[jsherman999]

Moving the feet changes perspective. That's a totally different thing than changing focal length.

I'm not saying you absolutely need the focal lengths between there, but I will again point out that those are the most common focal lengths used in photography. You had better really know what you're doing if you're going to choose to forego them. If you have enough experience to be able to conclude logically that you're unlike the vast majority of photographers and would not miss those focal lengths, great, but if you're new to this, it would foolish to assume you're not going to miss what most people have relied on the most over the years.



And he'd be a case in point - that 50mm on 35mm film is like 33mm on APS-C in terms of field of view - right smack dab in the middle of the range you are not covering.

This is why I think the FA 35 f/2 or FA 31ltd might be a better choice than the 50 1.4, but I still think speed (giving low-light ability + DOF magic) is more important than covering every possible focal length with a f/2.8 or f/4 zoom.

You have a good point about perspective changing a bit if you move or crop - but I've been limited more often by not having speed, personally.


.

[pdo]

Get the Pentax DA 12-24mm and 50-135mm and if you can afford it then get 2 bodies.

[Marc Sabatella]

This is why I think the FA 35 f/2 or FA 31ltd might be a better choice than the 50 1.4, but I still think speed (giving low-light ability + DOF magic) is more important than covering every possible focal length with a f/2.8 or f/4 zoom.

I agree with this as a general sentiment, and if all zooms disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. But I don't see why one has to choose between speed and the most useful focal length(s) - they aren't mutually exclusive possibilities. Why not get a 50 for speed but also have something - even if just the kit lens - to cover the "normal" focal lengths? Or get the FA35 for to get both at once?

I'd also say for most photographers, f/2.8 is enough speed most of the time, to the point where I'd say most would be better off with something that is f/2.8 at a focal length they love than something that is f/1.4 at a focal length they don't find as useful.

But, of course, everyone is different, which is why I really think the OP should gain a better understanding of what his own focal length needs are before committing to anything.

[IronWolf]

Marc, I agree and understand where you are coming from. As I'm newer to it, it might be just as easy to get the 18-250 and figure out what I need from there. In terms of this though, I was just interested to see what other people would do, or have done in building there lens system. Thanks for the advice, appreciate it, and I'll have to make some decisions.

[Canada_Rockies]

One man's set is the one in my signature. I would like to update the two M's to something with A exposure capabilities, but that is only for convenience. Despite all the members of this forum that love a 70-200 on digital, I hardly ever use my 70-210/4. It will not be given away, because if I need 200mm, its there and without a converter. So I cover, with no gaps, 12mm to 210mm, and have a 100mm macro and a 400 for the long stuff, along with a couple of TC's to play on the back of the 400 when I feel adventurous.

I would dearly love to change the 100 macro for the FA* 200mm f/4 macro, but that is so far outside my budget it's insane.

I would also dearly love to change the 400/5.6 M for something with A on the aperture ring, but that won't happen before I win the lottery either.

LBA not withstanding, I actually have a set of lenses that do pretty much all I want to do.

[Roburg]

I think that the 24-50 gap is a huge loss! I think I'd take a lot of my shots in this range.

One lens I have that has good quality output and comes at a fairly low price is the FA28-70 f4. Not common, but sharp and reasonably fast. It is plastic but the results are great.

My other favourite medium zoom is the A 35-105 f3.5. Same comments, except its heavy metal and glass and manual focus, of course.

[legacyb4]

Argh, more fuel to fan the flames.

16-45 f4 (working on) or 12-24mm f4 (stretch)
35mm f2 (have) or 31mm f1.8 (working on)
43mm f1.29 (have)
50-135mm DA* f.28 (have)

Covers you on the wide end, gives you the option for some choice primes in the middle and you have the long end covered.

[jeffrey r]

I think that the 24-50 gap is a huge loss! I think I'd take a lot of my shots in this range.

Agreed. For walk-around usage, where you might take a photo of your significant other or children, or whatever else, to not have the 24/28-50 range covered would be quite limiting imo. And that's why at the very least, so many people have the Sigma 24-60 (24-70) and Tamron 28-75 or some of the wider zooms (17-50, 17-70, etc.). Very useful ranges covered with one lens.

[brucestrange]

This is why I think the FA 35 f/2 or FA 31ltd might be a better choice than the 50 1.4, but I still think speed (giving low-light ability + DOF magic) is more important than covering every possible focal length with a f/2.8 or f/4 zoom.

I agree that the FA35 or FA31 would be a better choice than the FA50. As far as the 50 offering more speed, it comes with a caveat: you lose a lot of sharpness when you open it up. When I first got my K110D, I bought the FA50 because everyone said that's what you need. I really loved it. It takes great pictures, but I didn't know what I was missing until I bought the FA35. The 35 is a much more useful focal length, being closer to the traditional FOV that a 50 offers on 35mm film. Also, it's much more useful in low lighting. With the 50, it was always, "Do I want to open it up so I can use a lower ISO, but sacrifice sharpness in a major way, or just keep it at a 2.8 and live with the noise?" The 50 really is soft wide open, and it takes it till 2.8 to get where the FA35 already is at wide open. And a 2 is pretty fast. Especially a sharp-across-the-frame 2. So if you have the DA* 50-135mm, you've got that short tele area covered already. I think you'd find the normal FOV of the 35 nice to have. As far as the FA31, I think that's a fantastic choice, but if I had 800 bucks (which I don't) I'd buy two or three lenses instead. Some day when I have money to burn, I'll get it. Until then, the FA35 is kicking butt and taking names.

