[jimr-pdx]

So many good prime options, it's hard to make and stick with a choice!

I leave larger gaps than most, 8fisheye/21/40/70/105; I do have manual 24 and 50s, but they don't come out much. I've toyed with other options but I prefer 40mm to 35 and 50. If you will truly regret letting go of some of yours, I agree that perhaps you shouldn't force the pace.

[Eyewanders]

I know what you mean about the knot in your stomach cause by dropping that much for a 31ltd... I just figured if you parted with those lenses you mentioned letting go to begin with, you could get halfway there at minimum, and if you source a used one, you could easily get most of the way there.
But again, I understand - i spent literally 2 and 1/2 years "considering" it (though it was kinda like the guy in those VW commercials from a couple years back, growing on his head) before I finally purchased one about a year and a half ago. Again, that was justification ... I'd just gotten a really good gig and purchased the 31 to use in it (i'd rented it before) ... the gig *almost* paid for it. haha.

Is there any image samples our there the Sigma 30 1.4 on a Pentax body that anyone knows of? I've never seen any, but haven't really been looking. I read somewhere that it's pretty stellar in general, but notes about plastic mounting pieces and the like stopped me from reading any further.

[MSL]

. Sell the Sigma 24 2.8 and get the Sigma 24 1.8. KEH has 3 refurbs that are very reasonably priced I think you'll enjoy that lens for both outside, and inside pictures of people. Look it up on flickr and I think you'll agree it's a great people lens. You already have the 15 for landscapes anyway.

Sounds great! You buy a 24/1.8 for around $300 and sell me your 24/2.8. 2.8 is fast enough for me.

I find that the DA 35 2.4 is the perfect lens for chasing kids around. On paper it seems a bit slow at 2.4, but let me tell you, it's sharp wide open. And sometimes my K20D selects 2.5 instead of 2.4 (which confuses me a bit), but it's pin-sharp by then! And the skin color and overall rendering are perfect for portraits. They don't call it the "plastic fantastic" for nothing...

The 35/2.4 is also my short list, and every time I knock it off and think I'll just get a zoom, it keeps getting rave reviews from another person. Sigh. LBA - great from a distance until you actually pull the wallet out and try to appease it, at least for a little while.

[sterretje]

I think my want/need for the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 art lens is because I love the beautiful f/1.4 bokeh that my FA 50 produces

It's not a given that the bokeh of the Sigma will be as nice as the bokeh of the FA50. I think you must check images that have already been taken with Canons and Nikons and the Sigma to get an idea.

Having personal 'likes' makes things difficult I currently don't have a need for UWA, so I would sell everything except the DFA100WR and buy the FA31Ltd But the gap between 31 and 100 is huge (from experience) and the FA50 or DA70Ltd (for me a M50/1.7) can come in handy. And if you have a need for 15mm, keep the DA15Ltd.

Ending up with 15 / 31 / 50 or 70 / 100; I would definitely be able to live with that

[azerak]

Your lens line up is almost as the same as mine. Currently I have DA 15, Sigma 24mm 2.8 AF, Sigma ART 35mm, DA 50mm, Sigma 50-150. So if you ask me, I would just keep the 15mm, 24mm, FA 50mm, DFA 100mm, and get the Sigma 30mm.

[ChristianRock]

Sounds great! You buy a 24/1.8 for around $300 and sell me your 24/2.8. 2.8 is fast enough for me.

Well 2.8 is only part of the story. I think the 24 f1.8 is a better lens, regardless of the speed. Not that the Superwide II is bad - it's excellent.
Still, I'll probaly end up with the Superwide II 2.8 because of the price difference. I don't have 300 dollars to spend on a single lens. The 180 on the 35 2.4 was the most I've ever spent on a lens...
Also, now that I bought the Tokina 19-35 I think I'm set on the wide end of things...
But if I ever decide to get real serious and set a couple grand apart for a good upgrade (maybe after we pay off the house...), I think the Sigma 24 1.8 is definitely going to be part of the new lineup, along with a newer body, a decent dedicated macro lens and a better telephoto lens, and maybe a DA 15.

The 35/2.4 is also my short list, and every time I knock it off and think I'll just get a zoom, it keeps getting rave reviews from another person. Sigh. LBA - great from a distance until you actually pull the wallet out and try to appease it, at least for a little while.

You can't substitute the DA 35 2.4 with a zoom... zooms are slower and more expensive. It's totally worth it, for 180 bucks shipped you can't get anything better for kids pictures. I'm not alone in this, I bought mine about 3 months ago because other people here said to me what I'm saying to you now
Set your camera on continuous AF, Program mode so the camera does the thinking for you, and go chase your kids. Sure you might lose a picture here and there because the AF can't keep up in low light sometimes, but you'll have far more keepers than you do now with your manual focus lenses... I guarantee you...

