[NaClH2O]

I currently have a K100D Super with the FA 35mm F2 and DA 50-200mm F4-5.6.

Debating on one of the following options:

1) Purchase 21mm F3.2 limited (21, 35, 50-200 covered)
or
2) Sell 50-200mm and purchase 70mm F2.4 limited and 21mm F3.2 limited (21, 35, 70)
or
3) Sell 35mm F2 and purchase DA* 16-50mm (16-50, 50-200)

Forget the 21mm and get the FA 20mm F2.8 instead. IMHO a much better lens.

NaCl(prime glass thru and thru)H2O

[Jimbo]

After about eight months with the K10 I am starting to focus on certain shots and seemed to be leaning towards Macro and landscape... so I tend to lean towards certain type of lenses... good luck on your choices.. in the end its about your "Style" JIMBO

[mkawada]

Forget the 21mm and get the FA 20mm F2.8 instead. IMHO a much better lens.

NaCl(prime glass thru and thru)H2O

I've never heard of this lens, so I Googled it and found out it's an old lens, like the 28mm FA and discontinued. The only site that has it lists it at $520. If I could find a *2nd* for a good price, it would definitely be considered.


Anyway, thank you everyone for your replies! I'm pretty set on the 21mm F3.2 limited, since the:

14mm is fast, BUT heavy and very expensive
12-24mm is heavy, very expensive, and only F4
16-45mm zoom is versatile and reasonably-priced, but only F4.
16-50mm zoom is versatile and fast...BUT very heavy and expensive.

21mm is pretty fast, lightweight, compact, and reasonably-priced, although not as versatile. Seems like the best overall lens of the 5 though.

Thanks again for all your suggestions. I will go ahead and keep the 35mm F2 and 50-200mm zoom, just add the 21mm to my collection.

[janosh]

The logic behind 21/3.2 and 70/2.4 is tiny size and superb detail resolution (primes are virtually always much better than zoom). FA lenses are huge by comparison, less rugged, and aren't as good for manual focus.

Zooms are OK if you don't mind extremely large lenses, don't prioritize detail resolution, and don't want to zoom with your feet.

I'll probably wind up with a 50-135, but only because the 135/2.8 isn't available.

---

Last edited by janosh; 07-21-2008 at 07:47 AM.

[Cambo]

since you have to sell stuff to get other stuff. Don't sell anything - you've got a nice little collection happening already.

Thinking strictly photographically, in your shoes I would buy the NEW 18-55 II, which is excellent and goes perfectly with the 50-200 as a great light 2 lens travel set. Ignore the snob factor, these are great little zooms, the best ever in the history of consumer lenses. They are as cheap, small and light as they could possibly be, and are magnificently sharp. You can work on your prime collection later; look out for good used deals.

Also, if you sell that 50-200, you WILL miss it; it is a great and teeny little lens, light as a feather and very handy, this coming from an FA* prime snob. I love mine and will not part with it, and for $139.00, unbelievable. The thing is a photographic miracle. And so is the 18-55II. You've got everything covered from 27-300 with 2 teeny lenses; then you can concentrate on your photography, not keeping up with the Jones'.

Cheers,
Cameron

[janosh]

2 teeny lenses; then you can concentrate on your photography, not keeping up with the Jones'.

Teensy?

Those zooms are GIGANTIC in a pack, by comparison to the three pancakes I carry. Not nearly as rugged as the pancakes, don't manually focus as well (if that's relevant), aren't weather/dust proof (for me that IS relevant), and in the end they're just zooms... detail resolution inferiority of zooms has only been seriously debated related to Canon L (and Canon L primes, which may be comparable to
Pentax pancakes, are a lot better than Canon L zooms).

Zooms generally record 2/3 the lines per millimeter of good primes, about 1/4 the lpm of modern medium/slow film. When zooms became dominant, magazines stopped talking about lines per millimeter for obvious financial reasons.

[gkopeliadis]

Those zooms are GIGANTIC in a pack, by comparison to the three pancakes I carry. Not nearly as rugged as the pancakes, don't manually focus as well (if that's relevant), aren't weather/dust proof (for me that IS relevant), and in the end they're just zooms... detail resolution inferiority of zooms has only been seriously debated related to Canon L (and Canon L primes, which may be comparable to
Pentax pancakes, are a lot better than Canon L zooms).

Zooms generally record 2/3 the lines per millimeter of good primes, about 1/4 the lpm of modern medium/slow film. When zooms became dominant, magazines stopped talking about lines per millimeter for obvious financial reasons.

Yeap! But primes don't zoom

[Seraf]

i would sell the zoom and but the 21mm prime or 14mm prime!

[axl]

I voted for option 1.
at least for now...
Definitely don't sell 35. For indoors it's the best you have, and I believe it will make nice walk around kit with 21 and 50-200. If you really want to go all prime, get the 70 but I'd still keep 50-200 at least until you figure out which lens would replace it at 200mm...
BR

[Chyn]

Someone suggested earlier to get the second version of the kit lens, which I would also second. The kit lens is wonderful in terms of price/performance and very light, making it a good travel combo with your 55-200. The 35/2 will be indispensable for your low-light, interior shots.

[mkawada]

Now that the poll is closed, I just wanted to thank everyone one more time!

I've decided on purchasing the 21mm at least for now; been keeping an eye out for a *2nd*! About the 50-200mm zoom vs. the 70mm, I may just set the zoom to 70mm, take it out, and see how that pans out. If that FL is acceptable, the zoom may go; if not, it's staying!