[cali92rs]

Unfortunately, years of neglect by Ricoh's predecessors have put us between a rock and a hard place when it comes to full frame prime lenses.
a) If you want weather sealed primes, your only choices are the DFA 100mm WR macro, DA* 200mm and DA*300mm. So you are fine on the longer end of things, not on the wide end.
b) If you want a prime with silent focusing (in lens motor), the only choices are also above (minus the 100mm WR which is screw driven). The noise doesn't bother me as much as the fact that there is no quick shift.
C) If you want to buy something new and avoid the risks inherent in buying used, the widest prime you can get is the 31mm. Although a great lens, is missing the features I mention above. And 31mm is not all that wide.
d) The limiteds, while render they like no other, are not as corrected for things like CA and purple fringing. Some think that is part of their charm. Some don't like it. It is subjective of course.

Fortunately, there is good news The 15-30mm, 24-70, 70-200 and 150-450 are superb lenses that can go toe to toe with any other zoom lens out there.

[jeverettfine]

I am of the opinion that zooms can make photographers lazy. I go back to the days when primes were really the best way to go, as zooms just were not that good. Admittedly, they have improved considerably and post processing makes things even better, but still, I would rather select my subject and frame by changing my viewpoint closer, further away or change focal length than simply zoom to frame. Sure, it can take time, but I believe it makes for better results. If you have been used to using primes, why change? Too many people are seduced by the "latest" but not necessarily "better" thing. Of course, I know more than one professional photographer who is a techno-geek and is always selling equipment to buy the latest stuff. It can be an expensive education.
I do understand that you would want WR lenses to match the Pentax body. If being able to photograph in challenging conditions is very important, then go with the WR lenses that fit your needs.

[asp1880]

Unfortunately, years of neglect by Ricoh's predecessors have put us between a rock and a hard place when it comes to full frame prime lenses.
a) If you want weather sealed primes, your only choices are the DFA 100mm WR macro, DA* 200mm and DA*300mm. So you are fine on the longer end of things, not on the wide end.
b) If you want a prime with silent focusing (in lens motor), the only choices are also above (minus the 100mm WR which is screw driven). The noise doesn't bother me as much as the fact that there is no quick shift.
C) If you want to buy something new and avoid the risks inherent in buying used, the widest prime you can get is the 31mm. Although a great lens, is missing the features I mention above. And 31mm is not all that wide.
d) The limiteds, while render they like no other, are not as corrected for things like CA and purple fringing. Some think that is part of their charm. Some don't like it. It is subjective of course.

Fortunately, there is good news The 15-30mm, 24-70, 70-200 and 150-450 are superb lenses that can go toe to toe with any other zoom lens out there.

I think the DA* 55/1.4 works on the K-1 as well. That one is also weathersealed.

Regards,
--Anders.

[FtYoU]

I am of the opinion that zooms can make photographers lazy. I go back to the days when primes were really the best way to go, as zooms just were not that good. Admittedly, they have improved considerably and post processing makes things even better, but still, I would rather select my subject and frame by changing my viewpoint closer, further away or change focal length than simply zoom to frame. Sure, it can take time, but I believe it makes for better results. If you have been used to using primes, why change? Too many people are seduced by the "latest" but not necessarily "better" thing. Of course, I know more than one professional photographer who is a techno-geek and is always selling equipment to buy the latest stuff. It can be an expensive education.
I do understand that you would want WR lenses to match the Pentax body. If being able to photograph in challenging conditions is very important, then go with the WR lenses that fit your needs.

I don't quite agree with this. I mean that's not the way I use zooms. I use them like a combination of primes, meaning before any pictures I know exactly the focal length I need for the kind of shot I am facing. So I will basically dial the focal length beforhand and then do my composition like if it was a prime. I think this is a superior approach to zooming to compose because when you zoom you changing the background compression and the FOV, so you are not getting the shot you have in mind.

Looking at zooms this way it is just basically an infinite set of primes at your disposal. Obviously I only dial a few focal length (for 24-70 it would be typically, 24, 35, 50 and 70 for me). The advantages would be versatility and WR (in case of Pentax), But the primes are obviously faster and my post was trying to know if it was also superior in terms of IQ, consistently.

[savoche]

I don't quite agree with this. I mean that's not the way I use zooms. I use them like a combination of primes, meaning before any pictures I know exactly the focal length I need for the kind of shot I am facing. So I will basically dial the focal length beforhand and then do my composition like if it was a prime. I think this is a superior approach to zooming to compose because when you zoom you changing the background compression and the FOV, so you are not getting the shot you have in mind.

Looking at zooms this way it is just basically an infinite set of primes at your disposal. Obviously I only dial a few focal length (for 24-70 it would be typically, 24, 35, 50 and 70 for me). The advantages would be versatility and WR (in case of Pentax), But the primes are obviously faster and my post was trying to know if it was also superior in terms of IQ, consistently.

That is indeed the way to use a zoom IMO. The problem a lot of us have is that we tend to use the zoom instead of moving to get the right angle and perspective. Thus the recurring "zooms make me lazy" comment.

I believe my use of zooms has benefited from me mostly shooting primes for a while now. YMMV.

Edit: To respond to the original question; I don't think there is much (if any) difference in quality between primes and modern zooms. Some primes may have more "character" but that's hard to measure.

[FtYoU]

Edit: To respond to the original question; I don't think there is much (if any) difference in quality between primes and modern zooms. Some primes may have more "character" but that's hard to measure.

OK. That's the sentiment I get from a lot of response apparently. So I guess going for the latest zoom are on part with the sensor and the image the K-1 can produce.

[savoche]

OK. That's the sentiment I get from a lot of response apparently. So I guess going for the latest zoom are on part with the sensor and the image the K-1 can produce.

The new zooms look impressively good to me. The main reason I have for (probably) not getting them is the bulk and weight of those things. I stick to primes when I can, and not necessarily the fastest ones. I can bring heavier stuff when I have a specific reason, but bring a light kit most of the time.

[BigDave]

I have found that zoom lenses were designed for convenience. Does this mean he photographer is lazy? No. It means they must change focal lengths faster than a prime would allow. Examples are sports photography, nature photography and wedding photography. Try shooting various formal shots with a large group, switching lenses or moving all the time. And what about the throw distance for the flash? Likewise, with a moving subject, zooming in or out as you shoot is usually the only option. Cudos to the old sports photographers that were able to get some great action shots with a single lensed press camera! Zooms make life easier for quick shooting situations. And when the choice is a little image clarity loss, or missing the shot, I choose the former.

The other reason, as has been inferred, is the multiple focal lengths in one lens. If you only have space for a limited number of lenses, zoom lenses are generally the best option.

I have a selection of both. If I have the time and can carry a number of lenses, certainly, the prime is the choice. Otherwise, I am packing the zoom.