[Schmidlapper]

I have a k200d with the 18-55 II kit lens, an A50 1.7 and I have just purchased the DA 55-300. Would the DA 12-24 be the better next purchase or replace kit with something like the Tamron 17-50? I feel the 12-24 would add the most by offering more wide end and over lapping the kit lens at its weaker wide end, along with the A50 1.7 covering the 50 end. This would give me from 12 to 300 nicely covered. Would the Tamron 17-50 be that much better than the kit lens as to make it the better next move over the 12-24? Also, I can't really afford to switch to strictly primes, so zoom remains my better choice.

[Ash]

Lots of options available to you depending on your most used focal length and budget...

Although the kit lens isn't bad, there is lots of IQ to gain from going with a Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50/2.8 or Pentax 16-45 or even Pentax 16-50.

The 12-24 is always going to get good recommendations due to its top quality, so that would be up to you as to whether to go for this with the kit lens or upgrade the kit lens and wait to save up for an ultra-wide lens like the 12-24 or Sigma's 10-20. Just depends on what you want to use it for.

All the best in your choices.

[rparmar]

I feel the 12-24 would add the most by offering more wide end and over lapping the kit lens at its weaker wide end, along with the A50 1.7 covering the 50 end. This would give me from 12 to 300 nicely covered.

Since you are not into primes at this time, I think you are correct. Even though I am into primes, I chose the DA12-24 anyway since it covers such a wide range so well. You cannot go wrong with this lens.

[mtngal]

It comes down to what you find missing with your current set-up. If you are reasonably happy with the kit lens and but wish it were wider, then the DA 12-24 is an excellent choice - it was my choice over replacing my version 1 kit lens and I've never regretted it. On the other hand, if you do lots of low-light photography and are constantly frustrated with the slow shutter speeds with the kit lens, then one of the f2.8 kit replacements would make more sense.

The 12-24 provides a different perspective and it's been a fun lens for me to use. It's made me look at my surroundings differently, expanding my horizons.

[Schmidlapper]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful input. I am sure the 12-24 is my next purchase as it brings the most to my current line up and the kit replacement could come later. The 12-24 does not behave as a fisheye, correct? I am under the impression that it is a very good lens.

[Ash]

No, the 12-24 is a rectilinear lens with reasonably good distortion control.
As mentioned, it is a high quality lens that produces brilliant images.

[nostatic]

I think it really depends on what/why you shoot. The concept of "full coverage" is only important if you either *have* to shoot subjects at a wide variety of focal lengths (ie it is your job), or if you really "see" the world in a variety of ways.

Right now my widest lens is a 31ltd (sold the 16-45, 16-50 and 15 - note to self - should have kept the 16-45), and the only reason I'm pondering picking up something wider is that I have a single shoot where I need to do a large group indoors. I likely will just borrow or rent something to do that session and then go back to shooting what I want and what I normally "see".

My solution actually is to just carry a small second camera that does wide (DLux4). While the files aren't as nice, for many final outputs (web or small prints) you frankly aren't going to see much of a difference especially for typical wide subjects (landscapes, interiors, etc).

But it totally depends on what you need. I'm actually quite close to trying to do the "single camera/single prime" experiment for a few months. It'll either be 31 or 43, or I might pick up a DP-2 for the exercise. The bottom line is that if you're shooting for yourself, you don't necessarily have to have "full coverage."

[rparmar]

The concept of "full coverage" is only important if you either *have* to shoot subjects at a wide variety of focal lengths (ie it is your job), or if you really "see" the world in a variety of ways.

This is true as well. For me I am happy with the FA77 most of the time. But when you need wide, to do an interior or fit in a large group, then you really need it. Nothing else will work. So eventually I bought the DA12-24, in fact I traded for it. But it was the last lens I obtained, after DA55-300, 105 macro, FA77/1.8, K50/1.2, FA43/1.9, 28/2, DA16-45 and others.

So I guess I recommend it, but it was hardly my first choice!

