[csa]

As I mentioned, I've already made a deal on a Tokina 400 lens, so on the telephoto end, I'm good for now.

[Des]

So all that remains is the macro, the wide-normal and the ultrawide!

Your choices across the board look very like mine, so of course I think you are on the money. So my comments might have some relevance:
UWA: The 12-24 is a very enjoyable lens, although all the ultrawides require a learning curve. The Sigma ultrawides are a bit cheaper, but also have lots of fans. See the comparative reviews by PF staff. Maybe the harder choice is between a zoom and a prime (DA 15 has many fans). Personally I like the flexibility of a zoom in this range. Each 1mm of focal length changes the FOV quite a lot. The 12-24 is not heavy but it is bulky; the prime is a big advantage there.
Wide-normal zoom: Countless threads about this. Popular nominations include 16-45, 16-50, Sigma 17-70, Tamron or Sigma 17-50, 18-35, 20-40, 18-135 and the new 16-85. As a complement to an UWA lens, there are also the various zooms that were popular on film cameras: 24-60, 24-70, 28-75, 35-70 etc. For the time being I am making do with a combination of 12-24, 35, 50, 55-300, 77 and 18-250. What my zooms lack (apart from WR) is speed (and, in the case of the 18-250 and 55-300, stellar resolution). But you don't have to cover every single FL with a fast lens; a couple of primes can work well. So many primes to choose from in this range that you might be better first to use the kit lens for a while and see which FLs you prefer, then aim for a prime or two at that length (e.g. 31 and 43, 35 and 70, 21 and 50, etc). Your UWA would cover the wider end and the 55-300 the tele end.
Macro: The DFA 100 WR is a marvellous lens; you can't go wrong with it. Tamron 90 is a popular and cheaper alternative. One of the older manual focus macros would be a good choice too because mostly I use MF for macro anyway. The Cosina 100 is the bargain pick of the macros.

[csa]

Des, thanks for a very informative reply! Yes, I've been drooling over the 12-24, or the Sigma for covering the UWA. Thanks for giving alternative to the DFA 100 WR; this is my first choice; however I might consider the others. Mid range, for now I'm content with the 18-55 WR, until I decide which range of the zoom I use the most.

[Des]

Carol, how about jumping at these?
www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/280562-sale-da12-24-fa77-100-wr-macro-raynox-250-af-540fgz.html
What a kit! And they look like fair prices to me.

The 100 with a Raynox 250 would awesome - and the Raynox would work well with your other lenses.

[mole]

Carol - Congratulations on the Tokina - hope you enjoy it as much as I've enjoyed mine. If your copy is similar to mine, it seems to shine at around F 8-9. Also, be sure to work on your long lens holding techniques. You can find several good threads here on that topic. And remember you can't go wrong with any of the 100 mm macros (or their "near relatives" in the 90 - 105 mm range).

[csa]

Des, I cannot afford anymore at this time; after buying the 400mm. I have to build up my lineup a little at a time.

[csa]

Mole, thank you! I'm really looking forward to getting some usage out of it! Actually, I've had a lot of experience (many years ago, with slrs), as far as hand holding long lens. I've had no problems holding the 55-300. I'll certainly remember to try F8-9 on it!

[boriscleto]

When you get some photos with the 400 post them to the 300mm+ lens club.

[csa]

When you get some photos with the 400 post them to the 300mm+ lens club.

Thank you, I'll be most happy to post them in there!

[DSims]

One absolutely can--it's the most boring FL ever!

Also, forget those 400mm lenses--get the DA*300/4. Don't worry about 'overlap' with the 55-300: the zoom is about the zoom--not about 300mm . Those 400's are ok but they can't touch the DA*300 (with or without a good TC)

That's what I say.

I just realized I'm rid of all my 50s except for the A50/1.7, and that one's lent out! I believe I have no primes between the FA28 and the FA*85 now. Even my Soft lenses are the FA28 Soft and FA85 Soft, come to think of it. So yes, one can live without it!


You're probably right about the DA* (or FA* or F*) 300 being better than the Tokina 400 - even if you have to crop. And there's certainly no overlap with the DA55-300 - the 55-300 can't even come close to giving the nice effect the *300s do. But the Tokina costs significantly less than the *300s, so it's probably a good choice for now.

---------- Post added 12-08-14 at 11:07 AM ----------

Under most circumstances I'd advise to get a better lens over a better body, but realising that you're shooting a K10D (released 8 years ago!) you might actually want to consider an upgrade. Currently the K5 II(s) is pretty much shelled out at ridiculously low prices and I'd go as far as to say that the advances in camera technology over the last 8 years (resolution, high-ISO, dynamic range, metering, autofocus etc.) easily rival the advantage you'd get from a new lens.

I disagree - even on the K10D I think the lenses will make much more difference. You could make me shoot with only my K200D for a good while, but don't take my lenses away!


I don't mean to completely contradict you, because I agree - a new body will certainly help if you need higher ISO or faster AF, for example. But in most cases it would still be better to get a used K-x (or anything since it) and spend the rest on lenses until you have a few you're really happy with.

[csa]

"You're probably right about the DA* (or FA* or F*) 300 being better than the Tokina 400"

Not to mention, a lot more money for those! I'm very content with my purchasing the Tokina 400; it may not live up to other's expectations; however the only expectation that matters is mine; and I'm very excited to be able to get it!

[emalvick]

To the OP...

I think it was smart you went with the 400 mm for now. As for other lens needs (especially your question of 50 mm), the smart thing to do is to look at photos you've taken and take stock on what focal lengths YOU use the most. You already have 50 mm covered and everything from 18-300. With digital, a 30+ mm lens might be more useful. There are also good macros at 50 mm and 35 mm range that could double up for you if you really want to shoot macro.

Finally, when it comes to buying other lenses, especially zoom lens, consider lens size and weight. I say that because one reason I hold off on the DA*300 is it is way larger than any other lens I own, and I'm not sure I'd get the use out of it to justify it. I have the 55-300, like you, and I think I'm going to stick with it a bit longer. I'm more likely to get a 60-250 instead, but I'm even worried about its size. For wide angle, I recently got a 15 mm, and I'm almost certain it will replace my wide angle zoom. It's so much smaller with better image quality.

[csa]

Thanks for your response! From my old days with slr's, I'm very aware of some of the lens size & weight. I had some pretty hefty ones for my Canon, and as you mentioned, they didn't get the usage, like the smaller, more portable ones did.

For macro, my future lens will be the Pentax 100 macro; probably the DFA.