What would you get next?

DennisH · 10-21-2009, 08:05 AM

My current lenses are:

Kit lens II 18-55
DA 40 Ltd
Tamron 70-300

My next lens will probably be my last lens purchase for a while due to upcoming major expenses. Eventually, I want a Sigma 10-20mm, DA 70 mm Ltd., and the Pentax 55-300.

I use my DA 40 all the time, so I am leaning toward getting the DA 70 next, but I have also started taking a lot of landscapes, so the Sigma is appealing. The 55-300, I want for an inexpensive but quality upgrade over the Tamron.

The question is, if you could get only one of the above for a while, which would it be?

pcarfan · 10-21-2009, 08:09 AM

If it just have to be those choices then it is a close call between the DA70 and the sigma 10-20, but I would go with the sigma 10-20, not because it is a better lens (I think they are not even in the same league, the DA70 is miles better), but beacause of the focal length.

But, I will get the DA21. (sigma 10-20 is a giant lens)

DennisH · 10-21-2009, 08:17 AM

Yeah, the DA 21 was my original choice for a wide angle, and I'm still sort-of considering it, but I figured the Sigma gets very good reviews here, and I have the versatility of ultra-wide ability.

I do like the idea of a 21, 40 and 70 Limited collection, I have to admit.

So you think 21mm is "wide enough" for most landscape photography?

pcarfan · 10-21-2009, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by DennisH

Yeah, the DA 21 was my original choice for a wide angle, and I'm still sort-of considering it, but I figured the Sigma gets very good reviews here, and I have the versatility of ultra-wide ability.

I do like the idea of a 21, 40 and 70 Limited collection, I have to admit.

So you think 21mm is "wide enough" for most landscape photography?

Frankly I got it to get group shots of indoor events and parties. That is where I use it mostly paired with the FA43. A nice small package. But, I took the DA21 and FA43 with my K-7 to Vegas, and loved it. I didn't think I wanted anything wider. IMO, DA21 with IQ cannot compete with any of the other DA/FA limiteds, but it is still great. If you compare the DA21 with even the zeiss wideangles, it is still great. So, I think it can't compete with the other limiteds due to it's focal length and is excellent to most other lenses of similar focal length . So, don't expect IQ comparable to your DA40. But, the focal length and size is divine.

I have the sigma 10-20, but rarely use it. I feel comfortable shooting with the sigma 100-300 than the 10-20...but, the 10-20 is an amazing lens, but it is just fat an unweilding. I enjoy photography more when the DA21 is mounted (compared to 10-20), and I guess that's what matters. The DA40 will be in the pocket , and that is a killer combo.

But, I keep the 10-20, because when you need the 10, you need it. However, I would say that from my limited experience the 21 is wide enough for most landscapes. I know of a member here (or DPR) who uses the DA21 and the FA43 (like me) and does a lot of landscapes and he seems to love the combo too.

P.S: if you want , I can take some shots over the wknd with sigma 10-20 at 20 and the DA21. Nothing fancy, just the backyard and one interior shot. Let me know.

axl · 10-21-2009, 11:20 AM

I'd say Tammy 70-300 is good enough so I wouldn't bother with 55-300... 70 is by all acountsa great lens but it's rather speccific FL IMO. If you use your kit lens a lot on 55 and your 70-300 a lot in under 100 region than 70ltd might be the right choice for you. 10-20 is great lens capable of stunning shots but framing at 10mm is rather tricky. Have you ever felt that your kit lens is not wide enough for your needs?
I'd say: don't look at available lenses but look at what do you want the new lens for. Then choose accordingly.
And as a side note, as owner of 10-20, 24, and 18-55 I think 21 is definitely wide enough for most landscapes. I often find even 24 is aplenty.

BR
Peter

Marc Sabatella · 10-21-2009, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by DennisH

I do like the idea of a 21, 40 and 70 Limited collection, I have to admit.

So you think 21mm is "wide enough" for most landscape photography?

I think it's too wide, personally. Most of my landscapes with the kit lens are shot in the 24-31 range, so I ended up getting a 28mm that is now my favorite landscape lens. Sure, I use the kit lens at 18 a bunch, too, suggesting I might prefer something even wider. The DA15 is catching my eye in that department. but it's just hard to say how often I'd prefer that over a "compromise" focal length like the DA21. I keep going back and forth - and the recent glowing review of the DA15 on photozone.de is not helping, since until then I had all but decided to get a DA21.

Anyhow, if you really do perceive that you would shoot a lot of landscapes below 18mm, and you don't mind zooms, the Sigma 10-20 could make sense, as could the DA12-24. But I'd take a good hard llok at the EXIF of your existing landscapes to see what focal lengths you really most. While some people might shoot a lot below 18mm, that's really not the norm for landscape photography, I don't think.

DennisH · 10-21-2009, 11:44 AM

Well, lately I've taken a lot of landscapes (and everything else) at 40mm, because I love my DA 40. Interesting you mention using 28mm for landscapes, as I was also considering the Sigma 30mm for its low-light capability, but I figured it was too close to my 40, and not really wide enough for landscape shots.

