Advice needed to reorganize lens collection

nukeglus · 08-06-2014, 02:53 AM

Hi to all! I'm a new user of the forum (even if I've lurked a lot in the past years... ), and I decide to start my partecipation with a suggestion request.

I like to do mostly landscape and sometimes some portraits and macro.
Here I post a graph of my actual lenses lineup, where I represent max aperture at any focal length, and a graph of the focal length I used in the last 1500 photos. I'm using a K-5 II, but I'm going to get a K-3 soon.
I'm thinking to sell the FA28-200, and buy the DA35 2,4, and maybe something else...
What do you think about that? Have you some suggestion? Something to buy (LBA is increasing...

), or something to sell?
Thanks in advance to everyone!

Attached Images

Last edited by nukeglus; 08-06-2014 at 02:13 PM. Reason: changing graph

**TER-OR** · 08-06-2014, 05:25 AM

Such analysis! The 28-200 seems a bit superfluous here, and if you're thinking to get rid of it I don't think you'd miss it.

What can't you do now? Are you missing shots you'd like?
The only real thing I can see missing is a lens like the 10-17 Fisheye, which is a lot of fun. Or a 300mm prime, if you're a wildlife photographer.

bdery · 08-06-2014, 05:35 AM

Nice way of analyzing things, only the horizontal scale on the first graph is a bit misleading

The 28-200 and M50 are indeed unnecessary as your graph has shown.

You seem to use the 18-135 and 17-50 quite a lot at the wide end, there may be something there to ponder. A DA15 or DA21, maybe?

bassek · 08-06-2014, 05:42 AM

This analysis is the pathway to doom, either LBA or LSA (S for selling). Or the most severe case, LTA (T for trading).
Beware.

Seb

VoiceOfReason · 08-06-2014, 05:58 AM

I'd sell the M 50 and 28-200 because you have overlap with better lenses, then get something either longer or wider. Perhaps the Sigma 150-500 or the DA*300 and 1.4 TC, or, if you wanted even wider the Sigma 8-16.

**Lowell Goudge** · 08-06-2014, 06:05 AM

What the graphs show is that you have a lot of overlap it also suggests to me, reading between the lines that you use almost all your lenses at either minimum or maximum focal length. Seep peaks at 10' 17, 17, 50, 140, 250

In reality I would ditch the 18-135 and 28-200 because they do nothing at all for your kit and you can live with the 10mm gap between 50 and 60 mm.

Keep the primes, but your kit should really only be 3 zooms to get you from 10-200+mm and the 10-24, 17-50 and 60-250 achieve this.

Change lenses more or get a second body

nukeglus · 08-06-2014, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by TER-OR

Such analysis! The 28-200 seems a bit superfluous here, and if you're thinking to get rid of it I don't think you'd miss it.

Thanks! Actually it is what remains from my previous camera, K100D along the 50M1,7... I'm not using it anymore, it's too soft and bulky. The latter is a good lens, but since I bought the FA50 has lost sense.

Quote:

What can't you do now? Are you missing shots you'd like?
The only real thing I can see missing is a lens like the 10-17 Fisheye, which is a lot of fun. Or a 300mm prime, if you're a wildlife photographer.

Well, I'd like to improve IQ near the focal lengths I'm using more often... I'm tempted to buy a Limited lens, but not sure if it's worth and which one. The fisheye it's a good idea, I've never thought about it. I'm only thinking how often I could make use of it...
The truth is, I'm afraid, that next week I'm going to visit NYC, and I'm searching some reason to feed my LBA at B&H store

nukeglus · 08-06-2014, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by bdery

Nice way of analyzing things, only the horizontal scale on the first graph is a bit misleading

The 28-200 and M50 are indeed unnecessary as your graph has shown.

You seem to use the 18-135 and 17-50 quite a lot at the wide end, there may be something there to ponder. A DA15 or DA21, maybe?

I'm not very good with graph, I was playing with Numbers just before leaving for holidays

In fact I was just thinking of a DA21, but what block me is the max aperture, 3.2: compared to the Tammy 17-50, is the increase of quality worth it?

---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 03:22 PM ----------

Originally posted by bassek

This analysis is the pathway to doom, either LBA or LSA (S for selling). Or the most severe case, LTA (T for trading).
Beware.

Seb

I'm fully aware of it, unfortunately... In fact I was looking for some wise advice here in the forum

---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 03:35 PM ----------

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

What the graphs show is that you have a lot of overlap it also suggests to me, reading between the lines that you use almost all your lenses at either minimum or maximum focal length. Seep peaks at 10' 17, 17, 50, 140, 250

In reality I would ditch the 18-135 and 28-200 because they do nothing at all for your kit and you can live with the 10mm gap between 50 and 60 mm.

