[Andi Lo]

One thing that you might want to consider is that weight and length of the lens is a "limiting factor" as well. The 50mm is tiny compared to the 16-50 and 50-135. If you want to keep the compactness, the limiteds or the kit lens might actually be a better contender than the 16-50/50-135.

[Marc Sabatella]

hmmm that's not a bad strategy, but right now I'm thinking it's nicer to buy good glass while I can afford too

Makes sense, but I'd still suggest going for the focal lengths you absolutely need (like 16-50) rather than taking a chance on something that you may or may not find much use for (like the 14).

[sharko]

I sold my DA 14mm a few months ago to fund the purchase of a DA 12-24mm and while the 12-24 is obviously a more versatile lens and is sharper than the DA 14 the one thing I miss from the DA 14 is it's close focusing distance. You can push really tight that that lens to get a dramatic "pop" to your images...especially with portraiture or anything else you want to really stand out. Now it may be more of a niche type of photography but wide angle portaits are a nice alternative to the typical ~50-85mm range they are normally taken with. The 12-24 can't focus nearly as close but I think it is better for landscapes since at some point you won't be able to zoom in with your feet anymore and you can zoom in closer with the lens to have a better selection of what you want in the frame without having to crop later.

[EricT]

I sold my DA 14mm a few months ago to fund the purchase of a DA 12-24mm and while the 12-24 is obviously a more versatile lens and is sharper than the DA 14 the one thing I miss from the DA 14 is it's close focusing distance. You can push really tight that that lens to get a dramatic "pop" to your images...especially with portraiture or anything else you want to really stand out. Now it may be more of a niche type of photography but wide angle portaits are a nice alternative to the typical ~50-85mm range they are normally taken with. The 12-24 can't focus nearly as close but I think it is better for landscapes since at some point you won't be able to zoom in with your feet anymore and you can zoom in closer with the lens to have a better selection of what you want in the frame without having to crop later.

Interesting observation, especially considering the Sigma 10-20 has a much closer minimum focusing distance than the 12-24.

[IronWolf]

Awesome thanks for the advice. I guess right now, I might be better off looking at the 16-50 or the 50-135 as my next lens, just need to decide which one I will use more right now!