better lenses first.

[LensBeginner]

I also have just four. I wish they were really good ones! I think if I were a better photographer, I could justify spending more on some great lenses. Then I wonder if I would be a better photographer if I bought the better lenses first.

Mmmh... no.
OTOH the DA 50mm f/1.8 is anything but a bad lens, and the two pictures you uploaded so far are pretty good!

[wtlwdwgn]

I also have just four. I wish they were really good ones! I think if I were a better photographer, I could justify spending more on some great lenses. Then I wonder if I would be a better photographer if I bought the better lenses first.

New cameras and lenses don't make better photographers only richer camera companies. I would concentrate on developing your photography instead of the equipment.

Look who's talking. I have 6 DSLRs and 19 lenses!

[dadipentak]

I would concentrate on developing your photography instead of the equipment.

Sound advice. But seriously, one of the great things about Pentax is that you have the ability to shoot with a great variety of really good legacy lenses. If you're serious about learning photography, they will teach you a lot.

[PPPPPP42]

If I had the cash I would only have a very few top end zooms to cover everything.
I have mostly lenses that are lower cost but decent to good quality, but they can only do so much so I need them all.

[aurele]

New cameras and lenses don't make better photographers only richer camera companies. I would concentrate on developing your photography instead of the equipment.

Look who's talking. I have 6 DSLRs and 19 lenses!

Hé hé hé ! You're right ! Better improve skills than financial results of compagny !

On the other hand, having acces to so many of those lens for cheap on the second hand market, doesn't really help ... i have a problem, and i'm trying to solve it : i have LBA issues 13 lenses, and 5 Pentax bodies and, i think you got the idea ... Nobody's perfect ...

[DavidSKAF3]

Well, here's some evidence of how obsessive/compulsive my Lens Buying Addiction has become. I actually maintain this nifty chart! I even included the Pentax Forums ratings! I suppose it seemed important for some reason.

And it looks like I'm preparing for a Pentax Full Frame DSLR. :-)

This collection doesn't make much sense, until you take into account that I began buying and collecting as a no-nothing newbie who jumped at any lens I came across that seemed like a bargain. And so I definitely have the 28-70 focal length well-covered! And that's why there's little here that would interest pros and aficionados.


Now that I have a little bit of experience, I find the lenses I use the most are:

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 "C"
Pentax-DA L 55-300
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

I still find myself avoiding all of my primes, especially the M42, even though I splurged and got the genuine $50 Asahi Pentax M42 adapter and the peculiar removal tool.

The only lens here that has truly disappointed me is the Tamron 28-300.

I have a Wish List too. It shows that my tastes are getting more expensive! But high prices, SDM reliability concerns, and the possibility of a Full Frame body around the corner have me looking more frequently at FA and F lenses than the top DA lenses.

I welcome any advice and consultation. Thanks for looking!

[GaryH]

Impressive suite!


Just some questions that came to my mind...
- why did you sell the (IMHO perfect) DA* 50-135 ?
- the DA 20-40 is covered by DA* 16-50 - is there any other reason (except weight and size) why to use 20-40 instead 16-50 ?
- according to your experience, what are differences between DA* 60-250 and 55-300 performance ?
- in which situations are you putting on DA* 300 vs. DA* 60-250 ? I mean in which cases do you prefer one or the other?


(Seems like our lens taste is pretty similar, but I'm behind in the number...)

I sold the 50-135 to fund the FA 77. I felt that the 60-250 had IQ that is just as good as the 50-135 and that I might be more satisfied with the FA 77 results for a portrait lens.
I bought the 16-50 and 20-40 last year at
BF. Decided to return the 20-40 because it was soft on the left side. I have had a couple of 16-50's . It is a great lens to use in lower light when a zoom is needed or to travel with a high quality pair like it and the 60-250.
I decided to try the DA 20-40 again when the price dropped. I use it as a walk around lens here in Philly. It and my K5iis or K3 will fit in my Domke F5xb bag and the short zoom range is great for city architecture. It is also much lighter than the 16-50 and not as massive.
The 60-250 and the DA 300 are in a different league than the 55-300. Not that the 55-300 is bad. You just get some great IQ from those two DA* lenses. I use the DA 300 for wildlife along with the HD 1.4x now. Unfortunately It does not see as much use now since we live in the city.
The 60-250 along with a TC is my choice for travel when I plan to be getting wildlife shots. I took that combo along with the 16-50 to Alaska in 2010 and used the AFA 1.7x adapter with the 60-250 and got some very nice whale pics. I would rate the IQ of the 60-250 neck and neck with the DA 300 which is remarkable for a zoom.
The 55-300 and 60-250 cover similar ranges but the 60-250 is faster and better IQ. However, I don't always want to haul the DA* lens since it is pretty heavy.
The 55-300 is a great lens to take almost everywhere when I think I may need a longer lens without the bulk and weight.
I don't necessarily NEED all of these lenses but it is nice to have the flexibility. Just gets frustrating sometimes trying to decide what to take when getting ready for a trip.....

[dadipentak]

I don't necessarily NEED all of these lenses but it is nice to have the flexibility. Just gets frustrating sometimes trying to decide what to take when getting ready for a trip.....

Totally makes sense to me and your last sentence highlights one of the real costs of promiscuous lens acquisition: the agonies of decision are exponential. I would imagine the same applies to lovers--not that I'm speaking from experience in that regard.

[GaryH]

lol!!