Keep the primes, but your kit should really only be 3 zooms to get you from 10-200+mm and the 10-24, 17-50 and 60-250 achieve this.

Change lenses more or get a second body

I agree with you... The only problem that I see selling the 18-135 is that I'd loose the WR in that focal range... What if I sell the 17-50, 18-135, 28-200, 10-24 and buy a 16-50 star and sigma 8-16 (thanks VoiceOfReason for the suggestion

)? mumble... Could be a good idea?

VoiceOfReason · 08-06-2014, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by nukeglus

I'm not very good with graph, I was playing with Numbers just before leaving for holidays

In fact I was just thinking of a DA21, but what block me is the max aperture, 3.2: compared to the Tammy 17-50, is the increase of quality worth it?

---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 03:22 PM ----------

I'm fully aware of it, unfortunately... In fact I was looking for some wise advice here in the forum

---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 03:35 PM ----------

I agree with you... The only problem that I see selling the 18-135 is that I'd loose the WR in that focal range... What if I sell the 17-50, 18-135, 28-200, 10-24 and buy a 16-50 star and sigma 8-16 (thanks VoiceOfReason for the suggestion

)? mumble... Could be a good idea?

That should work. You will have a 10 mm gap in WR, but that should be no problem.

nukeglus · 08-06-2014, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

That should work. You will have a 10 mm gap in WR, but that should be no problem.

Ok, now I have only to see how much this change could cost me...

What about IQ? From what I read it would be near the same as before, right?

VoiceOfReason · 08-06-2014, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by nukeglus

Ok, now I have only to see how much this change could cost me...

What about IQ? From what I read it would be near the same as before, right?

The 8-16 is very sharp, and while the Tamron 10-24 is nice it isn't quite as sharp as the 8-16. The Sigma 8-16 is what made me sell my Tamron 10-24, but unless you find an 8-16 reasonably I'd stick with the Tamron you have. The 16-50 should have similar IQ to your 17-50, but have WR. Personally I'd keep the 18-135 and the 17-50. Wait, I did...

I do see you are missing the long end, which is why I suggested the Sigma 150-500 while selling the 28-200 and M50. Sure, that will set you back a little, but once you get some of those wildlife and moon shots I think you will like it.

**TER-OR** · 08-06-2014, 07:21 AM

Do you like the 10-24? If you don't use it wide, a DA21 would be attractive, or shell out for a 15mm.
The Sigma 8-16 is a special lens, it's really cool. It is, unfortunately, also very expensive right now.

Personally I'd keep the 18-135, though if you're set on replacing it with the 16-50* lens you'll have to do that math.

lytrytyr · 08-06-2014, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by nukeglus

What do you think about that? Have you some suggestion?

I think there's too much numerology, and too little photography!

A lens isn't just determined by its focal length.
Photographically, what's important are how the lens renders,
and the kinds of photographs you're inspired to take with it.

atupdate · 08-06-2014, 07:39 AM

I have the Tamron 28-200 and use it a lot when out with the family. It minimizes the number of lens changes required when walking about. I was very thankful for this when last shooting in late winter / early spring conditions (cold with snow melting). Just giving you something to think about.

Tim

MBike74 · 08-06-2014, 07:52 AM

I love my DA21, don't worry about the f3.2, that is a more than fair trade off for how tiny that lens is. You know how nice your camera feels when you unscrew a big zoom and slip on the 50mm...it's even nicer with the little bitty DA21.

I have the 18-135 and I enjoy that lens tons; that and the 10-17 fish are the only 2 zooms I have. I love the WR feature and all around utility. If you really needed to pair your kit down and you still want WR but you like the f2.8 of the Tammy, you know you only have about one option...Ditch the 17-50, 18-135, & 18-200 that should generate around $900, and buy the DA*16-50. You have now freed up 3 overlapping holes in your Domke and filled only one of them back up.

Oh yeah, don't forget to pick up a sweet used DA21. Force yourself to bring only it on your camera on a day when you prob would not bring a camera. Enjoy the glorious feeling of lightness. If it's not your thing...resell for same money.

