[Rmpjr7]

Hope everyone is having a nice long weekend! I need some advice please.

I am thinking hard about my current lens lineup and need advice on what changes to make. I shoot 99% of the time outdoors in good light. The only lens I won't consider selling is the M 50MM.

The Sigma 18-70 is used by far the most (excellent copy with no issues), but I would like something wider and really like the Pentax 16-45 as it is slightly wider and always gets stellar reviews.

The Pentax 43 ltd. is an incredible lens in all respects and truly has that 3-D look people who have it talk about. The reality for me is I hardly use it!

The DA 55-300 I use more, but I bought it for the long end, yet most of my shooting "long" tends to be around 200MM. It too is a very good copy and the only issue I see with it is it lacks some contrast, but is easily fixed in PP.

The M200 was my most pleasant surprise-it is very sharp, lighweight and I may well keep it because what it sells for is so low.

Sooo-I am thinking about selling the Sigma and 55-300 for sure, and getting a 50-135 or Sigma 70-200 or a 70-105 Macro (Sigma, Tamron or Pentax) because I like Macro but do not have a true Macro lens.

Sorry for this long post-what do you all think?

Thank you for your help-this is a terrific forum and group of people!

Bob

[robjmitchell]

So are you considering trading the 43 as well? You could swap it for the 35ltd macro and still get your f2.8 long zoom? I have the sigma 70 macro and it rocks for portraits, landscape and macro! there is also the option of a new WR 50-200 if you start missing that range. You could team it up with a 70 to 105macro and 16-45 for a fair price.
Cheers

[Lowell Goudge]

if you really like the sigma 18-70, then why not keep that lens, as the center peice and build around it.

As for the lenses you mention:

I don't think you will find 16mm wide enough (compared to 18) so why not go to really extend your range, and get either a 12-24 or 10-20 ultra wide zoom.

for the longer end, you say that you use the 55-300 mostly around 200mm, therefore what is the 50-135 going to do for you? sure it is going to be faster, but you will give up the focal length you use the most. Why not go for a 70-200 F2.8 and (eventually when an SDM TC appears) get a compatible TC if you want more range.

yes it is heavier than the 50-135, but more use to you.

Add the macro as a separate lens.

[Rmpjr7]

Good thoughts!
Yes, I would probably consider a trade for the 43MM LTD. The Sigma 70mm is also a lens I think about for macro and its reported great sharpness. I think Lowell is right that a 70-200 would make more sense for me than the 50-135.

Anyone else?

Bob

[larryinlc]

The Sigma 70mm is very sharp. Probably not sharper than any other macro, but certainly no less sharp than the very best of the best....in my opinion. I like it for it's focal length as it suits me perfectly for what I want to use it for. I've used a Voigtlander125, Pentax FA50, DA35, and a Sigma 105, and the 70mm is as good as those. Haven't tried it yet for portraits, but here is my second close-up using this fine lens. Yes, another watch movement. Now, it's hard to judge from a resized image, but looking at the raw shot, it's razor sharp. This is my go to macro lens now.



Larry

[Rmpjr7]

Very impressive!

Bob

[heatherslightbox]

Bob,
For me, the 55-300 has been such a great lens that the only reason I'd consider getting rid of it is if I really needed something faster. Since I do most of my shooting outside, the speed isn't that big of a deal for me at this point. I don't use it too often at the 300 end, either, but it's nice to know that it's there when I need it. One thing to consider to is the weight of the lens--the 55-300 is a lot lighter in weight than any 70-200/2.8, which will make it a lot easier to carry around.

As for my 17-70, again, the main reason I'd want to get rid of it is if I really needed something faster. A second reason to get rid of it would be if Pentax ever came out with the DA17-70 in a WR version. Like yours, mine spends a lot of time on the camera. I did have the 16-45 for a while and I really did like it, but it just wasn't quite long enough for me. Between using both the 17-70 and the 16-45, I really don't think that losing 1mm on the wide end has made much of a difference at all--if I need to go wider, I can usually just back up a little. If you're really wanting to get into WA photography, you might want to consider keeping the 17-70 and saving up for a "real" WA lens like the Sigma 10-20 or DA12-24.

As for macro lenses, I would most definitely recommend the DFA100--great IQ in a nice lightweight package.

HTH,
Heather