800€ is my budget (thank you for my earkier birthday present mom) and I already own the three FA Limited (31,43 and 77) and a SMC M 50 f/1.7
So I have not yet decided about one or more of the following diferent shooting styles: Macro, landscapes and architecture, telephoto.
Telephoto: well, this is a problem. Since I don´t like "heavy" or bulky/long lenses there seems to be almost no choices in this department. Shure the 200 f/2.8 would be nice but not the size! Have no ideas in here but keep in mind that even the 50-135 I find too big! Do you have any suggestion?
Macro: I won´t be doing bugs. It is for some ocasional flora but mostly indoors macro - you know, coins, kitchen utensils and "portrait macros". I discarted all amazing macros like the Sigma 180 and similars because of size. I´m leaning towards the 35 Limited or the Tamron 90 f/2.8. Just not sure what would suit me best. Can you help me here? Also since I have the 31 and 43 wouldn´t it be really ridiculous to get the 35? Or do you think, since it is macro, focal length of normal primes doesn´t matter?
Wider: I really want the 21... but from one side it is not wide enough (maybe) and by having the 31 would it be plain stupid to own both? I´m not sure.
The alternative is the 12-24 f/4. But since its purchase won´t allow me anything else I don´t know if it would be the right choice since I´m not sure how much I would use it.
Damn! I´m so confused! If only I could get them all
Have you considered the 12-24, or sigma 10-20? or even a 10-17 fisheye?
I never found 21mm to be wide enough for vacation travel and photographing in tight spots, (city archetecture, inside cathedrals, etc.) I have a 10-20, and since I bought it, it is used for about 20 % of all shots I take, and 12% of those are at 10mm!
If you like travel, wide is much more important than long.
If you want telephoto, but not a lot of weight, go for an older SMC K 135f2.5. Light fast and long(ish) for detail work.