08-06-2014, 02:53 AM	#1
nukeglus New Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 19	Advice needed to reorganize lens collection Hi to all! I'm a new user of the forum (even if I've lurked a lot in the past years... ), and I decide to start my partecipation with a suggestion request. I like to do mostly landscape and sometimes some portraits and macro. Here I post a graph of my actual lenses lineup, where I represent max aperture at any focal length, and a graph of the focal length I used in the last 1500 photos. I'm using a K-5 II, but I'm going to get a K-3 soon. I'm thinking to sell the FA28-200, and buy the DA35 2,4, and maybe something else... What do you think about that? Have you some suggestion? Something to buy (LBA is increasing... ), or something to sell? Thanks in advance to everyone! Attached Images Last edited by nukeglus; 08-06-2014 at 02:13 PM. Reason: changing graph

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens rental advice needed	jegr	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	01-06-2014 09:37 PM
Advice needed on recent purchase of damaged lens	davidreilly3207	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	12-03-2013 07:44 PM
Portrait Lens Dilemma. Advice needed!	turff	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	05-23-2013 01:44 AM
Sigma To Reorganize Lens Lineup.	bossa	Photographic Industry and Professionals	18	09-18-2012 03:45 AM
DVD collection to computer, seeking advice on wich method	the swede	General Talk	9	12-14-2011 01:57 PM

08-06-2014, 05:25 AM	#2
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Such analysis! The 28-200 seems a bit superfluous here, and if you're thinking to get rid of it I don't think you'd miss it. What can't you do now? Are you missing shots you'd like? The only real thing I can see missing is a lens like the 10-17 Fisheye, which is a lot of fun. Or a 300mm prime, if you're a wildlife photographer.

08-06-2014, 05:35 AM	#3
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Nice way of analyzing things, only the horizontal scale on the first graph is a bit misleading The 28-200 and M50 are indeed unnecessary as your graph has shown. You seem to use the 18-135 and 17-50 quite a lot at the wide end, there may be something there to ponder. A DA15 or DA21, maybe?

08-06-2014, 05:42 AM	#4
bassek Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 706	This analysis is the pathway to doom, either LBA or LSA (S for selling). Or the most severe case, LTA (T for trading). Beware. Seb

08-06-2014, 05:58 AM	#5
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I'd sell the M 50 and 28-200 because you have overlap with better lenses, then get something either longer or wider. Perhaps the Sigma 150-500 or the DA*300 and 1.4 TC, or, if you wanted even wider the Sigma 8-16.

08-06-2014, 06:05 AM	#6
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	What the graphs show is that you have a lot of overlap it also suggests to me, reading between the lines that you use almost all your lenses at either minimum or maximum focal length. Seep peaks at 10' 17, 17, 50, 140, 250 In reality I would ditch the 18-135 and 28-200 because they do nothing at all for your kit and you can live with the 10mm gap between 50 and 60 mm. Keep the primes, but your kit should really only be 3 zooms to get you from 10-200+mm and the 10-24, 17-50 and 60-250 achieve this. Change lenses more or get a second body

08-06-2014, 06:07 AM	#7
nukeglus New Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 19 Original Poster	Originally posted by TER-OR Such analysis! The 28-200 seems a bit superfluous here, and if you're thinking to get rid of it I don't think you'd miss it. Thanks! Actually it is what remains from my previous camera, K100D along the 50M1,7... I'm not using it anymore, it's too soft and bulky. The latter is a good lens, but since I bought the FA50 has lost sense. Quote: What can't you do now? Are you missing shots you'd like? The only real thing I can see missing is a lens like the 10-17 Fisheye, which is a lot of fun. Or a 300mm prime, if you're a wildlife photographer. Well, I'd like to improve IQ near the focal lengths I'm using more often... I'm tempted to buy a Limited lens, but not sure if it's worth and which one. The fisheye it's a good idea, I've never thought about it. I'm only thinking how often I could make use of it... The truth is, I'm afraid, that next week I'm going to visit NYC, and I'm searching some reason to feed my LBA at B&H store

08-06-2014, 06:13 AM	#8
nukeglus New Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 19 Original Poster	Originally posted by bdery Nice way of analyzing things, only the horizontal scale on the first graph is a bit misleading The 28-200 and M50 are indeed unnecessary as your graph has shown. You seem to use the 18-135 and 17-50 quite a lot at the wide end, there may be something there to ponder. A DA15 or DA21, maybe? I'm not very good with graph, I was playing with Numbers just before leaving for holidays In fact I was just thinking of a DA21, but what block me is the max aperture, 3.2: compared to the Tammy 17-50, is the increase of quality worth it? ---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 03:22 PM ---------- Originally posted by bassek This analysis is the pathway to doom, either LBA or LSA (S for selling). Or the most severe case, LTA (T for trading). Beware. Seb I'm fully aware of it, unfortunately... In fact I was looking for some wise advice here in the forum ---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 03:35 PM ---------- Originally posted by Lowell Goudge What the graphs show is that you have a lot of overlap it also suggests to me, reading between the lines that you use almost all your lenses at either minimum or maximum focal length. Seep peaks at 10' 17, 17, 50, 140, 250 In reality I would ditch the 18-135 and 28-200 because they do nothing at all for your kit and you can live with the 10mm gap between 50 and 60 mm. Keep the primes, but your kit should really only be 3 zooms to get you from 10-200+mm and the 10-24, 17-50 and 60-250 achieve this. Change lenses more or get a second body I agree with you... The only problem that I see selling the 18-135 is that I'd loose the WR in that focal range... What if I sell the 17-50, 18-135, 28-200, 10-24 and buy a 16-50 star and sigma 8-16 (thanks VoiceOfReason for the suggestion )? mumble... Could be a good idea?