[Lowell Goudge]

Hey All, I've been starting to really look into lenses (perhaps a little LBA haha), and I've had a post on here about a good wide angle. That led me into some other discussions and thoughts. I did some reading and saw a recommendation of good setup to start with, so I was curious what every one thinks.

For the time being you can put money aside (or if you really want to include a price for performance lens feel free).

The setup I saw would be something like this:

12-24mm f4
50mm f1.4
50-135mm DA* f.28

And then grow the needed lenses from there. I realize there is a gap between 24 and 50, but that can be made up by moving the feet I think?
Just curious what your thoughts are on this setup, or what you would think a good "ideal" setup would be. Seems like the 50-135 is getting rave reviews, and is almost too good to pass up.

Right now I have 2 lenses: 50mm f1.4, and an Old Pentax SMC 135mm f.35 prime (My dad bought this in the late 70's).

So anyways, lets here what you all think is a great starting setup!

I hope to shoot landscapes/architecture, all the way to birds (which I can get fairly close to them as they are at bird feeders maybe 20 feet away).

Thanks for your thoughts! Remember this can be an ideal (go all DA* if you really want haha.)

you have comitted the ultimate sin. You have asked a question that will generate at least one response from each forum member, because I'm sure they all consier their setup to be IDEAL

I will approach this differently, I won't tell you my setup, there is no need because,
a) its mine not yours
b) its been posted many times already.

What I recommend is that you need to consider ultimately going for a range from 10mm to about 200mm, with some way to get 400mm for wild life if you are interested.

there are 23 million pentax lenses out there already (not counting 3rd party), so I'll let you imagine how many combinations are possible.

Things to consider
- if you are not really interested in wild life you can usually drop the need to go to 400mm
- wild life (or not) may also make you decide about whether 200mm or 135 is long enough.
- you need to consider some low light capability, with at least one lens faster than F2.8
- while not absolute, it is very nice to have as much of the 10-135/200 range at F2.8
- ultra wide (10-12mm) is great for travel and archetecture but not an absolute for landscapes
- do you still shoot film or have a full frame film camera? do the lenses need to work on it?

ALl of these things impact what you get, and I'm sure there are more. What I can recommend is that before replacing your kit lens, look at extending the range of lenses first. Only replace the kit lens if you find you need faster, sharper, etc... don't throw it away just because someone else says buy this

edit note, you already have some components of what you need.

plan out a map of what you think would be good and post that, looking for comments from others as to the pro's and con's

[IronWolf]

you have comitted the ultimate sin. You have asked a question that will generate at least one response from each forum member, because I'm sure they all consier their setup to be IDEAL

I will approach this differently, I won't tell you my setup, there is no need because,
a) its mine not yours
b) its been posted many times already.

What I recommend is that you need to consider ultimately going for a range from 10mm to about 200mm, with some way to get 400mm for wild life if you are interested.

there are 23 million pentax lenses out there already (not counting 3rd party), so I'll let you imagine how many combinations are possible.

Things to consider
- if you are not really interested in wild life you can usually drop the need to go to 400mm
- wild life (or not) may also make you decide about whether 200mm or 135 is long enough.
- you need to consider some low light capability, with at least one lens faster than F2.8
- while not absolute, it is very nice to have as much of the 10-135/200 range at F2.8
- ultra wide (10-12mm) is great for travel and archetecture but not an absolute for landscapes
- do you still shoot film or have a full frame film camera? do the lenses need to work on it?

ALl of these things impact what you get, and I'm sure there are more. What I can recommend is that before replacing your kit lens, look at extending the range of lenses first. Only replace the kit lens if you find you need faster, sharper, etc... don't throw it away just because someone else says buy this

edit note, you already have some components of what you need.

plan out a map of what you think would be good and post that, looking for comments from others as to the pro's and con's

Awesome, thanks for the advice. I think Marc and yourself are saying the same sort of things, and I agree. I don't want to blow money, but at the same time, I'm trying to think about the most effective way to cover say wide angle/landscape all the way to 200 or so first. I want to buy good glass though, so F2.8 if possible. The issue I have is everyone highly recommends the 50-135, but then I would have nothing 135+. And it starts at 50. The 12-24 gives the nice wide angle, but then I guess I need something to cover the 20-50 range? Like you said a 17-70 could fill that.

Of course, I could just drop the 12-24 and go 16-50 and 50-135 DA*'s. I lose some wide end, but I'm not sure how much I'm losing that's the problem haha.

[Nick Siebers]

I've yet to feel that I needed wider than 20mm, even on digital. For most shooting I do, even 24mm will suffice. And I rarely use even 135mm on digital. So my most practical kit would be:

FA 20-35mm f/4
DA40mm f/2.8
Tokina 90mm macro f/2.5

Of course my lens collection has tons of redundancy, so other arrangements could be made.

This is what I hope my Lens line up will look like at the end of 2009.

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6**

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5**

Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 ltd*

Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 ltd*

Sigma/Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 *

And possibly a FA 50mm f1.4 for good measure.

* means I don't have the lens - yet. I'm working on the DA 70mm and 40mm first, 70-200 later. But I might settle for a 55-300 since I don't use 150 + much. I do have a Sigma 18-200 if I get desperate.

** means I already have it.