[morfic]

Anyone here own a 12-24 (ok or 10-20) and a 50-135, but no zoom to cover 20|24-50, how often do you wish you had a zoom covering that?
I felt with my 16-50 i mostly used it on the 16-20mm side or the 50mm side and not so much in between, so i sold it and am planning on getting either 12-24 or 10-20 to take me wider. with a 28mm and maybe 35 or 40mm prime covering the gap.

And of course it makes total sense to me, but i have told myself that many times before, and then changed my mind (see recent sales )

So i figured i ask for who else my set works too, maybe i get more "yeah thought it would be great but i hate the gap" than "Worried about it, did it, never looked back", but who knows.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

Daniel

[Marc Langille]

Hi,

I own the DA 12-24 and the DA 50-200. I also bought the Tamron 28-75/2.8, which is a great lens for the price. Sharp, nice color and contrast. I think you'd like it.

This is assuming you want something in between, and isn't used. There may be other options, but I like fast, constant aperture quality zooms in most cases. My DA 50-200 is exceptional in it's quality, plus it's a lightweight travel zoom that is underrated. I already own the FA* 80-200/2.8, so I am good to go.

Best of luck in your decision!

Regards,
Marc

[G_Money]

I have the Sigma 10-20 as well as the Pentax 12-24 and the 50-135. The 50-135 isn't a particularly close focusing lens, which might be another aspect you haven't raised. For me the 16-45 fills the gap, but I realize that's not what you're asking.

I've commented before that the advent of zooms has created this anxiety about covering every focal length. I can remember when the standard advice was to acquire lenses doubling or halving your focal lengths. Generally shooters would start with a 50mm then get a 24 or 28, a 100 and a 200. I guess if the 200 was too long, you could shoot with the 100 and then crop a bit.

In 35mm terms, back in the day I don't think anyone would have worried too much about having a gap between 36 and 75mm lenses. I recall some of the advocates of the more-megapixels-is-better school always argued that the extra image size was useful for cropping images. If you got a great shot with a 12-24 that you cropped down, would anyone criticize that you should have used a longer lens?

Just offering some points for consideration, not giving advice. No flaming, please.

[mtngal]

It's interesting that you bring this up now. The lenses I carry around all the time are the 12-24, DA*50-135, a 105mm macro, and A*300. Occasionally I want something between 25 and 50, and have thought about getting one of the faster lenses that cover that range, but don't have an overwhelming desire for one.

We recently went to Yellowstone and I took both cameras, my usual lenses and my old kit lens, thinking I would really want something in between. I think I used it twice. I normally will put the 12-24 on the K100 and keep something longer on the K20, but my husband (who's never owned a camera) quickly got bored and asked to use the K100. I let him start using the K100 with the DA*50-135 and this turned out to be a mistake. Later I let him use the kit lens when he said he wanted something wider but he didn't like it. So he stayed with the DA*50-135 the whole time, leaving me with what seemed like rather limited choices (I had planned on the 50-135 being my main lens).

I ended up being perfectly happy using the 12-24, FA 77 Ltd and A300. I think I'd rather have something between 135 and 300 instead of filling the gap between 24 and 50. But then, I like the long end of things more anyway and know that others will think just the opposite.

[superfuzzy]

The Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 is a good fit. Sharp and about $200 from Amazon.

[gnaztee]

I think if you look at from a standpoint of having a lens for what you want to shoot, it makes perfect sense (depending on what you want to shoot). For example, if you're a nature shooter, a 12-24 for landscapes, a 35 or 50 or even a 100 macro for closeups, and a telephoto zoom for wildlife would give you what you need. I think someone who is more a travel/event photographer might need to cover more, but instead of looking at it like "I need to cover every FL," why not "this is my landscape lens, this is my wildlife lens, etc."

Todd

[RBellavance]

The FA35/2 (or DA35/2.8Ltd) would complement the DA12-24 + DA*50-135 combo very well, IMHO.

[Talisker]

In 35mm terms, back in the day I don't think anyone would have worried too much about having a gap between 36 and 75mm lenses.

Quite true. With my 35mm rangefinder setup I use a 35mm as a standard lens, and next up is a 75mm and the next down is 24mm. Works well, although I have to use an acessory finder for the 24mm!

[morfic]

Thanks everyone, the replies are great in particular i find g-money's history lesson great. when i was a kid all i had a fifty. later as i grew up i got zooms and tended to like overlap. it just seemed i had tied up a lot of money in the 16-50 and only used the ends, which the 50-135 covers and a wide zoom would cover. the replies i think prove that for once i made a good choice to use th tele zoom more and trade out the std zoom for a wide zoom.

Thanks again.

Daniel

[Lowell Goudge]

this is what everyone looks at. My range is wider, as I have a sigma 70-200 F2.8, but the principle is the same.

