[axl]

OK,
I know it's one of those thread where at the end of the day it's only me who can decide but I'd still like to hear your opinions.
Now my LBA has been fairly moderate (since Sept. 06 I purchased 2 bodies, 2 flashes, 5 zooms and 8 primes plus some extras). Some of the lenses came and went and at the moment I have this collection:

zooms:
Sigma 10-20 (non HSM)
Pentax 18-55 (first version)
Tamron 70-300

primes:
Sigma 24/2.8 AF, 105/2.8 EX DG macro
Pentax 31ltd, 40ltd, F50/1.7, SMC 5.6/400

Now, kit and the Tamron are basicly all my wife uses (sometimes she uses 105 too), the rest of it is my kit. So we have ultra wide zoom and then collection of primes, all in all 7 lenses from 10 to 400mm. With some I'm really happy with some I'm OK. I try to use all of them but sometimes I feel bad for not using some enough. Especialy the "normal" sector became crammed with 24, 31, 40 and 50.With 10-20 I have 5 lenses to cover ultra wide to short tele. To carry all of them and keep changing them...
so how about: sell 10-20, 24 and 40 and get 12-24.
Then I'd end up with 3 lens main kit consisting of all Pentax lenses:
DA12-24/4, FA31ltd and F50/1.7 and possibly some spare cash.
Possibly at some stage later I'd swap 50 for DA*55 and in VERY distant future probalby 70-200/2.8
would the first stage be worth it?
Can you tell me your hones opinion?

Thank you,

BR
Peter

[NaClH2O]

It seems OK, but there is a BIG hole between 105mm and 400. I'd suggest the Pentax A 70-210, excellent lens F4.0 constant aperture, very good bokeh (especially for a zoom) and it's even got a "macro" function at 70mm (read close focus). If you want to stick with primes, I'm still in love with my K 135mm F2.5, but I've also heard good things about the A, F an FA 135's.
There are also a bunch of 200mm's culminating in the stellar (and the price is out of this world too) FA*200mm F2.8 macro.

NaCl(that's my thoughts on it anyway)H2O

[Kguru]

Do you much prefer the 12-24 over the 10-20, or upgrade just to cover the gap after selling 24?
A disadvantage with this upgrade is at 24mm you drop from f/2.8 to f/4

So if for myself I would keep the 24 for now, first step is to consolidate 40 & 50/1.7 into a 55*. With your 31 they make a mouth-watering pair.

[creampuff]

You got too many lenses...

Keep it minimalist, drop off the overlapping lenses and stick with a few good lenses:
DA 12-24, FA 31, DA* 60-250
keep the Sigma 105 macro.

Caveat: not too much of a difference between the Sigma 10-20mm and DA 12-24mm. You lose 2mm on the wide end (a lot in angle of view) but you gain a more useful focal range imo and the lens is sharper and constant f/4.

You need a body upgrade. Get the K-7 and see your lenses perform.

[axl]

It seems OK, but there is a BIG hole between 105mm and 400. I'd suggest the Pentax A 70-210, excellent lens F4.0 constant aperture, very good bokeh (especially for a zoom) and it's even got a "macro" function at 70mm (read close focus). If you want to stick with primes, I'm still in love with my K 135mm F2.5, but I've also heard good things about the A, F an FA 135's.
There are also a bunch of 200mm's culminating in the stellar (and the price is out of this world too) FA*200mm F2.8 macro.

NaCl(that's my thoughts on it anyway)H2O

I agree on the gap between 105 & 400. But I'm not too big fan of MF. And AF 70-200 are out of question for now...

[axl]

Do you much prefer the 12-24 over the 10-20, or upgrade just to cover the gap after selling 24?
A disadvantage with this upgrade is at 24mm you drop from f/2.8 to f/4

So if for myself I would keep the 24 for now, first step is to consolidate 40 & 50/1.7 into a 55*. With your 31 they make a mouth-watering pair.