[Lowell Goudge]

My normal recomendation is to exapnd your range before replacing any of the lenses.

the kit lens for all it's fault is one of the best bang for buck lenses you can get.

since you have a long lens, and a 50mm prime, an ultra wide of some form would be logical.

youo can choose from tamron 10-24, sigma 10-20 and pentax 12-24. I have the old sigma 10-20 and shoot 20% of all my shots annually with that lens, and 60% of those shots are at 10mm, so personally, I would recomend either lens that goes down to 10mm.

then, you can look at what to replace the kit lens with. I would actually suggest something that covers the range 18-70mm because then it gives you some overlap with both the other zooms, meaning that for marginal shots you would not be changing lenses as often.

[Schmidlapper]

Actually this is just my hobby. My photographic method involves finding an interesting (to me) scene and then to find the best composition for it according to my taste. So wide coverage is important as it gives me the latitude to adjust for my preferred framing. Primes are generally optically superior by limiting their focal length parameter to one, making it easier to optimize. So the photographer becomes the zoom mechanism, which is not always practical and in my case could force me to settle on how I compose and frame the shot I want. If I had enough primes to cover an adequate range I could go prime, hence my comment that I can't afford to go with primes. Having a couple of superior prime lenses to work with or using a couple of zooms with a superior range of focal lengths is just another factor to prioritize by.

[GerryL]

Actually this is just my hobby. My photographic method involves finding an interesting (to me) scene and then to find the best composition for it according to my taste. So wide coverage is important as it gives me the latitude to adjust for my preferred framing. Primes are generally optically superior by limiting their focal length parameter to one, making it easier to optimize. So the photographer becomes the zoom mechanism, which is not always practical and in my case could force me to settle on how I compose and frame the shot I want. If I had enough primes to cover an adequate range I could go prime, hence my comment that I can't afford to go with primes. Having a couple of superior prime lenses to work with or using a couple of zooms with a superior range of focal lengths is just another factor to prioritize by.

Then wide lenses it would be.

[Marc Sabatella]

Focal length is only one part of the equation. Sharpness / IQ is but one more part. Also consider maximum aperture, maximum magnification, focus speed, convenience, etc. For me personally with the lenses you have, the most glaring hole would be maximum aperture in the telephoto range. Next most glaring hole would be maximum aperture in the wide-normal range. That's because I shoot in low light a lot, and 50mm is usually either too short (for most concert photography) or too lng (for msot candid photography). I really couldn't care less about having focal lengths less than 18mm. Others would never find a need for a fast telephoto, but couldn't do without 12mm. others still could be happy with only one prime lens as long as it could do 1:1 magnification (macro); any kit that lacked that option would be incomplete. Others still would want to just replace your two zooms with the 18-250 for the increase in convenience.

Which is to say, it all depends on how you are feeling limited.

[Schmidlapper]

True, it is about which compromise is the most acceptable. My choice will not be easy and I will waffle, it's my nature. On the way to work this morning I was thinking, "the Tamron is cheaper than 12-28 and would give me the f2.8 constant aperture as well as being quite sharp." So by no means am I set in stone yet. I even looked at some prime prices just to see if I could flesh out my line up reasonably. Early on I tried to be cheap, through pawn shops, ebay, close outs and ended up with stuff I wasn't fully happy with, Sigma 70-210 UCII, Sigma 70-300 DL, Vivitar PK/A 28 f2.8 (not close focus) and a A 50 2.0. These are all OK lenses, but not what I really wanted and will be re-sold at some point.

[rparmar]

ended up with stuff I wasn't fully happy with, Sigma 70-210 UCII, Sigma 70-300 DL, Vivitar PK/A 28 f2.8 (not close focus) and a A 50 2.0.

Which one from the Vivitar Bestiary? Most of these are quite good; some are excellent. But maybe a fixed 28mm focal is not your thing.

[Schmidlapper]

It is the A22 and no one wishes it was one of the real good ones more than me. It is decent down a few stops, but soft wide open. The kit lens can pretty well match it for sharpness and beats it for contrast. I took a chance when I bought it, the A setting excited me. The bestiary wasn't fully fleshed out and I missed finding anything on this particular lens while digging through all the messages. But as one person said, it doesn't hold a candle to a close focus. It was one of my early hopes to do primes in this manner on the cheap hence the 50 f2.0, 50 f1.7 and 28 2.8. But rising prices for old glass and getting burnt buying wrong ones on fleabay, or not getting all accessories, hood or caps has made me re-think my plan. I believe it wiser to just buy a couple very good zooms of the DA 55-300, 12-24 and Tamron 17-50 level and know what I am getting.