[Parallax]

Norm, we should cut him some slack. We don't want him to second guess himself, do we now?

Cut Parallax some slack? Why would anyone do that? Especially since he now has a more desirable APS-c camera than I do, and didn't clear it with me first. My thought is "stick it to him."

Oh you guys are hilarious. You should try and get your act booked at The Comedy Club.

[luftfluss]

This thread has been interesting to follow. I don't think I've ever been especially conflicted about deciding between multiple lenses. Usually I'm either looking for something very specific - like a DA Ltd or a long telephoto - or there is such a cost differential between two competing lenses that the price dictates the sale (my used DA 17-70/4 was one-third the price of a used DA 16-85). Probably the closest I ever came to making a "hard decision" between two lenses was last year choosing between the Sigma 10-20/3.5 and Pentax DA 12-24, and even that wasn't too tough because I really like the rendering of my Pentax glass.

So, deciding I want a new lens and then having to choose between three significantly different models is pretty interesting.

Edit: Oh wait! Last year I did agonize for a while between the A* 600/5.6 and the K 500/4.5. At that time I had the discretionary funding to drop $2k on the A* and was seriously tempted, versus my more frugal nature leading me toward the K 500. Frugality won the day, and given what's happening right now that turned out to be a fortuitous decision.

[aslyfox]

Oh you guys are hilarious. You should try and get your act booked at The Comedy Club.

actually I think they should keep their day jobs

and folks, don't forget to use social distancing and tip the wait staff on the way out



__________________

Cut Parallax some slack? Why would anyone do that? . . .

fear of retaliation by a pissed off mod

nah, that wouldn't happen


would it

[normhead]

fear of retaliation by a pissed off mod

nah, that wouldn't happen


would it

If Parallax wanted me gone, I've given him lots of excuses.

---------- Post added 05-07-20 at 12:05 PM ----------

Oh you guys are hilarious. You should try and get your act booked at The Comedy Club.

My line would have been
"Two thousand comedians out of work , and you have to crack corny jokes."

[Pål Jensen]

I just ordered the 16-85.

You really need help.
The 16-85 is just a lens. The 20-40 Limited is a beautiful object you just want to handle.

[jddwoods]

I had the 70 for a while but sold it just because I very rarely used it.

WR is a plus, but not a deal breaker. It makes a good tie breaker though.

I was afraid of that. I am a bit of a pixel peeper. Not because I can notice any difference between lenses unless I'm looking for it, but because it,s just my nature.

I'm starting to lean toward the 16-85.

I was in a similar situation 3 years ago and posted a similar thread asking for suggestions. I had (and still have) SMC DA Limiteds 15, 21, 35 macro, 70 and HD 40. I also had a DA 17-70 for times when I did not want to carry multiple lenses and preferred a zoom. When the SDM on the 17-70 died, I polled this forum for suggestions for a high quality zoom which would be close to the limited primes in sharpness. I was considering the Limited zoom, the Sigma 17-70 and the DA 18-135 and DA 16-85. The general consensus I received at the time was to go for the 16-85 for both its versatility and image quality. I narrowed my choice to the Limited zoom and the 16-85 and went with the 16-85 since it had a wider range than the 20-40 on the Limited zoom. Also for times when I want to keep a light kit, I have the DA 21 and the HD DA 40 or SMC 35 macro. Looking back I still feel I made the right decision. The 16-85 is my most used lens but the limited primes still get their share of use. A particularly versatile combo for me is the 15 limited and 16-85. If I did not already have the compact pancake primes, I might have gone for the Limited zoom. But for me the Limited zoom was somewhat redundant with my 21, and 40 limited primes but the 16-85 complemented the primes by providing a high quality versatile zoom option

[zapp]

Replaced 21/40 for 20-40 when using K3. 20-40 has WR and you don’t need to switch lenses. 21/40 combo is not really heavier or larger than the zoom, so traveling with one or two lenses is possible. 20-40 has same filter diameter as the 31. Today, I would keep the small individual lenses.

[normhead]

You really need help.
The 16-85 is just a lens. The 20-40 Limited is a beautiful object you just want to handle.

If you'd called the 20-40 your "precious" it would have been more believable.

