[RICHARD L.]

When I toured the American Southwest in 2018, I brought a Pentax K3 + DA 12-24 mm f/4 AL, FA 35 mm f/2 AL and DA* 60-250 mm f/4 ED. One of my best optimised kits ever.

DA 12-24 mm f/4 AL



FA 35 mm f/2 AL



DA* 60-250 mm f/4 ED

[Sandy Hancock]

I thought it would be fun to look at my lenses and see the overlap in focal length. I think I use the 18-135 more than any other.

Quick and dirty with Excel.

As Uncle Vanya has pointed out, the 10-17 and 15 Limited do not really overlap. I would say that your 18-55, 18-270 and 70-300 are largely redundant though.

But as others have suggested, unless you have run out of money or space, there's little harm in keeping them

[madison_wi_gal]

When I toured the American Southwest in 2018, I brought a Pentax K3 + DA 12-24 mm f/4 AL, FA 35 mm f/2 AL and DA* 60-250 mm f/4 ED. One of my best optimised kits ever.

DA 12-24 mm f/4 AL



FA 35 mm f/2 AL



DA* 60-250 mm f/4 ED

All - thanks! Learning a lot here.

---------- Post added 06-04-22 at 20:22 ----------

As Uncle Vanya has pointed out, the 10-17 and 15 Limited do not really overlap. I would say that your 18-55, 18-270 and 70-300 are largely redundant though.

But as others have suggested, unless you have run out of money or space, there's little harm in keeping them

Space is fine, I have an Aktiv Pak that holds all my stuff other than the cameras.

Yes, the 18-55 was the one that came with my beloved red K-r. The Tamron 18-250 (Average user rating 8.5) and Sigma 70-300 (Average user rating 6.97, eeek) were early when I was just getting going. I plan to try the 18-55 with a 720 IR filter but the others tend to stay in the bag. I could sell them if I was motivated.

[bob5050]

I thought it would be fun to look at my lenses and see the overlap in focal length. I think I use the 18-135 more than any other.

Definitely agree about considering aperture as well as FL.
I also shoot zooms, and the 18-135m probably the most, but I tend to think in terms of roles/situations rather than just FL.

• The 18-135mm is obviously a day/good-light walkabout
• But if I'm going to be urban all day, then the 16-85mm--a bit sharper and probably won't need the reach.
• On the other hand, indoors or evenings need more light, so my 20-40mm or constant F/2.8 or faster (like the 17-50mm).

It's pretty much always a trade-off, so even just in mid-range you really can't have too many choices <g>

[UncleVanya]

Ay! I am a geek but maybe not to this level. OK, I'm game for the angle of view calculation. My lenses are on the Pentax forum site (example 18-135 is (Diag. / Horiz.)
APS-C: 76-11.9 ° / 67-10 °

It's rainy day here, I guess I know what my project is.

Here are the D-FOV and H-FOV, for those who who do not hate charts. The 10-17 is cut off since it is an outlier, but it goes way up to 180.

It might be nice to have a version of this sheet to fill out. Any thoughts about putting a shared version up on Google docs? Even more interesting would be if Pentax forums hosted a tool to generate these graphs.

[madison_wi_gal]

It might be nice to have a version of this sheet to fill out. Any thoughts about putting a shared version up on Google docs? Even more interesting would be if Pentax forums hosted a tool to generate these graphs.

Well, my chart is made for me and as I said it is quick and dirty, so a 6.4% FOV is drawn out to 5%, for example. It might be better to make a sheet (I used Excel, not all do) that you can plug the actual FOV numbers in and it draws an accurate line.

My math colleague is helping me on the last iteration (cm of image at max FOV and minimum focus distance). Let's see what that looks like.

[ehrwien]

My math colleague is helping me on the last iteration (cm of image at max FOV and minimum focus distance). Let's see what that looks like.

instead of calculating yourself, couldn't you use the maximum reproduction ratio / magnification instead, which is already given for most (all?) lenses in the database here?

I think I'll make a sheet for my lenses comparing magnification vs. focal length. For DA primes I can already see that the 21 Limited and DA 35 have the same magnification of 0.17x, with the DA 50 coming close behind at 0.15x and the DA 40 Limited and DA 70 Limited trailing at 0.13x and 0.12x respectively, but none of those beat the 0.24x of the DA* 300.

