[DanLoc78]

I recently bought a Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 to replace the kit lens. I've been jonesing for the 50-135 for a long time now, and finally have the funds to get one. BUT, now there is a DA 12-24 available and it seems like the perfect fit to my new lens collection.

what am i to do??? i can't afford both, and both are great lenses. i'm so torn.

[Peter Zack]

Well it's a tough call. In looking at your gallery shots, you like to get up close to a subject. The 50-135mm might be the better lens. A super wide lens is more for architecture and landscape work. The whole wide view. Up close these lenses really distort the image and stretch things out pretty badly. I would think you will get a lot more use from the DA* than a super wide.

But you have to take a hard look at what you want to shoot. Ask yourself how do you feel when you are shooting? 'I wish I could get closer' or 'I can't get everything in the frame'

The Sigma 10-20mm is another good option and at around $500, it's cheaper. So you might want to start saving after you get the DA*.

[Lowell Goudge]

youo might want as peter says, look at the sigma 10-20, as it is lower cost than the 12-24, and also, it has the same filter size as your 24-60.

commonality of filters, especially 77mm diameter ones is a big issue and most people forget this when they get lenses. you might want circular polarizer and graduated ND filters to use on both the ultra wide and your 24-60. to be able to share them will save a lot.

Aside from that point, it is really up to you to decide between an ultra wide zoom or the normal to medium tele.

Just as an aside, why not go for a sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM?

I don't know the price of the 50-135, but you might be able to get both the 10-20 and the 70-200 for close to the price of the DA 50-135.

something to think about

[DanLoc78]

i think a new 70-200 is about $700? i could be wrong about that. but i don't think it's possible to get both the 70-200 AND the 10-20 for the price of a 50-135. If it is...i would definitely entertain that option.

[DanLoc78]

In looking at your gallery shots, you like to get up close to a subject. The 50-135mm might be the better lens.

You're absolutely correct. I do love to get in close and capture people's expressions and the essence of what I'm shooting. Astute observation and this definitely plays into my calculations. But with the 12-24 being about $200 cheaper used...i was torn. At this stage, I'm not sure if I would get as much out of a 12-24 as I would with the 50-135. So I'll probably end up going long instead of wide.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Hi Dan

I was so bright I thought that I could look at your flickr photos to get an idea of what focal length you were actually using (some very good shots there actually btw)...but it just visualized your conflict. You have there quite many nice architecture photos, like those from Italy, but also lots of more close up, in particularly lots of portraits of (your) kids, from realy close to the face to kids playing in an environment. For that range of portrait shots the DA*50-135 is a terrific lens.

Here's my suggestion: Assuming that some of these kids are yours, you are gona want to shoot them a lot while they are still kids, and you are gona apprechiate those photos many years ahead form now. Go get the DA*50-135. The pyramids and such places will still be there when the kids are grown up. You can buy the wide angle later. Besides, if you want a wider lens now and can live without AF (since pyramids and such usually don't move as fast as kids) there are some MF lenses that could be a temporary alternative that you might afford together with the DA* (not so many cheap alternatives below 24mm actually, but yet).

[mokey]

I've got both the 12-24 and the 50-135. While the 12-24 is fun and useful for some neat distortion shots and landscapes, the 50-135 is my favorite lens. I like to get facial expressions etc from the kids(especially when they don't know) and the 50-135 is amazing for this.

[heatherslightbox]

I'm in agreement with everybody else in saying go for the 50-135 first, as it sounds like you'll be using that focal length range more than WA. After you get that lens, then you can start saving up for something in the WA part. On that note, my suggestion would be to wait until the DA15 comes out and see how it is in terms of IQ and price.

HTH,
Heather

[maxwell1295]

I feel your pain! You can look at the lenses in my sig for your answer.

I went about it a little differently. When I got the 24-60, I also had the DA14 and was lusting for the 50-135. Once I got the 50-135, I felt like I wanted another zoom to cover the wide end. That's where the 12-24 came in. I spent more than I wanted to, but in the end I'm really happy with those 3 lenses.

I have a feeling you're going to end up with all 3 lenses. You just have to decide the order in which you're going to get them. I know you won't be disappointed with the DA*50-135. It's every bit as good as what you've read about it, if not better...

[DanLoc78]

i've rented the 50-135 a few times and used for weddings...i have a feeling once i get it, it won't leave my camera body very often. Based on all the wisdom in this thread, i think that will definitely be my next lens.

the 12-24 would not get as much use, yet, as douglas pointed out. so it appears my mind is made up now! another dilemma i have is...once i have these three lenses...none of them are macro. any suggestions for a good macro out there? (floodgates open)

[maxwell1295]

i've rented the 50-135 a few times and used for weddings...i have a feeling once i get it, it won't leave my camera body very often. Based on all the wisdom in this thread, i think that will definitely be my next lens.

the 12-24 would not get as much use, yet, as douglas pointed out. so it appears my mind is made up now! another dilemma i have is...once i have these three lenses...none of them are macro. any suggestions for a good macro out there? (floodgates open)

Hahaha! You are walking the same path as I am. When I replaced the Sigma 17-70 with the 24-60, I missed the close focus of the 17-70. I ended up with the Tamron SP 90/25 Adaptall-2 lens, a lens I haven't used much. Now I'm thinking of replacing it with the DA35 Macro.

[jsherman999]

12-24 is a lens everyone can use, and is simply one of the funnest lenses you can get, but the 50-135 is the best zoom you can get for Pentax, period. I'd vote for getting the 50-135 now, and then saving your pennies for the 12-24 or Sigma 10-20.

As far as macro, DA 100 macro, Tammy 90 macro, Sigma 70 macro are all great AF macros that can be used as general lenses also. The DA 35ltd is a superb D-normal that also does 1:1 macro, although you have to be an inch away to get 1:1. (Most people do just fine at 1:2 macro though, 1:1 isn't as necessary for good photography as most people assume.)

I would buy, in order, 1) 50-135, 2) 12-24, 3) DA 35 macro. The 35 its nicely between the end of the 12-24 and start of the 50-135.


.

[DanLoc78]

that's an impressive lineup of lenses there in your signature...mama mia

[Canada_Rockies]

i've rented the 50-135 a few times and used for weddings...i have a feeling once i get it, it won't leave my camera body very often. Based on all the wisdom in this thread, i think that will definitely be my next lens.

the 12-24 would not get as much use, yet, as douglas pointed out. so it appears my mind is made up now! another dilemma i have is...once i have these three lenses...none of them are macro. any suggestions for a good macro out there? (floodgates open)

Do consider an older manual exposure macro. On the plus side, they are sharp and relatively speaking, not too expensive. A good M 100/4 will probably set you back a bit less than $300. The downside is that they are slower, manual focus and manual exposure. With your preference for getting up close, I would go for the longer lens. The 35 macro is fine for static objects, but it is very difficult to get that close to a bee on a flower.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

another dilemma i have is...once i have these three lenses...none of them are macro. any suggestions for a good macro out there? (floodgates open)

DA*50-135 as a macro lens:


OK, I admit, there is a converter and some +2 close up filter involved also. The DA*50-135 works fine with an extension tube as well (though without AF).
If you can't get a dedicated macro lens yet, go for some of the cheap short cuts meanwhile: tube, macro converter, close up filters...
...or a MF older macro lens, the Tamron SP 90/2.5, or the Pentax-M 100/4 macro does not cost much.