Yes the DA12-24 would be pretty much replacement for both Sigma lenses. The f4 doesn't bother me all that much since until f5.6 the corners of 24/2.8 are pretty bad actualy so tight framing at shallow-ish f stops is out of question anyway...
the only thing is, I'm not sure if I'd be happy with 12mm as ny widest after experiencing 10mm
about the mouth watering pair... I agree but selling 40&50 wouldn't collect anywhere near what is needed for 55*

[axl]

You got too many lenses...

Keep it minimalist, drop off the overlapping lenses and stick with a few good lenses:
DA 12-24, FA 31, DA* 60-250
keep the Sigma 105 macro.

Caveat: not too much of a difference between the Sigma 10-20mm and DA 12-24mm. You lose 2mm on the wide end (a lot in angle of view) but you gain a more useful focal range imo and the lens is sharper and constant f/4.

You need a body upgrade. Get the K-7 and see your lenses perform.

new body is sadly out of qestion for now and so is 60-250, sadly...
I agree on the 10-20 + 24 vs 12-24 situation. I'm leaning towards selling those off + 40 to raise funds for 12-24. it should be enough...

thank you all for your thoughts

BR
Peter

[Kguru]

the only thing is, I'm not sure if I'd be happy with 12mm as ny widest after experiencing 10mm
about the mouth watering pair... I agree but selling 40&50 wouldn't collect anywhere near what is needed for 55*

That actually makes your way forward simpler. Sell 24&40&50 to get the 55*
then in future upgrade 10-20 to a Tamron 10-24 which I hear will be released in Pentax mount shortly.

[axl]

well selling 24-40-50 to get 55 would be enough but I'm not sure if it's reasonable given my usage of focal lenghts

BR

[Ash]

Would you regret not having the 40?
If you had to sell it to get the 12-24, only the kit lens can match this FL, and then, it just won't have the same kind of results.
Though, if you're happy with your fast fifty and find the 40 ltd superfluous, then the 12-24 a decent option.

Which of your lenses do you not use?
These would be the first to go IMO.
And if you're happy with the 10-20, perhaps you don't need the 12-24 after all...

[Kguru]

well selling 24-40-50 to get 55 would be enough but I'm not sure if it's reasonable given my usage of focal lenghts

If your primary purpose is to cut down the number of lenses then a gap factor of 1.7x between FLs is almost the ideal arrangement: 10-24, 31, 55, 105. Can't do much better than that to cover 10-105 with four lenses.

Or sell the 105 as well & get the 50-135 zoom instead of 55*, ending up with 10-24, 31, 50-135

[Just1MoreDave]

Two potential competitors for ultra-wide zooms are possibly in the near future: Sigma's new 10-20 and Tamron's 10-24. These options might be worth considering instead of just jumping to the DA 12-24. I don't know how far off Pentax versions are.

[Canada_Rockies]

Wide zooms.
Analyze your use of the 10-20 and see how much of the time you use wider than 12mm. The other thing to check out is to see how accurate the 10mm and 12mm are in real life. I am sure that the testing facilities can come up with numbers. Many lenses overstate the numbers a bit here and there, and you might not be as short as you think.

That will tell you whether or not the 12-24 will cramp your style. I am very happy with the field of view of the 12-24, and its optical quality is even better than I had hoped when I bought it. The distortion is low enough that I have even done panoramas stitching it together over 360 degrees, just to see what would happen. Another lens to consider would be the 10-17 fisheye for when you need wider than 12mm. The field of view is even wider than the Sigma at 10mm because of the type of lens it is. I personally dislike the fisheye look most of the time, but the odd fisheye image does strike me.

Normal zoom?
Would you be happy with a normal zoom such as the DA* 16-50 or DA 17-70? I am one of the happy campers with the 16-50, but there is a lot of overlap with the 12-24. The 17-70 might be a nicer fit while still keeping SDM. This could replace a lot of the primes with a single lens with more than adequate quality.

