Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-31-2008, 09:56 PM   #46
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 298
If 4 lenses were the magic number I would replace only one of the 4 lenses I now keep in my bag.

FA 50 f/1.4
Tamron 90mm Di macro
DA 16-45 f/4 (would like the DA* 16-50 f/2.8)
Sigma APO EX 80-200 f/2.8

10-31-2008, 11:58 PM   #47
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: B.C Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 121
Well I started over by buying the 16-50 f2.8, 50-135 f2.8 and 200 f2.8 star lens.The best move Ive made. My fourth favourite is the tamron 400mm f4 sp ld if,with matched 1.4 converter.Its a super sharp lens if you can find one.
11-01-2008, 12:37 AM   #48
Site Supporter
Bramela's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Newcastle Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,281
Looking at what I have at the moment I would keep :

DA*50-135
DA 55-300
Sigma 17-70
Vivitar Series 1 105 Macro.

Have others but these serve me well. Not to say I dont covet some of the newer DA* lens available but give it time (and the folding stuff!)
11-01-2008, 07:32 AM   #49
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fly-over, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,171
My sig...

...says it all.

The only problem...

None of today's choices were even remotely available when I started out.

11-01-2008, 08:12 AM   #50
Senior Member
bentax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: West Australia
Posts: 190
Looking to the future-
DA 15
DA 30
DA* 50-135
DA* 300

But would have to keep the Tammy 17-50 as a whatever lens and the FA 50 1.4.
Got the 50-135 and could probly give up (in advance) the 300 if there wasnt room in the bag..... naaarrrrrrr.
Mmmmmm yeh thats where im headed.

oh yeh and 1.4x converter.

pair all that with my k20 and im a very happy satisfied lad.
11-01-2008, 10:55 AM   #51
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
In looking back at the posts, no one has really answered the OP. we all, self included, said what we had or should strive for, but not how we got there and had any regrets.

If I look back on my collection, which has been aquired over more than 25 years, it has been somewhat systematic.

DO I have now obsolite lenses, yes, but not that many, and most obsolescence is due to a shift from MF to AF, and going for faster glass.

Even now, although I resist LBA fairly well, I am still looking for lenses, but that is because I really like old fast primes. My rule now is, If a lens does not do something that I don't already have I just won't buy it.

As a result, I don't bother with zooms at all, I have 10mm - 200mm covered with 4 of them, and from 28-200 at F2.8,

I try to stay with full frame, so I can occasionally play with film. but will only pick up the occasional faster than F2.8 wide prime, or if I trip over a big tele (must be more than 112mm in diameter (i.e. 300 F2.8 or 500 F4.5 or faster) i might look at it. Again this fits my criteria, faster or longer or both than what I have now,
11-01-2008, 11:54 AM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 506
Original Poster
Thank you all for the great feedback and the logical rational behind the decisions. Clearly, as would be expected, there are many different focal length requirements by the individuals.
The *DA's show up a lot, which I would interpret as speaking volumes to the Pentax *Da roadmap, and the quality of the product. Also, it's interesting to hear that so many of the favorites are non Pentax product, which provides great info (to a relative newby like myself) on the "proven" options that are out there. (Thanks for that!)
As stated in one of the earliest threads, it seems that there clearly is a recognized "value" to spending a few dollars more to get the lens you want (regardless of it being new or a high quality, manual focus, used lens) I think this is backed up by the fact that so many of the desired lenses are 2.8 or faster.
Again, thanks for taking the time to respond (and I hope that there are more informative responses to come!)
PS This really is a great forum. I think it's time I got off my wallet and made a small contribution...

PPS My current thought is (in no particular order):
10-17 (Fisheye)
31ltd 1.8
77ltd 1.8
50-135*DA 2.8
(and perhaps cheating a bit, the new teleconverter if the reviews are positive...)

Last edited by beaumont; 11-01-2008 at 02:30 PM.
11-01-2008, 12:30 PM   #53
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by beaumont Quote
. . . I think this is backed up by the fact that so many of the desired lenses are 2.8 or faster.
That is only one of my 2 complaints against the DA 55-300 is its speed. It would be nice if it were f4 at all focal lengths and outstanding if it were 2.8. It is a good lens regardless.

11-01-2008, 01:38 PM   #54
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
That is only one of my 2 complaints against the DA 55-300 is its speed. It would be nice if it were f4 at all focal lengths and outstanding if it were 2.8.
Well, sure, but have seen how big (and expensive) a 70-200/2.8 is? A 55-300/2.8 would be *enormous*, and cost probably ten times what the current 55-300 costs.

f/4 would be a bit more manageable, but for that, there is the upcoming 60-250 - which is also *much* larger and *much* more expensive than the 55-300.

In other words, if the 55-300 were f/2.8 or even f/4, it would be a completely different lens. You'd lose some of the most attractive qualities of the 55-300.
11-01-2008, 04:00 PM   #55
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Well, sure, but have seen how big (and expensive) a 70-200/2.8 is? A 55-300/2.8 would be *enormous*, and cost probably ten times what the current 55-300 costs.
you have that right, look at the sigma 120-300 F2.8 it'l break the bank, in fact, it would be better in my view to stay at 70-200f2.8 and add a separate 300 F2.8.
QuoteQuote:
f/4 would be a bit more manageable, but for that, there is the upcoming 60-250 - which is also *much* larger and *much* more expensive than the 55-300.

