[rzakbzak]

Hey all,

I've recently been hit with the LBA bug after purchasing a couple nice lenses (was actually thinking of downsizing at one point). My current kit consists of the following:

K-50
DA 18-55 kit WR
HD DA 55-300 f4-5.8 WR
Sigma 18-35 f1.8
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
DA 35 f.2.4
A50 f1.7

I'm now focusing my attention on adding some compact primes, and am looking at picking up the Pentax limited 15/40/70. Would that be a good way to round out my kit? Would you recommend other primes over the 15/40/70?

[SpecialK]

Hey all,

I've recently been hit with the LBA bug after purchasing a couple nice lenses (was actually thinking of downsizing at one point). My current kit consists of the following:

K-50
DA 18-55 kit WR
HD DA 55-300 f4-5.8 WR
Sigma 18-35 f1.8
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
DA 35 f.2.4
A50 f1.7

I'm now focusing my attention on adding some compact primes, and am looking at picking up the Pentax limited 15/40/70. Would that be a good way to round out my kit? Would you recommend other primes over the 15/40/70?

You already have a bit of overlap. The 15/40/70 (and 21) makes a nice set, though. I'd weed out the 35, 50 and the Sigma or Tamron.

[RobA_Oz]

The DA15 is a great little wide angle. I can't speak for the others, because I went for the FA Ltds instead. One thing I can add, though, is that you think about ditching the DA35/2.4 and adding the DA35/2.8 macro. It's a great lens on APS-C (I'm finding it's also good on 35FF, in spite of some vignetting) and is a useful "normal" as well as macro lens. You could consider not getting the DA40, too, as the FoV isn't too far off that of either DA35.

[Sandy Hancock]

The DA15 and DA70 are amazing lenses on a crop sensor. No brainers in my opinion.

If you have the 35 I'm not sure the 40 adds much apart from quick shift and the limited cool factor. The focal length never did it for me on crop.

The DA21 is worth considering too.

[rzakbzak]

You already have a bit of overlap. The 15/40/70 (and 21) makes a nice set, though. I'd weed out the 35, 50 and the Sigma or Tamron.

I am leaning towards selling the Tamron and 35 and keeping the Sigma (recent purchase) and 50 (wont get much for it). The 21 is very tempting as well though my Sigma covers off 18-35.

The DA15 is a great little wide angle. I can't speak for the others, because I went for the FA Ltds instead. One thing I can add, though, is that you think about ditching the DA35/2.4 and adding the DA35/2.8 macro. It's a great lens on APS-C (I'm finding it's also good on 35FF, in spite of some vignetting) and is a useful "normal" as well as macro lens. You could consider not getting the DA40, too, as the FoV isn't too far off that of either DA35.

The 35 macro is also very tempting but I like the compactness of the 40, which isn't too far off in terms of FOV. In terms of photo quality, is there a significant difference between the two?

The DA15 and DA70 are amazing lenses on a crop sensor. No brainers in my opinion.

If you have the 35 I'm not sure the 40 adds much apart from quick shift and the limited cool factor. The focal length never did it for me on crop.

The DA21 is worth considering too.

The 15 and 70 are definitely the first two I will purchase

So if I go with the suggestions above, my kit would consist of the following:

18-55/55-300 WR (covers off inclement weather scenarios)
Sigma 18-35
A50 1.7
Limted 15/40/70 or 15/35/70

Oh, the opportunities...

[pepperberry farm]

one of the things that I have found out to be invaluable for my own LBA is the Single In Challenge - it helps me weed out the lenses that I don't want/like/use.... within the last month, I've sold off a 50mm macro, a 28mm, and a 24mm, mainly because the lenses either were duplications of focal length or I just did not enjoy using the lens...

I've also discovered that I would rather use a good prime than a mediocre zoom (say goodbye, kit lenses)....

[JohnX]

When you're looking at lens choice it's not just overlapping FL you need to consider, but also IQ and usage. Your Sigma may well cover 21mm, but how does the IQ compare with the 21 Ltd? That said, the Sigma is a versatile walk-around lens. You may want to look at the Pentax 12-24. Superb IQ and often referred to as a collection of primes in one lens.

For my own part I know I have huge overlap in my collection, but justify this to myself by breaking my lenses up into functional groups.

All my DA Ltd's are paired with a K-S1 to give a great light-weight, high IQ walk-around kit.

My DA* zooms + 12-24 with a K3II for IQ and versatility, etc.

---

Last edited by JohnX; 10-22-2016 at 05:32 AM.

[Na Horuk]

I'd say get the DFA 100mm WR macro. It is medium telephoto, a prime focal length you don't yet have, allows true 1:1 macro, it is WR, has QS, and is amazing all around.
You can also get one of the older versions, like the non-WR DFA or the FA version. They are optically practically the same, but have different features and price points
Sure, it is not super compact, but the WR version is compact for 100mm macro lenses.

[pathdoc]

The Pentax Limited primes are excellent. Given that you already have a 35mm, I would leave either the 35 Limited Macro or the 40 Limited for now, unless you would benefit ergonomically from having a VERY compact lens on your camera that fitted in at the "long normal field of view" end (FOV is equivalent to 60mm, so approximates the 58mm lenses of old). Then it would be a decision as to whether you wanted that compact prime for handle-ability or the significantly longer and larger macro prime for ultra-close-focus work (and 1:1 macro if you need it). How much do you use your 35mm prime lens right now?

The 15 gives you a focal length you don't already have in any form, so if I were going to get them, I would consider that one first.