[robbiec]

Sell the lot with the exception of the DA15, FA43, DFA100 and go hunt down the 31 and 77. 77 takes 70, 31 takes 28, 30, 35 imho :-)

[MSL]

You can't substitute the DA 35 2.4 with a zoom... zooms are slower and more expensive. It's totally worth it, for 180 bucks shipped you can't get anything better for kids pictures. I'm not alone in this, I bought mine about 3 months ago because other people here said to me what I'm saying to you now

By slower do you mean minimum aperture or to focus? I agree 180 for the lens makes is an affordable option - but I'm seeing Sigma and Tamron zooms that should be 2.8 min aperture for not much more than 200-250. Factor in the tax on a new lens and there isn't much difference in price, just the warranty on the new lens.

Other than the camera, I spent more on my flash than any of my lenses so I know where you are coming from in terms of not buying the big priced lenses.

[ChristianRock]

Well it might not look it on paper, but in practice the DA 35 2.4 is significantly faster than my 2.8 lenses. I have no idea how 2.4 translates to 2.8 but it feels like 2/3 of a stop quicker.

Also, if you are comparing new vs used, you might as well compare used with used. The DA 35 2.4 has shown up about once a month in our Marketplace forums, and it can be had for around 150-160 used. I've seen it go for quite a bit less than that on Ebay at times.
Then there's KEH. They have an "Excellent" shape one right now for 159, and a "Like New Minus" for 165. They do charge shipping... but it's not a lot, and you can combine other items if you want to buy accessories or more lenses, anyway. I just bought 3 lenses + 5 other items from them and paid the same shipping that I would have paid if I had just bought one lens...

Oh and I did not pay price nor shipping on my DA 35 2.4, maybe things are different in Canada...

[Bigdomino]

Why does everyone need so many lenses? Just wondering.

Steve

[Doundounba]

Well, to come back to the OP's question - which lenses to sell in order to get the new Sigma 30mm F/1.4 - wouldn't it be enough to sell the F 28mm F/2.8 and the FA 35mm F/2, money-wise? Assuming the new lens goes for about $500, don't the used FA 35s go for a bit north of $300 and the F 28s for quite a bit over $200? You say "I think the primes I'd put up for sale would be: smc-F 28mm, FA 35mm, and FA 50mm" but I don't see you needing to sell the 50, though I am told that people that have both the FA 43 and 50 often prefer the 43, so it might make sense, but doesn't seem strictly necessary...

For me, as I think of buying the Sigma 30mm F/1.4, the big question is 24mm. My Sigma 24mm is MF, and I've been thinking of upgrading to an AF version to have a 24/50 two lens prime combo for "street-walking-around" (I have two K-01 bodies and an F 50mm F/1.7). Now this Sigma comes along and... I want it! But I'm not sure it's wide enough to cover the wide end of a two lens walk around combo... What to do? I'm now pondering foregoing 24mm entirely and maybe going for a 15-30-50 trio with the 30/50 mounted and the 15 there if there's a really nice city-scape to capture. But that would have me buying *two* pretty expensive lenses (Sigma 30mm and DA 15) instead of just one that's not too expensive (though rare, the AF Superwide 24mm)...

The thing that is for sure that this new Sigma announcement is very welcome! It really changes the Pentax APS-C prime lens landscape, IMHO. I still wish Pentax would introduce something similar to Fuji's beautiful 23mm F/1.4, but suddenly it's a bit less tempting to go see if the grass is really greener on the other side...

[jtkratzer]

Before buying new lenses, at significant cost, answer this question first – are you particularly dissatisfied with any of your lenses for any reason other than speed for indoor shots? You’re obviously not missing any focal lengths and you have very capable lenses when it comes to IQ and sharpness. If speed is the primary gripe, and you don’t already have one, get a flash. I recently acquired the 31 and 77 and absolutely love them both. I don’t have unlimited funds and I don’t feel the need to have a ridiculous number of lenses, so I spend my dollars on the best I can get in an effort to build a capable kit without having 20 lenses to pick from every time I load a bag. I rarely go anywhere with more than three lenses unless I’m planning on running digital and film.

I picked up a new manual flash in December and that has been the best investment for indoor photography of my 18 month old and almost four year old. I’ve been running an AF280T on auto on the camera and a manual flash on optical slave off camera.
Now…talking about not having a million lenses, I have a bunch, mostly inexpensive and manual lenses, but how many am I using regularly? A few. I have some that I should make an effort to use more often, but life/work dictate the amount of time I have to play photographer.

Back to the flash – fast lenses are great, but you’ll be fighting with increasingly narrow depth of field and still need to run a higher ISO if you’re shooting low light evenings in the house chasing the kids around to minimize blur, etc. Less of an issue as the days get longer, but still, adding a flash has been the best investment for photographing my kids.

