[leadbelly]

I'm streamlining my lens lineup. Just got the 50-135 for an absurdly low price and so that makes the 16-50 the perfect choice... now, with the money I am saving for the wide end, is the 16-50 worth it (weathersealing and SDM as well as IQ if I get a good copy)? Or should I get the 16-45 and 35mm limited? I am a macro enthusiast, and love the idea of a walkaround normal prime with macro capabilities, I have the Viv 28/2.8 Close Focus, and it is currently my fave walkaround lens. Plus the threads showing how great the 35mm limited is, just added fuel to my LBA fire...

Or the third (most expensive!)option, which is having the 50-135 as my only zoom, and getting all primes for wide to normal shots?

[BBear]

In a similar situation, but instead of the 35mm limited I am considering the FA 35mm f/2.0 (i need speed and not macro)


really hard choices... because the 16-50 really appeals me but it is heavy, big, and this bad QC scaries me!

[NaClH2O]

I actually went a third route. I got the Sigma 17-70 instead. Roughly the same price as the 16-45 and much further reach on the long end. And faster at the wide end. I would say that IQ is similar to the 16-45.

NaCl(to each his own)H2O

[audiobomber]

I'm streamlining my lens lineup.

- that makes the 16-50 the perfect choice

- Or should I get the 16-45 and 35mm limited?

- Or the third (most expensive!)option, which is having the 50-135 as my only zoom, and getting all primes for wide to normal shots?

Only one of these choices fits my definition of "streamlining".

[BBear]

Only one of these choices fits my definition of "streamlining".

he he he.. that is a precise comment, but I understand what the OP meant.

[Gooshin]

In a similar situation, but instead of the 35mm limited I am considering the FA 35mm f/2.0 (i need speed and not macro)


really hard choices... because the 16-50 really appeals me but it is heavy, big, and this bad QC scaries me!

AFAIK the "QC" problems of the DA*16-50 are on the K10D's and the problem is miscommunication between the lens and the body resulting in BF or FF issues.

since few people know how to use the debug menu ( i know i dont.. yet) they have to send both the lens and the camera to Pentax for 10 minutes of their time.

the real QC problems, such as poor assembly or faulty electronics are in reality much less once you weed out the poor calibrated units.

[leadbelly]

Only one of these choices fits my definition of "streamlining".

hh... yeah I know Though compared to my current lens lineup (a cornucopia of manual, A lens, 3rd party crappy zooms, etc...) any of the choices would be relatively "streamlined."

I'm going for the 35mm limited... maybe that would be it, maybe not... we'll see...

[creampuff]

leadbelly, I'd opt for the DA 16-45mm + DA 35mm Macro combo.
If you're tired of carrying the zoom around, the smaller DA 35 is versatile enough to shoot subjects close or far, yet small enough and fast enough to shoot discreetly. That's a big plus in my book.

[axl]

neither, get only the 35ltd for now...
you said yourself that you like macro...
wide anlge? get DA21... you won't feel it in the pocket, longer end? hm, let's see...DA70
ta daaaa, you have covered 21-70, though with some "jumps" but they are all small, opticaly perfect, faster then 16-45, and you'll have 1:1 capability... do I have to continue...
oh, if you want anything wider then 21, Sigma 10-20 fits the bill, and then you are seriously ready to go....

[creampuff]

Yes that's another option, going with a prime set-up and building a DA Limited collection.

But the DA 21 is more expensive than the DA 16-45 and isn't very much faster aperture wise, though it is very nice and cute. However 16mm is quite a bit wider than the 21mm. So many premutations possible just whether it matches the budget.

[lesmore49]

I have the 16-45 Pentax. Very happy with this lens except for the lens hood sticking in storage mode.

[leadbelly]

Actually, I have the 10-20, but I rarely use it... if I do, I have a hard time using it! Besides, for what I shoot, I figure 16mm is wide enough for me (indoor shots, group shots...) which is why I'm selling it to fund the 16-50/2.8 or 16-45 + 35mm limited... I actually considered the 21, 40, 70 combo before (especially to use with my K100d) but was turned off by the price and relatively slow 21 (though IQ-wise, beautiful!), then the 35mm limited was released and I fell in love!

So I'm thinking now:

- 16-45 or 16-50* for wide to normal use...
- 35mm limited (if I choose the 16-45) for a nice, compact walkaround that's fast enough and versatile enough for long to close up shots...
- 50-135* for my mid to tele needs (I have the 18-250, but I find it too slow and looking at my EXIF, found I use the 40-120 range 90% of the time)
- and a Sigma 105 macro for insect macros...

I already have the latter 2 so the wide end is what I am lacking...

[leadbelly]

How come BH doesn't have the 35mm limited macro on sale while all others do? Hassle since I get all my stuff from them...

[BBear]

Talking about B&H, today I finally went there to check both DA*16-50, FA35 f/2 & Tamron 17-50. Unfortunately i was there for work and did not have my pentax with me. But it was worth checking these lens in person.


First impression, based on handling them only:


* Tamron 17-50: i was actually very impressed with build quality, zoom and focus ring were nicely tight. It seemed like a very high quality lens.

* Pentax DA* 16-50: after reading MANY "complaints" about its size, I thought it was going to be HUGE... but it was NOT! Actually it was slightly bigger and heavier than the Tamron. You could tell it was a bit better built quality and it was a bit sexier. The sample lens had the focus ring broken or something, because i could rotate and didnt hit a stop (though the distance screen would hit infinity or close focus spots).


* FA 35mm f/2: just like I expected... small and light. no surprises here.



I will try to come back with my camera soon.. i think they are closed this sunday though. Let's see.



Later

[Canada_Rockies]

Talking about B&H, today I finally went there to check both DA*16-50, FA35 f/2 & Tamron 17-50. Unfortunately i was there for work and did not have my pentax with me. But it was worth checking these lens in person.


First impression, based on handling them only:


* Tamron 17-50: i was actually very impressed with build quality, zoom and focus ring were nicely tight. It seemed like a very high quality lens.

* Pentax DA* 16-50: after reading MANY "complaints" about its size, I thought it was going to be HUGE... but it was NOT! Actually it was slightly bigger and heavier than the Tamron. You could tell it was a bit better built quality and it was a bit sexier. The sample lens had the focus ring broken or something, because i could rotate and didnt hit a stop (though the distance screen would hit infinity or close focus spots).


* FA 35mm f/2: just like I expected... small and light. no surprises here.



I will try to come back with my camera soon.. i think they are closed this sunday though. Let's see.



Later

The DA* lens focusing rings will turn more than 360 degrees. This is normal. There is a slight "notch" feel when you hit the end of the focus range, but the ring keeps on going. It is a side effect of the instant MF system. It is not a problem with the lens. Both my DA* lenses act exactly like that.

PS - I LOVE my DA* 16-50. Best walk around lens I have ever owned. With the MZ-S, my walk around was the almost as good, but much slower FA 24-90. That f/4.5 at 90 was a killer at dusk.