[SSGGeezer]

We once compared the results of an Eastern Red Wolf shot side by side with my 3x as expensive as my DA*60-250 with our departed Sigma 18-250. The results were almost identical. The 60-250 had slightly better bokeh. $800 is a lot to pay for slightly better bokeh. There are many situations where you have a better lens, but it doesn't produce better results, because the "weaker" lens is good enough for the subject.

If I was trying to count the threads on a lumber jars jacket, maybe the 60-250 would have been better. But the red wolf fur was course enough it made absolutely no difference. We offered both to park staff for use in their presentations and they selected the 18-250 image. Much of the time It only makes a difference if you know exactly what to look for.

Was that with your K-3 or an older model Norm?

[normhead]

Tess was using it on her K-5. I was using the K-3 with the 60-250. We were literally shoulder to shoulder.

Lens comparison- which is which - PentaxForums.com

[Cerebum]

In my mind that means for sure you're a criminal. That's why they won't let me on a jury.

Living without my 18-135 (K-3) or 28-105 (K-1), that's just not going to happen.
If it was one lens for both bodies, it would be the 28-105.
As much as I've argued against the need for modern lenses, my first choice is a modern lens.

See, I'm totally willing to incriminate myself.

---------- Post added 06-05-18 at 12:51 PM ----------

Come on folks we're trying to get to 40,000 this month here, no fair viewing the thread without

voting, or posting.

I am with Norm, 18-135mm. I have used nothing but primes for the last few weeks but the 18-135mm gives me a bit of everything.

Although, my Takumar 100mm macro ran it close

[iheiramo]

I currently own only one zoom which I stopped using when I bought DA50. So unlike Norm, I can live without 18-135. I only keep it to have one lens with WR and AF.

So my choice would be a prime. I lived for a while using only DA50. It was sometimes tight on APSC, but I learned to live with it. I just don't know which of my current 50's to choose, so I go for M35/2 instead.

[swanlefitte]

$800 is a lot to pay for slightly better bokeh.

If i had a nickel for every time i wish my shot had better bokeh i would need 16000 shots where the bokeh mattered to me to pay for it. If one shoots enough for how much one values it, eventually its worth it if the lens lasts long enough.

[normhead]

I only use 50s for their faster apertures. If you shoot a lot of low light, that makes senses. Or if you shoot a lot of narrow DoF, that makes sense. I don't do either a whole lot so for me it doesn't make sense. My FA 50 1.7 was the third lens I bought. It's also one of my least used. Everyone's different.

[IgorZ]

Unfortunately, I am kind of stuck. I couldn't keep a zoom even if I wanted to. I just don't have any... So prime it is!

[WileyB]

A single prime for a day, or for a long trip, or even for a month can be a ton of fun.
But a single focal length for ever would be pretty sad :-(

[onlineflyer]

Could I change my vote and select the FA 200/4 macro that's for sale in the marketplace? I'm in love.

[normhead]

A single prime for a day, or for a long trip, or even for a month can be a ton of fun.
But a single focal length for ever would be pretty sad :-(

But hey, with a single focal length, you never have to worry about background compression, or managing your depth of field by changing focal lengths. I'm guessing using a single focal length simplifies many things in photography.

But I would think it would maen shooting wide and doing a lot of cropping. And cropping effectively changes focal length. but it seriously can cost you resolution as well.

[ChristianRock]

Zooms are like minivans.

I ask your permission to use this quote in the future

Obviously we are in the minority, people seem to think zooms are more essential than primes. But that's the objective of doing this poll, to find out what people are more inclined to want.
Quite a few people do like primes to the point that they're willing to live with just a prime if they had to. Let's keep the comments (and votes) coming

[normhead]

I ask your permission to use this quote in the future

Obviously we are in the minority, people seem to think zooms are more essential than primes. But that's the objective of doing this poll, to find out what people are more inclined to want.
Quite a few people do like primes to the point that they're willing to live with just a prime if they had to. Let's keep the comments (and votes) coming

There are some images you look at the scene and you think "where's my zoom". Others you look at and think "where's my prime" The idea of sacrificing one of those for the other is just wrong.

Primes have a unique rendering at a unique focal length. With zooms, qualities like bokeh and transitions can change over the range of the zoom. If you have a scene and you have a specific look in mind for that scene, odds are you're going to want primes. A zoom is less certainty. However if the scene is strong enough it's not the finer elements of rendering that are necessary, you might want to use a zoom and get your framing exactly the way you want it.

I tend to carry the 21 ltd, and 40XS everywhere, just because I can. And when you want them, you want them, but I'm also carrying the 18-135 or 55-300 for the 95% of the time when it doesn't matter. Some, I'm sure, can't bear the thought of missing a chance to take an image with their favourite prime, even if in the end it doesn't come out so good. Others want that precise framing, using the whole frame to get every once of resolution that in many circumstances can only be done with a zoom. I frequently shoot 5 focal lengths with one tripod set. During a 15 minute sunset with the light dramticly changing minute to minute, that's just not possible with a prime.

But I hate missing shots that could have been had.
Some are interested in the one shot taken with the one lens with all focal length variables under control. It all depends on what values you're chasing.

That being said, it's surprising how many people are selecting primes as their only lenses. I guess size is a bigger thing than I think it is. Personally if that's the big drawback, why wouldn't u just get a smaller zoom like the DA 20-40?

[pid]

it depends on what I am going to do. If I know what I am going to shoot I would definitely take a prime. If I will not know what's happening, for example for a walk around, I would take a zoom.

[onlineflyer]

But I would think it would mean shooting wide and doing a lot of cropping.

I started into photography with a fixed lens Yashica Electro 35mm rangefinder camera. I shot a lot of nice photos with that little gem before moving up to a Pentax KX slr. I have fond memories of that original camera. If I were forced to revert to that Yashica, I would do so with a smile on my face.

[steve_k]

If I can only keep one lens per format APS-C or FF. I'm going to choose whatever gives me the most versatility. Which to me means zooms.

For APS-C I would keep my Sigma 18-300. It may not be the best lens but it more than good enough for me and allows me to shoot almost anything.

For FF I would keep my Tamron 24-135. To me this is a great focal range and represents 85 % of what I shoot.