A whole new system for me!!! I'm lucky guy!

**Pål Jensen** · 05-05-2016, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Cambo

Thanks, Pål. I always value your input. I'm thinking for travel just the three zooms - 12-24, 16-85 which seems to get RAVE reviews, and I value it's added reach, and the 60-250. My sweetie gets impatient with me photographing everything - if I was stopping to change primes, and backing up and moving around...well, I wouldn't put her through that, it would be unfair. I did sell a 300, which I used quite a bit for nature and pet shots, so I need some reach. But I really lust after the 21, 35 or 40, 70 combo of limited primes. Do you have the 20-40? Do you like it? And if I got the 50-135, I'd still need to get something longer, so I'd wind up with two big lenses, which my aging back and shoulders are complaining about. I wish Pentax made like a 100-400 F4 for APSC, then I MIGHT do the 50-135, which I understand people are saying is one of the best lenses ever.

Still got a week or so before the money is released from PayPal, so please keep the good suggestions coming. Thanks, everybody, and thanks, Adam, for a great place for Pentax geeks to hang out.

Cheers,
Cameron

No. I don't have the 20-40, but that lens + the 15mm was on my wanted list before the K-1 clouded the matter. APS will now be for simplicity and low weight even more than before, in addition to close-up and telephoto. So now I would go for the 16-85; so much in one lens and the convenience of a zoom is addictive. 16-85 + the FA* 200 Macro will be my preferred low weight outfit (I won't miss the focal lenghts in between) + maybe the 1.4 converter.
Why not go for the 150-450? I doubt a 100-400/4 would be significantly lighter.

**Kerrowdown** · 05-05-2016, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by FantasticMrFox

this forum is decidedly biased in favour of primes

Another prime route vote from me.

**UncleVanya** · 05-05-2016, 02:24 PM

There are people with a different view of the 60-250...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/319119-lba-...ml#post3612434

Cambo · 05-06-2016, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

No. I don't have the 20-40, but that lens + the 15mm was on my wanted list before the K-1 clouded the matter. APS will now be for simplicity and low weight even more than before, in addition to close-up and telephoto. So now I would go for the 16-85; so much in one lens and the convenience of a zoom is addictive. 16-85 + the FA* 200 Macro will be my preferred low weight outfit (I won't miss the focal lenghts in between) + maybe the 1.4 converter.
Why not go for the 150-450? I doubt a 100-400/4 would be significantly lighter.

a 100-400 APSC would be significantly smaller and lighter than the 150-400 full frame...

Cheers,
Cameron

**UncleVanya** · 05-06-2016, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Cambo

a 100-400 APSC would be significantly smaller and lighter than the 150-400 full frame...

Cheers,
Cameron

This is a source of endless debate but the data seems to suggest that telephoto lenses don't really gain a lot of benefit in size from the APSC vs. Full Frame at the same f/stops. I'm not sure that a constant f/4 zoom from 100-400 would be that small. As an example look at the Panasonic m4/3 100-300 f/4-5.6 that lens is slightly larger and heavier than the Pentax 55-300 f/4-5.8 made for APSC (although reports are pretty good as far as FF goes). it is my understanding that the main benefits come with the smaller focal lengths. For another comparison point the Olympus 300mm f/4 weighs 1300g while the DA* 300 Pentax weighs only 1070g.

Remember that m4/3 is about a 1.33 crop factor relative to APSC and a 2x crop to FF. If any benefit was to be had you would see it in m4/3 I would think.

What likely makes the 150-450 heavy is the excellent glass used in it.

05-06-2016, 12:36 PM	#34
Cambo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,016 Original Poster	I disagree... Originally posted by Pål Jensen No. I don't have the 20-40, but that lens + the 15mm was on my wanted list before the K-1 clouded the matter. APS will now be for simplicity and low weight even more than before, in addition to close-up and telephoto. So now I would go for the 16-85; so much in one lens and the convenience of a zoom is addictive. 16-85 + the FA* 200 Macro will be my preferred low weight outfit (I won't miss the focal lenghts in between) + maybe the 1.4 converter. Why not go for the 150-450? I doubt a 100-400/4 would be significantly lighter. a 100-400 APSC would be significantly smaller and lighter than the 150-400 full frame... Cheers, Cameron

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature New to telephoto, but I feel like I got lucky.	Trees	Post Your Photos!	14	08-05-2018 11:05 AM
Misc I think I'm getting better with this whole lighting thing...	Julie	Post Your Photos!	2	01-29-2013 09:48 PM
Why I'm glad I have a Pentax System	MikeAusP	Pentax K-01	21	06-26-2012 06:37 PM
I'm the new guy....	JFN	Welcomes and Introductions	6	12-21-2011 01:34 AM
Hello from a lucky guy	mand	Welcomes and Introductions	7	02-17-2011 03:07 PM

05-05-2016, 01:23 PM	#31
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Cambo Thanks, Pål. I always value your input. I'm thinking for travel just the three zooms - 12-24, 16-85 which seems to get RAVE reviews, and I value it's added reach, and the 60-250. My sweetie gets impatient with me photographing everything - if I was stopping to change primes, and backing up and moving around...well, I wouldn't put her through that, it would be unfair. I did sell a 300, which I used quite a bit for nature and pet shots, so I need some reach. But I really lust after the 21, 35 or 40, 70 combo of limited primes. Do you have the 20-40? Do you like it? And if I got the 50-135, I'd still need to get something longer, so I'd wind up with two big lenses, which my aging back and shoulders are complaining about. I wish Pentax made like a 100-400 F4 for APSC, then I MIGHT do the 50-135, which I understand people are saying is one of the best lenses ever. Still got a week or so before the money is released from PayPal, so please keep the good suggestions coming. Thanks, everybody, and thanks, Adam, for a great place for Pentax geeks to hang out. Cheers, Cameron No. I don't have the 20-40, but that lens + the 15mm was on my wanted list before the K-1 clouded the matter. APS will now be for simplicity and low weight even more than before, in addition to close-up and telephoto. So now I would go for the 16-85; so much in one lens and the convenience of a zoom is addictive. 16-85 + the FA* 200 Macro will be my preferred low weight outfit (I won't miss the focal lenghts in between) + maybe the 1.4 converter. Why not go for the 150-450? I doubt a 100-400/4 would be significantly lighter.

05-05-2016, 02:11 PM	#32
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,833	Originally posted by FantasticMrFox this forum is decidedly biased in favour of primes Another prime route vote from me.

05-05-2016, 02:24 PM	#33
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	There are people with a different view of the 60-250... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/319119-lba-...ml#post3612434

05-06-2016, 01:08 PM	#35
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	Originally posted by Cambo a 100-400 APSC would be significantly smaller and lighter than the 150-400 full frame... Cheers, Cameron This is a source of endless debate but the data seems to suggest that telephoto lenses don't really gain a lot of benefit in size from the APSC vs. Full Frame at the same f/stops. I'm not sure that a constant f/4 zoom from 100-400 would be that small. As an example look at the Panasonic m4/3 100-300 f/4-5.6 that lens is slightly larger and heavier than the Pentax 55-300 f/4-5.8 made for APSC (although reports are pretty good as far as FF goes). it is my understanding that the main benefits come with the smaller focal lengths. For another comparison point the Olympus 300mm f/4 weighs 1300g while the DA* 300 Pentax weighs only 1070g. Remember that m4/3 is about a 1.33 crop factor relative to APSC and a 2x crop to FF. If any benefit was to be had you would see it in m4/3 I would think. What likely makes the 150-450 heavy is the excellent glass used in it.