08-06-2014, 07:01 AM	#9
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Originally posted by nukeglus I'm not very good with graph, I was playing with Numbers just before leaving for holidays In fact I was just thinking of a DA21, but what block me is the max aperture, 3.2: compared to the Tammy 17-50, is the increase of quality worth it? ---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 03:22 PM ---------- I'm fully aware of it, unfortunately... In fact I was looking for some wise advice here in the forum ---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 03:35 PM ---------- I agree with you... The only problem that I see selling the 18-135 is that I'd loose the WR in that focal range... What if I sell the 17-50, 18-135, 28-200, 10-24 and buy a 16-50 star and sigma 8-16 (thanks VoiceOfReason for the suggestion )? mumble... Could be a good idea? That should work. You will have a 10 mm gap in WR, but that should be no problem.

08-06-2014, 07:06 AM	#10
nukeglus New Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 19 Original Poster	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason That should work. You will have a 10 mm gap in WR, but that should be no problem. Ok, now I have only to see how much this change could cost me... What about IQ? From what I read it would be near the same as before, right?

08-06-2014, 07:19 AM	#11
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Originally posted by nukeglus Ok, now I have only to see how much this change could cost me... What about IQ? From what I read it would be near the same as before, right? The 8-16 is very sharp, and while the Tamron 10-24 is nice it isn't quite as sharp as the 8-16. The Sigma 8-16 is what made me sell my Tamron 10-24, but unless you find an 8-16 reasonably I'd stick with the Tamron you have. The 16-50 should have similar IQ to your 17-50, but have WR. Personally I'd keep the 18-135 and the 17-50. Wait, I did... I do see you are missing the long end, which is why I suggested the Sigma 150-500 while selling the 28-200 and M50. Sure, that will set you back a little, but once you get some of those wildlife and moon shots I think you will like it.

08-06-2014, 07:21 AM	#12
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Do you like the 10-24? If you don't use it wide, a DA21 would be attractive, or shell out for a 15mm. The Sigma 8-16 is a special lens, it's really cool. It is, unfortunately, also very expensive right now. Personally I'd keep the 18-135, though if you're set on replacing it with the 16-50* lens you'll have to do that math.

08-06-2014, 07:38 AM	#13
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by nukeglus What do you think about that? Have you some suggestion? I think there's too much numerology, and too little photography! A lens isn't just determined by its focal length. Photographically, what's important are how the lens renders, and the kinds of photographs you're inspired to take with it.

08-06-2014, 07:39 AM	#14
atupdate Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dayton, OH Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,724	I have the Tamron 28-200 and use it a lot when out with the family. It minimizes the number of lens changes required when walking about. I was very thankful for this when last shooting in late winter / early spring conditions (cold with snow melting). Just giving you something to think about. Tim

08-06-2014, 07:52 AM	#15
MBike74 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Litchfield Park AZ Posts: 78	I love my DA21, don't worry about the f3.2, that is a more than fair trade off for how tiny that lens is. You know how nice your camera feels when you unscrew a big zoom and slip on the 50mm...it's even nicer with the little bitty DA21. I have the 18-135 and I enjoy that lens tons; that and the 10-17 fish are the only 2 zooms I have. I love the WR feature and all around utility. If you really needed to pair your kit down and you still want WR but you like the f2.8 of the Tammy, you know you only have about one option...Ditch the 17-50, 18-135, & 18-200 that should generate around $900, and buy the DA*16-50. You have now freed up 3 overlapping holes in your Domke and filled only one of them back up. Oh yeah, don't forget to pick up a sweet used DA21. Force yourself to bring only it on your camera on a day when you prob would not bring a camera. Enjoy the glorious feeling of lightness. If it's not your thing...resell for same money.