[mikesbike]

Definitely agree about considering aperture as well as FL.
I also shoot zooms, and the 18-135m probably the most, but I tend to think in terms of roles/situations rather than just FL.
The 18-135mm is obviously a day/good-light walkabout
But if I'm going to be urban all day, then the 16-85mm--a bit sharper and probably won't need the reach.
On the other hand, indoors or evenings need more light, so my 20-40mm or constant F/2.8 or faster (like the 17-50mm).

I definitely agree with this ^^. In addition to what lenses are capable of and what your usual needs may be, it is best to think in terms of your equipment as tools in a tool box. The choice of a tool depends on the practical need at hand. I have many more tools, in this discussion lenses, than you have, most having been acquired over a period of many years. Some I rarely use, yet I can imagine a circumstance coming up where I might need them. Practical application should be a main consideration in evaluating your tool box.

For a long time, being actually overjoyed with the quality and capability I get from my APS-C bodies, even more so after getting the KP, I had little interest in going into FF. Then one day a couple of years ago, I once again thought about using some outstanding FF lenses I had bought years ago for 35mm film use that I would love to put back into use with a FF digital body, and pulled the trigger for a K-1 II. Doing this, and using these old lenses having a FOV most suitable for FF, turned out to bring an extremely satisfying new alternative into my tool box. One of these old bought for film-use lenses was actually not included in my consideration for a FF DSLR, as it is not a premium-grade lens, and my intention was and is, not to use my K-1 II for longer tele use anyway, due to weight and portability concerns. These would continue to be addressed with my APS-C gear. That old FF lens is my Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro, which has been seeing virtually no use for some 15 years.

Recently, when out on a casual waterfront walk with my K-1 II with the very fine DFA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR kit lens and my old compact Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 along, I saw some shooting opportunities from a vantage point needing more tele reach. Only then did I think about my old Sigma tele zoom lens sitting in mothballs at home. The next day, I got it out and did some test shots on my K-1 II. I was delighted at the high quality results evident in these test shots, which confirmed my memory of how much I had enjoyed it when using it with film years ago. The lens is not large or heavy, and will now be a bring-along for my K-1 II! I am glad I have dragged my feet in selling off my old lenses not in use, as this Sigma lens might have been one of them.

I too am very fond of my DA 18-135mm WR lens. It is extremely versatile for so many circumstances and uses, yet can deliver images of very high quality and with all of that is still compact for what it is. Even compact enough to be used with bicycling. For bicycling, it is always an APS-C kit, not my K-1 II. However, depending on how much compactness I might find best, and/or the need for more aperture as I deal with low light, etc. my most often-used bicycling kit is my 20-40mm and 70mm and/or 77mm Ltds. Of course, my DA 15mm Ltd lives in the front accessory pocket of my holster-type camera case anyway to complement whatever compact kit I might choose. For get-together social situations, I might decide on my K-S2 with the ultra-compact DA-L 18-50mm WR zoom lens in a very small holster belt case. Its selfie-with-friend feature could also be useful in this case.

Among the lenses in your tool box you list, only the DA 18-55mm seems to me to be superfluous, and for which there being a better other alternative. As to your 70-300mm, depends on which one, since there are substantial differences between them regarding image quality. If it is mediocre, it would serve no real need in view of your having one of the Pentax 55-300mm lenses. Even your lowly 18-250mm extra-super zoom could provide the perfect solution for some situations. I have used super zooms for shooting events like graduations, for example, where you need to sit where you are, and can use a good flash unit in the hot shoe as fill for the existing lighting. This lens allows framing of the entire stage, smaller groups, or zooming in on an individual. Only a super zoom can handle this type of thing.

[MarkJerling]

Love this thread!
Of course, I live in perpetual fear that I'll kick the bucket and that my wife will sell my camera gear, bicycles and espresso machine for what I told her I spent.

[Gary H Perth]

Sorry folks, I cannot help jumping in here. You are welcome to call me silly, but I come from an engineering background.

I think the focal-length axis would be better as a log scale, to better represent the visual difference of perspective between lenses at long focal lengths. This would be close to the angle of view concept.

Not so easy to label and display a log axis, though (but the aperture scale is also logarithmic)? And maybe not much use to the OP, although the closeness of say 70mm to 100mm would show as much smaller step than would 20mm to 50mm.