[Entropy]

18-55: 220g
17-70: 455g
savings with kit: 235g

50-200: 255g
70-300: 435g
savings with 50-200: 180g

Is this what you meant? Sounded like the opposite?

Whoa... The Sigma 17-70 is that big and heavy? It doesn't seem so.

Maybe it's a center of gravity thing when mounted on the camera - the Sigma doesn't feel much heavier than the short kit, while the Tamron feels a LOT heavier than the long kit.

[sewebster]

Well, I just bought a new FA50 1.4 for $170!

Perhaps off my critical path a bit, but seemed like a good deal. Will definitely help with all these indoor shots I seem to take of my cat.

Hope this isn't the start of this mysterious "LBA" people seem to refer to around here...

[rparmar]

You've had a lot of advice about good lenses but maybe not all is terribly relevant. The all-in-one lenses may not have the IQ you desire, especially at the wide end, which is what you need most for landscapes. The various comments about tele zooms ignore the fact that these are not landscape lenses.

On the other hand, very wide lenses like the Sigma 10-20mm aren't generally suited to landscapes either, though they are great for cramped streets and cityscapes. The reason is that the very small focal length pushes away objects and flattens out the perspective, turning mountains into molehills. I just spent two days down the Dingle Peninsula and before that five along the Dorset coast. Just once in all this scenery I wished for something wider than 16mm. (Instead I took a sequence of shots I can stitch into a panorama.)

For my money the DA16-45 is a great landscape lens because it has the IQ right to the edges of the frame. As an upgrade to the kit you will notice the improvement immediately. And no, it is not noticeably heavy. I got this instead of the DA* 16-50mm because it was way cheaper and lighter, plus I didn't need to gamble with the build quality issues of the latter. I find that the zoom range is just right, since I do end up using it in the 35-45mm range, but never wish it had more. For this reason the 17-70mm zooms do not impress me as much, though if they had the same IQ maybe matters would be different.

The second lens everyone needs for outdoor use is a 100mm macro, and I have two of these depending on whether I need portability or sharpness. With this you can get all your bugs and flowers, if that be your thing, plus get close to geographical or man-made features that are otherwise inaccessible. It also doubles as a longer portrait lens.

The third lens we all need is a fast 50 or equivalent, for indoors, dark woods, twilight and closer portraits.

If I can pack only three lenses I can survive quite nicely with the Pentax DA16-45, Vivitar Series 1 105mm and Pentax FA43 Limited.

[rparmar]

And here are three examples, hot off the press.

Pentax DA16-45 at 40mm:


Vivitar Series 1 105mm:


Pentax FA43 Limited: