Hello,
I am going through a dilemma while revamping my lens selection for travelling (hiking mostly) and could appreciate some opinion/insights from the crowd.
At this moment I have a dual body setup with K10D and K20D, I definitely don't wand to add a 3rd body
Originally I was shooting with the set 18-55, which I later upgraded to 16-45. On the second body I have 50-135, on some trips replaced with A80-200 (plasticy, but super light and OKish when stopped down). I am doing a revamp to hopefully reduce the weight a bit and improve image quality.
I have recently bought a K-70, which will replace the K10 on my neck. I do a lot of hiking and therefore weight is important to me. I noticed that even if I have an additional lens in my backpack, I rarely use it.
I analyzed my keepers and best pictures and realized that most of them are on the wide end (landscapes). Some landscapes or travel portraits at 50mm with the 50-135 and some close-ups of fauna/flora at 135mm which required further cropping and I definitely feel that a longer range would be nice. I don't really do sports or macro.
On the wide end I have decided to go with 15mm Limited, which is on its way - sharp, light, speed of use on a bright day (F8 and click around), it's perfect for my usage. On the longer I see a number of options among which i struggle.
1. Keep 50-135 and maybe add a teleconverter for occasional need of range.
+ it is a great glass. I like its performance, low aperture and its nicely built
- wobbly focus, SDM motor failed once in 10 years, TC will add weight (100-300g?)
Main questions - which TC then? Any 2x? Pentax 1.7x? Kenko/Tamron? I would not need AF with the TC, i expect not to use it that often. Will the IQ degrade considerably? (e.g. will it get worse than 55-300?)
2. Sell 50-135 and replace it with 60-250
+ it is a fantastic glass, even more so for landscapes, apparently. Used 60-250 is reasonably priced, so for exchange i would pay maybe 200EUR, which is OK.
- while it covers the long range, I would lack 10mm on the short end, which I actually use a lot. It adds weight (350g), it's a bit less fast, risk of SDM failure.
Main questions - has anyone compared wide end FOV between the two? I saw in the comparison of the 60-250 vs 55-300 that the amplification on 250mm is lower for the 60-250, but the question is, how does it look on the wide end? WIill it make a difference for me coming from the 50-135?
3. Sell 50-135 and replace it with 55-300 (WR but not PLM, I might run it on K20D)
+ weight reduction (-200g), great range, cost
- going from great glass to good glass, loosing 5mm on the wide end
Main questions - again, FOV, will it make a major difference? And similarly important - will I notice a major drop in IQ?
4. option (3) but add 40mm Limited
+ In combination with the 55-300 this would still reduce weight a tiny bit, wide end sharp and fast and even a bit wider than 50
- I would have to think of changing the lens (otherwise I won't do it) and decide always upfront which one to use (40 vs 55-300). One of them might be underutilized.
5. Sell 50-135 and get 40mm Limited + FA 100-300. Compared to (4)
+ further reduction of weight, cost
- image quality of 100-300 is probably weaker, it's slower. It has nice bokeh so probably would be just used for closeups, and most of the time I would run around with the 15 and 40 limited and change only in need of a closeup.
These were the most light-weight setups with reasonable IQ that I could come up with. Do you see any other? Maybe a sigma 50-150 + TC?
Looking forward to your inputs!