[aslyfox]

for those urging other choices

05-07-20, 10:22
I just ordered the 16-85.

folks

I think the ship has sailed

2nd guessing, Monday morning quarterbacking

" you should have _____________ "

of course is allowable

[Parallax]

for those urging other choices



folks

I think the ship has sailed

2nd guessing, Monday morning quarterbacking

" you should have _____________ "

of course is allowable

Thanks a lot, Allen.
Do you really think they need encouragement?

[aslyfox]

Thanks a lot, Allen.
Do you really think they need encouragement?

without a doubt

piling on is great as long as you aren't the guy on the bottom

[Pål Jensen]

If you'd called the 20-40 your "precious" it would have been more believable.

You won't believe how good a black 20-40 looks on a gun metal K-3 Prestige.
The lens manages somehow to make the camera feel even more solid. It makes the whole bigger than the parts. It feels like they were made for each other.

[c.a.m]

Do you really think they need encouragement?

No.


The Mod Parallax, he asked for some aid
When too many lenses made him dismayed.
He seemed to think twice
But ignored all advice.
Now he's stuck with a dog we're afraid!



- Craig

(Just kidding. Good choice)

[Racer X 69]

I have a K-5IIs and a K20D.
My lenses are:
DA 15 Ltd, DA 21 Ltd, 31 Ltd, DA 40 Ltd, and a Sigma 18-250 HSM OS.
I want a new lens. The Sigma 17-50 would be, for me, the most practical. For the pictures I take I am rarely in a situation where I can't get close enough so tele is not an issue and my 18-250 has it covered for the rare occasions that I need one and my 15 Ltd is wide enough for anything I need. So here's my dilemma:
The Sigma 17-50 and the Pentax 16-85 seem to me, for my purposes, ideal but I WANT the Pentax 20-40. The problem is that I have that entire range covered with my 21, 31, and 40.
Besides that, I'm afraid that if I get any of those three the 21,31,40 will never again see the light of day.

Ditch the zooms Jim.

Zoom with your feet, it will keep you fit and healthy.

Otherwise it looks like you have most everything covered, but a 50 or 55, something around 80 or 90, and maybe a 100 and/or a 135. All of those can be used up close for some dramatic perspectives. They don't need to be new fangled autofocus lenses either, a decent A series lens will work great, and turning the focus ring is more exercise, keeps the fingers nimble, again helping with health and fitness.

Win win.

Satisfy your LBA with primes.

[mikesbike]

Well, the DA 16-85mm is certainly not a bad choice. I don't know about the IQ of the Pentax DA 18-250mm, but it appears to be close to the DA 16-85mm in that same range as far as edge performance goes, but not as good in the central area. So there is a gain for the DA 16-85mm. In addition, you will then have WR, another gain.

As far as the Sigma lens goes, at f/2.8 it is not all about the edges, though in practice I have found it to be quite acceptable at f/2.8, and tests reveal it to be better overall in edge performance than the Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 but which also has WR. If you do not need the f/2.8 aperture to reduce DOF, or for action shooting to get higher shutter speeds and/or in lower light without having to raise ISO, then the Sigma lens would not be much advantage. However, in terms of IQ, don't forget the DA 16-85mm aperture is wide open at f/3.5-4.5 in its range up to 50mm, where the Sigma I have found good enough in edge performance wide open at f/2.8 all the way to 50mm, but gains considerably in its edge performance- even just stopping down to f/3.2!

Again, if you don't need the f/2.8 or f/3.2, or f/3.5 aperture from 17-50mm, the Pentax DA 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 will provide WR, a very useful zoom range to 85mm, and fine overall performance.

I do have those needs for my Sigma's wider aperture, which was the main factor in my buying it, along with its currently reasonable price. Its overall IQ is also very fine- a sharp lens. It is these above considerations, each lens having some very useful factors in favor, that make for the reasoning behind my having this Sigma lens, as well as the DA 20-40mm (compactness, WR, great build, great imaging- a great option on my KP- got both in silver), AND my good old DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR! Three excellent, versatile tools, well-suited for addressing different types of situations.

And, BTW, I have numerous primes too, including a number of Limiteds!