In other words, if the 55-300 were f/2.8 or even f/4, it would be a completely different lens. You'd lose some of the most attractive qualities of the 55-300.
that is always the trade off, speed vs weight and cost.

DOn't get me wrong, I love my 70-200 and don't mind the weight, but I'm still young
11-01-2008, 04:26 PM   #56
Veteran Member
Mechan1k's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,883
I think I have everything I want at the moment.

I have managed to split my kit in 2 ... and that's an AF kit ... and a M42 kit.
There's a couple of things I'd change in my AF kit though ... A Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 would be a nice addition ... and something in the 10-24mm range.

I'd probably replace my FA-J 75-300 though ... even though it is not too bad ... I'd replace it with something along the lines of a DA18-250 ... or the Tamron 70-300mm .... just for the fact if i want to take lenses out in conditions I choose not to take my better lens out in.

As for the M42 side of things ... I can only add onto that ... I wouldn't be selling any of those lenses. That is a definite.
11-01-2008, 08:41 PM   #57
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Well, sure, but have seen how big (and expensive) a 70-200/2.8 is? A 55-300/2.8 would be *enormous*, and cost probably ten times what the current 55-300 costs.

f/4 would be a bit more manageable, but for that, there is the upcoming 60-250 - which is also *much* larger and *much* more expensive than the 55-300.

In other words, if the 55-300 were f/2.8 or even f/4, it would be a completely different lens. You'd lose some of the most attractive qualities of the 55-300.
I realize it would be bigger. That is why I suggested F4. 60-250 f4 is 2.29 pounds and the Sigma 100-300mm f4 is 3.17 pounds. My A 400 f5.6 is a 2.5 pounds so I have an idea of how heavy it is. My point was that the 55-300mm can be slow at the 300mm end. It does fine shooting a day football game in a large stadium but at night it can be a bit dodgy but workable.
11-02-2008, 12:46 AM   #58
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 37
If i could do it all over, the four main lenses would be
fa35mm f2 - for indoors/low light (sharpest sub f2.8 lens)
fa43mm f1.9- general use/portrait
fa77mm f1.8- general use/portrait
da 50-135mm f2.8- zoom
And i'd like to find room for the fa31mm and the new da* 55mm f1.4.

Of the above listed, i currently only have the fa 43 and i dont see it leaving my camera anytime soon. I love the sharpness, build and focal length. Its perfect
11-02-2008, 01:06 AM   #59
TKH
Veteran Member
TKH's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 371
QuoteOriginally posted by brian s. Quote
If i could do it all over, the four main lenses would be
fa35mm f2 - for indoors/low light (sharpest sub f2.8 lens)
fa43mm f1.9- general use/portrait

Of the above listed, i currently only have the fa 43 and i dont see it leaving my camera anytime soon. I love the sharpness, build and focal length. Its perfect
Some friends say that the FA 35mm 2 is not the keeper on modern cameras like K20D with high resolutions. I never tried that combination.

After years of using FAs and DAs I just do it all over for my personal taste ("poor-Rainers-no-money-for Leica-less-tele-stuff") on my K20D:

DA15- special landscape
DA21- general use when on trekking tour
DA35- general use/macro
DA*55- portrait/low light
A135- for teleshooting twice times a year

DA*55 is ordered and I hope to see it at the end of the year in my bag. DA15 will come next year.

Rainer

Last edited by TKH; 11-02-2008 at 01:12 AM.
11-02-2008, 02:00 AM   #60
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 153
Zoom Option 1
DA 12-24mm f4 - ~$530
Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 - $199
Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 - ~$720

~$1450 total

Zoom Option 2
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 - ~$440
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 - ~ $370
Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 - ~$720

~$1530 total

Zoom Prime Mix Option
DA 12-24mm f4 - ~$530
Sigma 50mm f1.4 - ~$500
Sigma 100-300mm f4 - ~$1100

~$2030 total

Prime Short Fast Option
FA 35mm f2 - $299
Sigma 50mm f1.4 - ~$500
DA 70mm f2.4 - ~$450

~$1250 total

Prime ~100mm Step Option
Sigma 50mm f1.4 - ~$500
Sigma 180mm f3.5 Macro -~$900
DA 300mm f4 - ~$1100

~$2500 total


Another Weak Shot
  • Manic Monday - Zoom Option 1
  • Tuesday Buyer remorse - Zoom Option 2
  • Wednesday meet me in the middle - Zoom Prime Mix Option
  • Puritanical Thursday - Short Fast Prime Option
  • Friday time to step out - 100mm Step Prime Option
  • Satisfying Saturday - Might actually be out using what I have
  • Hellish Sunday - Day spent "fixing" yesterday's photos in PP. Must be the equipment, need a new plan for Monday
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, kids, lens, lenses, macro, pentax lens, shots, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:09 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top