[NicoleC]

Currently, my kit is as follows:

• Old DAL 18-55 - Very soft. I never use it unless I am going to need that focal length for casual pictures, and even then I have grown to intensely dislike this lens.
• Old DAL 50-200 - Acceptable quality and a pleasure to use, but I rarely take it out of storage. 200mm isn't long enough for wildlife and 50mm isn't wide enough for a walk-around.
• DFA 100mm macro - The lens I use most. I take lots of handheld macro and the size and weight really work for this. I don't, however, like it as much as my now-dead Sigma 70mm. I preferred the Sigma rendering and 70mm was more useful for many non-macro shots, but I don't miss the weight.
• Limited 15mm - I totally adore the wide angle, but the softness of this lens has been a real disappointment to me and I'm not happy with it. Maybe I have a poor copy.

The 15mm and the 100mm are my regular kit when I go hiking. The two DA-L lenses don't justify their additional weight, for me. I was thinking of purchasing a standard prime, either the DA 35 or the 40mm XS, but a walk-around lens would be really helpful. I have 2 events in the spring where a telephoto or super telephoto would really be helpful.


Although the affordable 18-200/250/270/300s are tempting, I have (mostly) discarded them from consideration. IQ -- especially sharpness -- is more important to me than convenience. After my experience with the 15mm, I'm not sure the Pentax Limited Primes are a good fit for my aesthetic. Plus, I don't have the budget for an FA31mm and FA 77mm to round out my kit anyway.


So I am looking at either a standard telephoto or a standard prime to round out my usable kit. I've looked at the focal lengths I commonly use, and unsurprisingly they are 15mm and 100mm.


Corner A: The Sigma 17-50mm or 17-70mm or the new Pentax 16-85mm. Either might allow me to resell the 15mm from my kit. The Pentax 16-85mm is somewhat of an unknown, but the IQ on the 17-50mm seems superior to the 17-70mm. I'm not sure if 50mm is enough length, though, or if it would leave me with another gap.


Versus


Corner B: The addition of a prime 35mm or 40mm, or even the Sigma 24mm or 28mm. Leaves big gap before I get to my DFA 100mm


My two primary considerations are weight as mounted on the camera (I have hand and arm problems) and sharpness. AF is a must. Secondary considerations: I'd like to stay under or near $500, which tosses the 16-85mm out of the running for at least a while, and quick focusing. Quick shift is desired, but I can give it up. Tertiary consideration: a FF compatible lens would be preferred.


I don't need macro because I have a good one already. I have no need for soft and forgiving portraits; I want detail and precision. WR would be nice, but not a deal breaker. This is also my last serious lens purchase for a while. It needs to work to fill a gap for the foreseeable future; I'm very concerned the primes I am looking at would leave me wishing for a 70mm-ish lens.


How do you decide between a good prime and a good zoom when you are putting together a working kit? I perused the used selection at KEH and no discontinued/old film rock stars seems to show up there, presumably because they stay in a photographer's kit instead.


I realize a lot of this is very subjective. Statistics and prices I can hammer out alone, but I think most of our PF users have been at a stage where they are trying to elevate their kit, Philosophical, meandering and precise considerations are welcome!

---

Last edited by photolady95; 12-23-2014 at 03:37 PM. Reason: fixed typo

[Driline]

Used FA 43 under $500. Extremely sharp, great color and contrast.End of story.

[savoche]

I don't have a lot of input on your lens choices, but as for deciding between zooms and primes, well, I don't. I have them for different use.

My zooms (DA 18-135 and DA 55-300) are mainly for travel or other situations where convenience trumps image quality. Not that either of them offer bad quality, but primes are better.

My primes are for when I have the time or special need for something a zoom can't give me, typically speed, width, or small size.

So: zooms for coverage and convenience, primes for everything else.

Others will have different views, guaranteed

[whk1992]

I don't have a lot of input on your lens choices, but as for deciding between zooms and primes, well, I don't. I have them for different use.

My zooms (DA 18-135 and DA 55-300) are mainly for travel or other situations where convenience trumps image quality. Not that either of them offer bad quality, but primes are better.

My primes are for when I have the time or special need for something a zoom can't give me, typically speed, width, or small size.

So: zooms for coverage and convenience, primes for everything else.

Others will have different views, guaranteed

20-40 is a bag of prime

[savoche]

20-40 is a bag of prime

Ummm... Nope. Too long to replace the 15, too big to replace the 21, too slow to replace the 43...

No, the 20-40 is excellent, I'm sure. My point is it's for a different purpose - at least it would be for me. Zooms are better for some things, primes for other.

[crewl1]

The DA 18-135 can replace your two DAL kits and has better IQ IMO.
It is a convenient walk around option if you don't want to be changing lenses.

The DA40LTD is cheap and renders fine images. The DA35 is cheaper, and is sharp as well.
You could get both a DA35 and DA50 for under your budget, and the prime IQ will beat the zooms.