[MSL]

Well it might not look it on paper, but in practice the DA 35 2.4 is significantly faster than my 2.8 lenses. I have no idea how 2.4 translates to 2.8 but it feels like 2/3 of a stop quicker. Also, if you are comparing new vs used, you might as well compare used with used. The DA 35 2.4 has shown up about once a month in our Marketplace forums, and it can be had for around 150-160 used. I've seen it go for quite a bit less than that on Ebay at times. Then there's KEH. They have an "Excellent" shape one right now for 159, and a "Like New Minus" for 165. They do charge shipping... but it's not a lot, and you can combine other items if you want to buy accessories or more lenses, anyway. I just bought 3 lenses + 5 other items from them and paid the same shipping that I would have paid if I had just bought one lens... Oh and I did not pay price nor shipping on my DA 35 2.4, maybe things are different in Canada...

Short answer is shipping from US will cost a lot and you run into tax and duty hassles, whether new or used. And sometimes you get hit for fees for the collection of said duties and taxes.
That is why I compared new to used...

Why does everyone need so many lenses? Just wondering.

Need? naw. WANT! you betcha. Just look up LBA on the forums (lens buying addiction)

I don't think a person needs that many lenses, just like you don't need that many wrenches and pliers in your toolbox. But like tools, a lens has its strengths and weaknesses for a particular task, and in some cases may be completely unsuited to task. So then the question is what sort of shooting a person does, and what tools do you need to do it well.
Much fewer *bay auctions for that lens up here

[jezza323]

I picked up a new manual flash in December and that has been the best investment for indoor photography of my 18 month old and almost four year old. I’ve been running an AF280T on auto on the camera and a manual flash on optical slave off camera.
Now…talking about not having a million lenses, I have a bunch, mostly inexpensive and manual lenses, but how many am I using regularly? A few. I have some that I should make an effort to use more often, but life/work dictate the amount of time I have to play photographer.

Good point, I think this will also be important for me when my youngster is more mobile. Whilst I have the old model 30mm f1.4 shooting a moving child with narrow DOF indoors is likely to fail almost all of the time.

[jddwoods]

With today's announcement that Sigma will finally release their updated version of the 30mm f/1.4 Art prime lens for Pentax K-mount, I'm now trying to decide which lenses to get rid of to fund that purchase. Due to my lens hoarding tendencies, however, I may very well just add the new lens without subtracting any, but my wife (and limited bank account) would certainly prefer if I got rid of some overlapping lenses.

My current prime lens lineup is:

DA 15mm f4, DA 21mm f3.2, Sigma AF 24mm f2.8 Super-Wide II, smc Pentax-F 28mm f2.8, FA 35mm f2, DA 40mm f2.8, FA 43mm f1.9 (MIJ), FA 50mm f1.4, DA 70mm f2.4, D FA 100mm WR f2.8

In order to clear space for the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art, I think the primes I'd put up for sale would be: smc-F 28mm, FA 35mm, and FA 50mm. Maybe even my DA 40mm limited even though I enjoy that compact little lens' fast AF and image quality. (It's been hard keeping both FA 43 and DA 40 but I love both for different reasons and would be sad to get rid of one).

Should I do this? I think of trades in professional sports, specifically basketball, and how a team could trade 3 good players to get 1 all-star, super-star player. But I'm afraid I'd regret getting rid of some of my favorite primes: my FA 35mm is very good optically, lightweight, and compact, as are my F 28mm (so sharp, small, and light) and FA 50mm (a sentimental favorite as my first prime lens). Certainly the Sigma 30mm would replace the F28 and FA35, while my FA 43 and DA 70 can easily take the place of my FA 50mm as a portrait lens. (And my love/needs for f/1.4 capability would be met by the Sigma, at a more "convenient" focal length on APS-C than the FA 50).

Note: Full-frame compatibility is not a concern for me, so me getting rid of 3 FF-capable lenses for a APS-C only digital lens is not a big concern. And yes, I could also sell off the 3 lenses to try to get a FA 31mm limited but I prefer the f/1.4 and HSM motor of the Sigma 30 art lens, plus it's at least half the cost.

Any suggestions/feedback would be appreciated!

I have a K5 and a lens lineup very similar to yours: DA Limiteds: 15, 21, 35 macro, 40, 70, in other words all of them. Rounding out my primes I also have F 28 mm 2.8 and DFA 100 WR. If I wanted to change my lineup to my dream lineup, I would give up the F 28mm and the DA 40 mm and get (one of the following: 43mm FA limited or DFA 50 mm macro or DA*55) and the 1.4x teleconverter. Actually the Sigma 30 mm 1.4 does not interest me and neither does FA 31mm. That niche would be filled either by the 28mm F (my least used lens) or the DA 35 mm macro which is my favorite of my lineup. If the world changed and allowed me to keep only 3 lenses they would be the 21mm (compact great street lens) and 35 mm limiteds and the DFA 100 WR, both of which fill dual purposes of normal and telephoto as well as macro. I really like keeping things compact which is why no zooms. If needed I have DA 17-70 but I actually prefer carrying 2 or 3 limiteds to using the zoom, I keep it mainly for my son or wife to use on my backup K10D.