Originally posted by tvfd911 1. If I went with one of the primes (most likely the 15mm limited), am I getting too close to the range of the 16-50 that I'd like in a year or two?
My opinion is that if you're comparing these lenses ONLY on the basis of their focal lengths then yes, there's no point in getting the 15mm if you know you'll be getting the 16-50. But there's a lot to distinguish the two lenses - the 15mm has a lot less distortion, is much smaller and lighter, and shares filters with the other limited lenses. If none of those things are important to you then it's probably not the right lens to buy.
Quote: 2. Would I miss the extra 10-15mm width from the Sigma?
Again, it depends on whether you get "hooked" on wide angle shots. If you do, then yes, you'd definitely miss the extra field of view.
Quote: So, I have myself pretty much talked out of the 16-50 unless you all think I'm way off base with my logic. The 12-24 is too expensive. I can't keep my mind set on the 15mm or 10-20 until I buy one, which probably won't happen until the end of the month or so anyways.
I agree that the extra 2mm (assuming you're "kit" is the 18-55) seems a pretty meager benefit for buying a new lens. My solution was the DA12-24 (although I'd still like to get the DA15 if it's price comes down a little). It's a beautiful lens, but costly now that the price has gone up. I'm have no experience with the Sigma 10-20 but Photozone seems to think it's decent and from your musings I suspect it may be a good fit for you.
Last edited by Sean Nelson; 06-07-2009 at 12:26 PM.