Short tele zoom
I have the DA* 50-135, and frankly, it is a marvellous piece of glass. In film days I used the A 70-210 (and still have it!) and that was a perfect field of view range. In digital, 50-135 is almost exactly the same range. It fits me. It's weather resistant so I can use it outdoors without panic, and focuses very quietly using SDM. In view of the SDM reluctance on occasion, I will be checking the lens out very carefully this fall, just before the Canadian two year warranty runs out and shipping it off to be repaired at Pentax expense.

Moderate tele zoom
I use the A 70-210 for this range of coverage. Interestingly enough, I seldom use anything between 135 and 400, so it is seldom used. That, of course, is just my usage, and in case of necessity I can put the 1.4X-S on the back of the 70-210 to get 100-300, filling the gap nicely.

My kit
I carry, most of the time, four lenses only. they are the DA 12-24, DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135 and my elderly but good M 100 macro. This covers everything but wildlife photos. You have the Sigma 105, so that's a keeper from all I have read. I would seriously consider the DA 17-70 as a replacement for the 16-50 in this lineup, depending on whether or not you need/want f/2.8 all the way from 16 to 135mm.

That's my shot at your question. As you can see, I am not a much of a fan of zooms that go over 3:1 focal length ratio, despite the convenience. That said, there are quite a few 3:1 or less zooms that are more than adequate quality. All three of the zooms in the list are covered by DxO Standard correction software, so they are almost "perfect in every way."

You can also see, that I am not a fan of lenses by other companies. I have tried them on occasion, and always come back to "the Pentax look." I had a Sigma 75-250 with matched macro "filter" for a while, but it was mechanically not up to snuff, although adequate (barely) optically. The latest escapade was 2003, when I tried the Sigma 170-500 as a possible replacement for the 400. It was much softer than the 400. I've pretty well decided that Asahi Optical will make (or oversee the making of) my lenses. I am sure that I am rejecting out of hand a whole bunch of superb lenses this way, but my kit right now is about as close to perfect for my needs as I can get - once I add the K20 to the mix, of course, and the 55-300 would be handy ...

[axl]

Would you regret not having the 40?
...snip...

Which of your lenses do you not use?
.... snip...
And if you're happy with the 10-20, perhaps you don't need the 12-24 after all...

would I miss 40 hard probably yes....
Out of my current line up? Probably 50 is the least used lens (see graphs below)
... and the last suggestion is perhaps true, but gap between 20 and 31 is too wide to skip 24mm...

Wide zooms.
Analyze your use of the 10-20 and see how much of the time you use wider than 12mm. ... snip ...
Another lens to consider would be the 10-17 fisheye for when you need wider than 12mm. The field of view is even wider than the Sigma at 10mm because of the type of lens it is. I personally dislike the fisheye look most of the time, but the odd fisheye image does strike me.

my 10-20 is stuck at 10 a lot...
and my taste for FE is as yours, the odd image is OK but not worth having £400 lens....

Normal zoom?
Would you be happy with a normal zoom such as the DA* 16-50 or DA 17-70? I am one of the happy campers with the 16-50, but there is a lot of overlap with the 12-24. The 17-70 might be a nicer fit while still keeping SDM. This could replace a lot of the primes with a single lens with more than adequate quality.

I was thinking about this... and 16-50 DA* seems good option here but then to part with my ltds....

Short tele zoom
I have the DA* 50-135, and frankly, it is a marvellous piece of glass. In film days I used the A 70-210 (and still have it!) and that was a perfect field of view range. In digital, 50-135 is almost exactly the same range. It fits me. It's weather resistant so I can use it outdoors without panic, and focuses very quietly using SDM. In view of the SDM reluctance on occasion, I will be checking the lens out very carefully this fall, just before the Canadian two year warranty runs out and shipping it off to be repaired at Pentax expense.

here I'd love go with 50-135 and I hope one nice sunny day (maybe when I retire and enjoying huge pension) I'd love to get this DA* but for now I simply can't justify having it and the only way to get this would be to sell all but 10-20 and buy 16-50 & 50-135 which I'm not sure about...