You have options.

[reeftool]

Although my 18-55 kit lens has acceptable IQ, I purchased the Sigma 17-70c earlier this year and have no regrets. It's larger and heavier but not a burden. The range works well for me and the close up/macro range is very handy. It's faster, sharper, and the HSM motor is silent if that matters to you. I find it a great walk around lens.

[NicoleC]

I think I would really like the 20-40. I like the test photos I see from it, but my gut says it won't be a solution... If not, why would I consider a 30 or 40ish prime? hmmm.


I don't think the 18-125 is for me. The focal length coverage sounds great, but in reviews I keep hearing "as good as the 18-55." That doesn't sound like an upgrade to me.


Thanks for the input so far!

[bladerunner6]

I think I would really like the 20-40. I like the test photos I see from it, but my gut says it won't be a solution... If not, why would I consider a 30 or 40ish prime? hmmm.


I don't think the 18-125 is for me. The focal length coverage sounds great, but in reviews I keep hearing "as good as the 18-55." That doesn't sound like an upgrade to me.


Thanks for the input so far!

The plastic fantastic 35 maybe???

[NicoleC]

The DA 35 is definitely under consideration!

[northcoastgreg]

How do you decide between a good prime and a good zoom when you are putting together a working kit?

I've been fortunate enough to be able to get both, but I think a general rule to only buy primes for focal ranges you're comfortable shooting, and zooms for everything else. Also, certain subject matters require different lenses. I regard lenses like the DA 20-40, the DA 17-70, the DA 16-85 as get-everything-in-focus-lenses. They're good for landscapes, architecture, general travel photography, but not ideal for portraits, which are better served with f2.8 zooms or primes.

The lens I use most. I take lots of handheld macro and the size and weight really work for this. I don't, however, like it as much as my now-dead Sigma 70mm. I preferred the Sigma rendering and 70mm was more useful for many non-macro shots

Perhaps a preference for the rendering of the Sigma 70mm indicates a general preference for the rendering of Sigma glass as opposed to Pentax glass? In that case, maybe either the Sigma 17-50 or 17-70 would be the best choice? From what I've heard from the reviews of these lenses, they both fall under the "plenty sharp" category, with differences between them being mostly insignificant in practical use.

[r0ckstarr]

I only use prime lenses, so my input is based only around primes.

DA L 35 and DA 50 1.8. Both the 35 and 50 are lightweight, cheap, and provide great results. Then you would have 15, 35, 50, 100. A great all around kit to carry.

(Also, if you stop down on the 15, it gets sharper)

[DSims]

The DA15 has good IQ at f/4.5, so I'm not sure what the problem is there. Perhaps sharpness is your number one criteria, and you're very particular about it. Or perhaps you have a poor copy.

Personally, I decided a while ago that the beauty of a photo was more important than the sharpness. Sharpness can really make the foreground subject stand out (e.g. with the DA*55), but obviously there's much more that's important as well. I'm not sure this is where you're coming from, but it sounds like it may be. If so, get an M or A100/2.8, and it will cure you. Seriously - don't even bother investing in another lens until you've done that. Whether or not it ends up changing your direction, it's a decision point I believe you need to go through now - that is, if you haven't already.


But if your tastes remain similar to what they are now, I can tell you what you need to do: You need to sell every lens you have. Then get a DA*50-135 (plus a cosina 100/3.5 macro (or similarly priced macro lens) if you still take genuine, close-up macro shots). After that, work on the wide end - realizing there's no perfect solution there. Generally the Tamron and Sigma 17-50/2.8s or the DA35/2.4 are your best buys here. This should all come in within your budget - especially if you buy used.

While it's true that the DA*50-135 doesn't focus quite quickly enough for a few of the very fastest-paced sports, other than that it's a nearly perfect lens (as lenses go). This is why you need one.



EDIT: I just looked at your profile. I hope I'm not being harsh here, but what are you doing messing around with substandard lenses when you have a K-3? If you can't afford at least 2 very good lenses right now, you'd be better off selling the K-3 and putting the money toward better lenses for your K-x. (I normally consider the DA15 a very good lens, but clearly your copy isn't for you). I never went past my K-x until I'd spent at least 5-7 times the (original, new) price of the K-x on lenses I really liked.

Also, I'm curious what the "tipping point" is on how heavy a lens may be, because I noticed that the DA*50-135 - while larger than your current lenses - is only 200g heavier on a K-x than the D FA 100 on a K-3.

[filoxophy]

You say you prize sharpness. Seems like the DA35 Ltd Macro fits that bill. I know you are happy with the DFA100 and don't require another macro, but if you enjoy handheld closeups and want a sharp normal FL, that's where I'd look. It also has quick shift, which the DA50/40/35 lack.

You could blow it all on the 35 Ltd, or get a DA16-45/4 plus DA35/2.4. Lots of ways to skin this cat.

[kh1234567890]

Sell the DA15 and get a DA21 instead.