The 70 is in my experience just exquisite. That would be next.

As far as the 21 is concerned, I think it is just about the widest Limited lens I would consider when taking pictures of people per se. It's great for putting people in the broad context of what they are doing while still keeping them in the forefront, while the 15 tends to make them part of the scene a little too much (which is fine if that's what you're trying to do, and maybe it's good for large-group photos in cramped quarters, but it's the last thing I'd use for portraits).

I have a Lowepro Nova 1 AW camera bag, a fairly small shoulder-slung affair, but in it I was able to transport my K-5 and the 15, 21, 40 and 70 millimetre DA Limited primes, plus a few accessories (charger, card reader, cable release, tabletop tripod). That was quite the photographic arsenal. The tripod was a small and cheap affair, but it was still good enough to hold the K-5 with the 40mm on it if I wanted to take a long-exposure shot with the cable release.

[sarge]

I say buy all the DA Limiteds!
I have the 15 and the 70. They are both great lenses. My next will be the 35 Macro followed by the 21 and then the 40. I only wish they were weatherproof. That is their single shortcoming.
I grabbed an 18-55 WR kit lens just for the weatherproof design when needed.

[Kozlok]

Outside, in the sun, I'll pick the 21 Ltd over the Sigma 18-35 every time. Indoors, with bad light, and the Sigma is the right choice.
I think you're approaching this whole thing incorrectly. Each lens is a tool, better at some things, worse at other. What you should do is decide what photographic quality you want to improve on, and get a lens that does that. If all you do is studio portraits, the DA15 is almost useless. If you want to get wide angle shots with a starburst-sun in the frame, or night time shots with starburst in the streetlights, the 15 and 21 are amazing. If I'm at an indoor family event and want photos of my family, the Sigma 30/1.4 gets that job done better than any other lens I have. If I want a nice landscape shot, the Sigma is terrible.

Before you listen to anyone's advice on what lens to get, think about what you're trying to accomplish from an image standpoint. Also, think about each of your lenses in the same way. Is there anything the DA35 does for you that the Sigma zoom won't? If you don't mind the weight of the Sigma, the answer may be no. If you hate having a giant lens, the more compact lenses may be the best choice for you. Does the kit lens offer anything the other don't (it's WR, is that important to you?). Ask these kinds of questions.

One more bit of advice, buy used lenses, here on the forum, use them and if they don't gel with your photography, sell them again, buy something different. It's not a high-risk decision, and buying a lens isn't permanent, so just do it and decide for yourself.

[UncleVanya]

I own the 15/40/70 combo. I used to own the da 35 and own the FA31 and FA 35. (Long story). After getting the 40 I sold my da 35. The others came later.

The da 40 is a very nice compact lens. I like the way it sees the world as well - better than I liked the DA 35 but the difference is slim.

I own the da 70 and FA 77. Another long story. The crux of this is that the FA 77 is a lovely lens. But the da 70 is also. The da 70 is smaller and lighter and less expensive.

Even now owning the 31 and 77 I do carry the 15/40/70 combo at times. Sometimes I carry 15/31/77 mood and planned shots matter.

These days my most commonly carried k-3 kit is the da 20-40 plus da* 50-135.

[savoche]

Outside, in the sun, I'll pick the 21 Ltd over the Sigma 18-35 every time. Indoors, with bad light, and the Sigma is the right choice.
I think you're approaching this whole thing incorrectly. Each lens is a tool, better at some things, worse at other. What you should do is decide what photographic quality you want to improve on, and get a lens that does that. If all you do is studio portraits, the DA15 is almost useless. If you want to get wide angle shots with a starburst-sun in the frame, or night time shots with starburst in the streetlights, the 15 and 21 are amazing. If I'm at an indoor family event and want photos of my family, the Sigma 30/1.4 gets that job done better than any other lens I have. If I want a nice landscape shot, the Sigma is terrible.

Before you listen to anyone's advice on what lens to get, think about what you're trying to accomplish from an image standpoint. Also, think about each of your lenses in the same way. Is there anything the DA35 does for you that the Sigma zoom won't? If you don't mind the weight of the Sigma, the answer may be no. If you hate having a giant lens, the more compact lenses may be the best choice for you. Does the kit lens offer anything the other don't (it's WR, is that important to you?). Ask these kinds of questions.

One more bit of advice, buy used lenses, here on the forum, use them and if they don't gel with your photography, sell them again, buy something different. It's not a high-risk decision, and buying a lens isn't permanent, so just do it and decide for yourself.

^^^This^^^

There's much more to lenses than their focal length and aperture. They can differ in the way they render colours, the transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus, flare resistance, contrast, sharpness, etc. To me size and weight are important, which make fast zooms unattractive. In situations where changing lenses is impractical I'll have to use a zoom anyway. Figuring out which lenses work (or not) for you is a process. Some find a kit (or kits) they like quickly, others never stop searching.

And just to re-iterate Kozlok's last advice; buy lenses used. It can save you a lot of money.

[RobA_Oz]

The 35 macro is also very tempting but I like the compactness of the 40, which isn't too far off in terms of FOV. In terms of photo quality, is there a significant difference between the two?

From what I've seen of the DA40, the DA35 macro is similar in IQ. The major difference, size aside (the 35 macro isn't very weighty, either) is the 35's macro capability, which your present and planned lineup doesn't have.

[Kerrowdown]

Would you recommend other primes over the 15/40/70?

I would... but I'm somewhat biased.