Moderate tele zoom
I use the A 70-210 for this range of coverage. Interestingly enough, I seldom use anything between 135 and 400, so it is seldom used. That, of course, is just my usage, and in case of necessity I can put the 1.4X-S on the back of the 70-210 to get 100-300, filling the gap nicely.

here I'm with you again. Very rarely I wish to have anything between 105 and 400. But I was thinking to unload some lenses and get Sigma 100-300/4 but again...
Money...

My kit
I carry, most of the time, four lenses only. they are the DA 12-24, DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135 and my elderly but good M 100 macro. This covers everything but wildlife photos. You have the Sigma 105, so that's a keeper from all I have read. I would seriously consider the DA 17-70 as a replacement for the 16-50 in this lineup, depending on whether or not you need/want f/2.8 all the way from 16 to 135mm.

That's my shot at your question. As you can see, I am not a much of a fan of zooms that go over 3:1 focal length ratio, despite the convenience. That said, there are quite a few 3:1 or less zooms that are more than adequate quality. All three of the zooms in the list are covered by DxO Standard correction software, so they are almost "perfect in every way."

You can also see, that I am not a fan of lenses by other companies. I have tried them on occasion, and always come back to "the Pentax look." I had a Sigma 75-250 with matched macro "filter" for a while, but it was mechanically not up to snuff, although adequate (barely) optically. The latest escapade was 2003, when I tried the Sigma 170-500 as a possible replacement for the 400. It was much softer than the 400. I've pretty well decided that Asahi Optical will make (or oversee the making of) my lenses. I am sure that I am rejecting out of hand a whole bunch of superb lenses this way, but my kit right now is about as close to perfect for my needs as I can get - once I add the K20 to the mix, of course, and the 55-300 would be handy ...

I have to admit you have nice kit... and it is tempting but... experience with 31 & 40 ltd is hard to forget in favor of anything, I love those two and would miss them... it's just that I feel bad using one instead of another, but I'm getting to the stage where I know what lens I want for what kind of shots so...
I simply don't know
damn LBA (at least something to blame )

anyway, asking about which lenses I use...
timeline:
I entered 2008 with 10-20 and kit and Tamron 28-200. DA40 came in late April, F50 in May, 400 in summer (Tamron went to cover the expenses). I did have Tokina 28/2.8 RMC MF but didn't use it a lot and got rid of it early in 2009. Graph for 2008 looks like this:



28mm goes to Tamron (most of it), and 0 are shared between 28/135/400 (K100D doesn't display FL unless not electronicaly transmitted to it [I got K10 in November, hence the 11 atributed 400mm)

2009: I entered with 10-20/28/40/50/105/400
early into the year 31 came along and in May 24 came in...
here is graph for 01/09 - 06/09



so the least used lens? maybe 50 followed by 105 (it's unfair to judge 24 since I have only had it for a month).
So... any more opinions?
Let me know

BR
Peter

[Canada_Rockies]

HI, Axl. I'm happy to see that you took my excessively long winded post in the sense that I meant it - one man's thoughts on lenses from which you can pick and choose and perhaps bounce your own likes and dislikes against.

From your analysis, I would say that your 10-20 is a definite keeper. I did a brief analysis of my usage of the 10-24, and I seem to use it as if it were two lenses, 12mm and 24mm. We seem to favour similar focal lengths.

Your 105 is as good a macro as any, so that's a keeper as well.

Your elderly 400 rounds out the easy decisions. I will just add a comment here about the prime usage. For many, many years my entire kit was 28/55/135. I worked within those limitations, and was quite happy at the image quality ( all Pentax glass). I came later to realize that sometimes I just wanted a focal length that was between the lenses I had. I was indeed reluctant to give up the image quality I had become used to, so when my father's passing (at 102+) gave me a few disposable dollars, I bought the K10, D-BG2 + 12-24, then the 50-135 and later still the 16-50. The latter two were bought as much for the weather resistance and speed as anything else. I already had the focal lengths covered with capable lenses - the FA 24-90 and the A 70-210.

Good luck with your decisions. They will not be easy to make, and sometimes you will regret one or the other, but only slightly.