[biz-engineer]

For the K5 and K3, I used to carry only two lenses, due the great versatility and usability that a two lens only kit offers. The two lens kit has the advantage of always having one lens mounted on the camera and the second lens can stay in the camera bag, so there is no need to carry a large camera bag and no need to carry a second camera bag or separate lens bag. The difficulty comes when making the choice of kit. When I see the focal length of FA zooms, such as 35-80, or 50-135 (on full frame) let me thinking about what those FL are best suited to shooting situations.


For the K1, lets consider to carry two possible minimalist kits:
- a 20mm wide prime and a 28-105 zoom, covers from 20mm to 105mm
- a 24-70 zoom with a 100 macro

Other combinations such as 15-30 + 28-105 or 15-30 + 50 prime are possible, but either large or less versatile.

I would tend to favor the 20mm and 28-105 kit, assuming that image quality would be better from a wide angle prime than a wide angle zoom. However, I may end-up having to switch very frequently from 28-105 to 20 and 20 to 28-105.
If I use the 24-70 and 100 macro, 24mm is wide but not that wide for architecture, however I have the advantage of the macro feature for close up photographs, e.g flowers, insects in nature, or other things in urban areas. Also here I assume that the 24-70 @ 24mm won't deliver images as sharp as a 20mm prime. But I believe I'd switch lenses less often but using this 24-70 + 100 macro kit.

What's the opinion about those choices, in particular about frequency of swapping lenses and overall image quality delivered by the kit?

[Austro-Diesel]

Last but not least, it's a question which focal lengths you prefer: If you stick to wide angles of view or you often use f/2,8 to f/4 a D-FA 24-70 is preferrable over a well built D-FA 28-105 which is by the way much more compact und cheaper, without any flawness.

On short distances you can change everything with a few steps, at distance a telephoto zoom is much more helpful.

Therefore I would tend to a wide-angle prime and a longer and compact universal zoom for every day. The D-FA 28-105 light weight und comfortable to hold.

On the other side a shorter focal range zoom is often more comfortable for city trips where your movement space is limited and can spare some lens swaps too.

Do you know the old FA 20-35/4 AL? This older zoom is not perfect, but it's not expensive, compact, light weight and stopped down with good usable image quality. So you could use two zooms.

[zzeitg]

After checking your "Photographic Equipment" section, I'd choose this set:

D-FA 24-70 & D-FA 70-200

That should be perfect for most situations (except when you need to shoot very wide or very long).

Something a young powerful guy should be able to carry around, right?

[biz-engineer]

D-FA 24-70 & D-FA 70-200

The DFA70-200 doesn't fit in the shoulder bag, a larger bag is needed.

---------- Post added 08-03-20 at 13:36 ----------

If you stick to wide angles of view or you often use f/2,8 to f/4 a D-FA 24-70 is preferrable over a well built D-FA 28-105 which is by the way much more compact und cheaper, without any flawness.

I tend to use the 28-105 a lot more than the 24-70, simply because for all-in-focus photos, the aperture setting is > f/5.6 (mostly f8/f11/16). For blurring backgrounds @ f2.8 / 70mm , I don't find the 24-70 to be particularly sharp wide open , I mostly use it for 24mm over 28mm of the 28-105.

[Austro-Diesel]

Another point of view: Buy a D-FA* 50/1.4 and let the rest of the gear at home. The lens is fantastic and fits nearly for everything. You get a complete different look. A polarizing and a neutral density (2 stops) filter is everything needed.

So you are not forced to take certain photos it makes much fun and is very satisfying! Currently this is my approach to my private photography.

[MaineNative]

After renting the DFA 15-30, I decided to go with the FA 20/2.8 prime and DFA 28-105. So far, I like that set-up. The DFA 15-30 had great image quality and was a great wide lens, but it was just too heavy.

I do wish I had a light-weight zoom down to 24 mm on the lower end for landscape shots. (Like the 16-85 on my K-5.) The FA 20 is good for architecture... not too much distortion. The FA 20 is not good for Astro though.

[Roadboat24]

biz-engineer, I don't know what shoulder bag your using. I have a Canon 200eg backpack I use with the Pentax K1. My usual load is a Rokinon 20mm, Pentax 24-70 and 70-200. Sometimes a leave the 70-200 and take a Pentax AF540FGZii flash instead.

[SteveinSLC]

Assuming you're traveling/hiking and that's why you want to keep weight/size limited.
Then it probably depends on what body you're shooting, what you're most likely to be shooting, and whether you want AF and WR. APS-C has lots of options, FF not so much.
For instance, there is no current 20 or 24mm prime for FF.
For APS-C the choice is pretty simple. 16-85 or 18-135 and 55-300 will cover a large range at pretty good quality. Only if I was mostly shooting street or macro and not concerned with either distance end would I carry something else.
On FF the choice is harder. There aren't any good options similar to the 55-300. The new 70-210 F4 plus either the 28-105 or the 24-70. I found the 28-105 to be good enough that I never was particularly tempted to buy the 24-70, but if I was shooting street/portraits/weddings in dimmer light, that might have been different.
If you were FF and more landscape wide angle focused, then 28-105 plus something wider would seem to be the best option.

[Serkevan]

I have been happy with the M20/4 for wide angle and the Tamron 90/2.5 macro for longer reach/portraits/macro. The 100/2.8 WR would work as well.

20mm + D FA 28-105 also works (in that case I might want a 50/1.7 just in case I need fast)

For hiking in nature, 28 mm is wide enough in the vast majority of cases, so it's 28-105 + 70-210/4.5.

[normhead]

That DFA 28-105 is so good my wife takes it on her K-5, despite the lack of wide angle in the zoom range. What it lacks in zoom range on APS_c it makes up for with IQ.

[BarryE]

Personally, I dislike lens swapping in the field, so I'm biased against it. Also, I don't like the 24-70 for a number of reasons. When I was regularly printing large, I would only ever use a prime, using two bodies with a prime on each. I also prefer the way a prime makes you work/think the shot more - perhaps you could use a K3 and K1 with a prime on each. Not too heavy or bulky option.

I've recently bought the 55-300 and it's so refreshing to use. I don't now need the perfection to print large, so this lenses is a great, lightweight option. Use a 55-300 on K-3 and a 20mm &/or a 35mm on your K1. Yes there's a FL gap, but the extra MPs on the K-1 allows cropping to fill the gap.

[Wasp]

It would be difficult to recommend two lenses that will do everything. It all depends on what you are taking pictures of. Landscape, event, sports?

I am in the fortunate position of owning a variety of lenses. I pack according to where I am going and how much kit I feel like carrying around.

If I must choose two primes that will cover a lot of things, I would take a 24mm and an 85mm.

[normhead]

Do you know the old FA 20-35/4 AL? This older zoom is not perfect, but it's not expensive, compact, light weight and stopped down with good usable image quality. So you could use two zooms.

Correction... didn't used to be expensive. The K-1 pushed the price through the roof. I turned one down at $350 a few years ago, big mistake.

[Austro-Diesel]

400 Euros (plus taxes) from Japan. The FA 20/2.8 AL isn't cheaper, 450 Euros ...


There is no alternative but the old and bulky Sigma 12-24 DG and some manual primes like Irix and Laowa.

[Sandy Hancock]

DFA 24-70/2.8 and DFA 70-210/4.0. Either lens fits comfortably in my smallest (5 litre) sling bag.

The rest is gravy.

I'll be selling quite a few lenses soon.