I have a sigma 10-20, and to fill the gap betweein 20 and 70, I use a pentax FA-J 18-35, and the tamron 28-75 F2.8. (I also have manual focus 24mm F2.5, and 50mm F1.4)

you could easily go with a 16-50 F2.8, and hold off on other primes unless you need them for creative work such as low light or shallow depth of field.,

[augustmoon]

I had the Sigma 24-60 2.8 along with the 50-135. I sold it to get wider but only wanted two zooms, so I got the 16-50. If I were to do it all again... I'd say fine with the extra zoom, and I would have / should have kept the 24-60 as it was a great and sharp lens, then added the 12-24 to it... Reason being I shoot a lot at 16-20 as you do and I think the 12-24 handles itself a bit better at this range than the 16-50, also less distortion with the 12-24 at the 16-ish range. I also shoot a lot at around 50, and that being weak (as it is at the extreme end) of both the 16-50 and 50-135. The 24-60 performs real well at the 50-ish range. There's a newer Sigma 24-70 EX DG out, but I don't know how this lens performs. But the 24-60 is a full-frame lens and $200 or so you can add to the 12-24 price and still be near or under the 16-50.

It's nice to have a bit of overlap and not HAVE to swap lenses when you get to xy-focal length (50 in this case)

[Lowell Goudge]

It's nice to have a bit of overlap and not HAVE to swap lenses when you get to xy-focal length (50 in this case)

this is why god gave photographers feet

[augustmoon]

this is why god gave photographers feet

what the ??? kind of remark is that?? Not to insult you but please....

and tripods with wheels as well I suppose? Kind of a pain in the f*&^% A$#@ to move the tripod forward and back, re-position and readjust the tripod head, etc.. etc.. etc.. Especially when shooting people and dynamic portraits...

Maybe the back wall of my studio space could also be on some kind of feety thing and then I could simply push it back as well.

kinda good reason to use a (what do you call it, you know that type of lens that allows for movement when the movement of the camera is more inconvenien.... Oh, yes...) a zoom lens.

I think you are confusing zooms and primes. If I am shooting with primes, I move my feet. If I am shooting with zooms, well, maybe, then there are reasons I am using a zoom, not a prime, like to stay where I am and use different compositions. Zooms are a compromise in all areas except this one, so usually if someone is going to make that kind of quality compromise, it's because they indeed do (at least I) need that one and only asset they do offer.

[Lowell Goudge]

what the ??? kind of remark is that?? Not to insult you but please....

and tripods with wheels as well I suppose? Kind of a pain in the f*&^% A$#@ to move the tripod forward and back, re-position and readjust the tripod head, etc.. etc.. etc.. Especially when shooting people and dynamic portraits...

Maybe the back wall of my studio space could also be on some kind of feety thing and then I could simply push it back as well.

kinda good reason to use a (what do you call it, you know that type of lens that allows for movement when the movement of the camera is more inconvenien.... Oh, yes...) a zoom lens.

I think you are confusing zooms and primes. If I am shooting with primes, I move my feet. If I am shooting with zooms, well, maybe, then there are reasons I am using a zoom, not a prime, like to stay where I am and use different compositions. Zooms are a compromise in all areas except this one, so usually if someone is going to make that kind of quality compromise, it's because they indeed do (at least I) need that one and only asset they do offer.

sorry if my attempt at humour has hit a nerve. It was really only intended to have a little fun.

All kidding aside, and this was meant in that light, in reality, I agree 100% that you should have overlap in the zooms, for the exact reasons that you mention. In fact, if you look at my previous posting of how I cover the range starting at 10mm and going to 200 mm, I use 4 zooms. At each transition there is overlap.

This does not consider my prime lenses, but every prime I own is at least as fast and in most instances faster than my zooms. They are specific use lenses. Zooms are the every day touring lenses.

having said that however, I constantly find that I wind up shooting almost always at the extremes of my zooms. I must be getting too lazy to look for the best framing at intermediate points, which, even with zooms requires me to move my feet.

[jsherman999]

what the ??? kind of remark is that?? Not to insult you but please....

and tripods with wheels as well I suppose? Kind of a pain in the f*&^% A$#@ to move the tripod forward and back, re-position and readjust the tripod head, etc.. etc.. etc.. Especially when shooting people and dynamic portraits...

Maybe the back wall of my studio space could also be on some kind of feety thing and then I could simply push it back as well.

kinda good reason to use a (what do you call it, you know that type of lens that allows for movement when the movement of the camera is more inconvenien.... Oh, yes...) a zoom lens.

I think you are confusing zooms and primes. If I am shooting with primes, I move my feet. If I am shooting with zooms, well, maybe, then there are reasons I am using a zoom, not a prime, like to stay where I am and use different compositions. Zooms are a compromise in all areas except this one, so usually if someone is going to make that kind of quality compromise, it's because they indeed do (at least I) need that one and only asset they do offer.

Hmm, except that I think it would be easier to move forward a couple feet than to change to a 3rd zoom that covers the mid 24 - 50 range. This is why 'zooming with the feet' also can apply to zooms - I use that concept whenever I'm out with my 12-24 and want to get a bit closer.

Even with a tripod, I think changing lenses isn't any easier than just moving the tripod a little bit, IMO anyway.


.