One of these days, I'll take my kit lens out and shoot a bunch of shots at 18, 21, and 30, and see what I like in that range.

Then I'll probably end up ordering the DA 70

.

axl · 10-21-2009, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

...snip....Anyhow, if you really do perceive that you would shoot a lot of landscapes below 18mm, and you don't mind zooms, the Sigma 10-20 could make sense, as could the DA12-24. But I'd take a good hard llok at the EXIF of your existing landscapes to see what focal lengths you really most. While some people might shoot a lot below 18mm, that's really not the norm for landscape photography, I don't think.

Agree here. I got 10-20 beccause I did a lot of landscapes but found I was getting a lot of empty shots. It takes great sccene and a lot of skills to utilise ultr wide angles for landscapes.
Having said that, 10-20 is increible lens for travel photography.

axl · 10-21-2009, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by DennisH

Well, lately I've taken a lot of landscapes (and everything else) at 40mm, because I love my DA 40. Interesting you mention using 28mm for landscapes, as I was also considering the Sigma 30mm for its low-light capability, but I figured it was too close to my 40, and not really wide enough for landscape shots.

One of these days, I'll take my kit lens out and shoot a bunch of shots at 18, 21, and 30, and see what I like in that range.

Then I'll probably end up ordering the DA 70

.

Difference between 40 and 30 is bigger than you think. I have 31 and 40 and the FOV difference is notable

**Ash** · 10-21-2009, 01:39 PM

The 10-20 would also 'fill' a gap in your focal range coverage. If you're happy with your current kit and want to do more landscapes, this would be the lens to get.

Of course the DA 70 is appealing in other ways, so you can't go wrong with your choice...

**EsBee** · 10-21-2009, 02:03 PM

Hopefully a Pentax-DA* 50-135mm f2.8, came agonizingly close a couple of times though.

10-21-2009, 08:05 AM	#1
DennisH Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Stratford, CT Photos: Gallery Posts: 730	What would you get next? My current lenses are: Kit lens II 18-55 DA 40 Ltd Tamron 70-300 My next lens will probably be my last lens purchase for a while due to upcoming major expenses. Eventually, I want a Sigma 10-20mm, DA 70 mm Ltd., and the Pentax 55-300. I use my DA 40 all the time, so I am leaning toward getting the DA 70 next, but I have also started taking a lot of landscapes, so the Sigma is appealing. The 55-300, I want for an inexpensive but quality upgrade over the Tamron. The question is, if you could get only one of the above for a while, which would it be?

10-21-2009, 08:09 AM	#2
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	If it just have to be those choices then it is a close call between the DA70 and the sigma 10-20, but I would go with the sigma 10-20, not because it is a better lens (I think they are not even in the same league, the DA70 is miles better), but beacause of the focal length. But, I will get the DA21. (sigma 10-20 is a giant lens)

10-21-2009, 08:17 AM	#3
DennisH Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Stratford, CT Photos: Gallery Posts: 730 Original Poster	Yeah, the DA 21 was my original choice for a wide angle, and I'm still sort-of considering it, but I figured the Sigma gets very good reviews here, and I have the versatility of ultra-wide ability. I do like the idea of a 21, 40 and 70 Limited collection, I have to admit. So you think 21mm is "wide enough" for most landscape photography?

10-21-2009, 08:43 AM	#4
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by DennisH Yeah, the DA 21 was my original choice for a wide angle, and I'm still sort-of considering it, but I figured the Sigma gets very good reviews here, and I have the versatility of ultra-wide ability. I do like the idea of a 21, 40 and 70 Limited collection, I have to admit. So you think 21mm is "wide enough" for most landscape photography? Frankly I got it to get group shots of indoor events and parties. That is where I use it mostly paired with the FA43. A nice small package. But, I took the DA21 and FA43 with my K-7 to Vegas, and loved it. I didn't think I wanted anything wider. IMO, DA21 with IQ cannot compete with any of the other DA/FA limiteds, but it is still great. If you compare the DA21 with even the zeiss wideangles, it is still great. So, I think it can't compete with the other limiteds due to it's focal length and is excellent to most other lenses of similar focal length . So, don't expect IQ comparable to your DA40. But, the focal length and size is divine. I have the sigma 10-20, but rarely use it. I feel comfortable shooting with the sigma 100-300 than the 10-20...but, the 10-20 is an amazing lens, but it is just fat an unweilding. I enjoy photography more when the DA21 is mounted (compared to 10-20), and I guess that's what matters. The DA40 will be in the pocket , and that is a killer combo. But, I keep the 10-20, because when you need the 10, you need it. However, I would say that from my limited experience the 21 is wide enough for most landscapes. I know of a member here (or DPR) who uses the DA21 and the FA43 (like me) and does a lot of landscapes and he seems to love the combo too. P.S: if you want , I can take some shots over the wknd with sigma 10-20 at 20 and the DA21. Nothing fancy, just the backyard and one interior shot. Let me know.

10-21-2009, 11:20 AM	#5
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	I'd say Tammy 70-300 is good enough so I wouldn't bother with 55-300... 70 is by all acountsa great lens but it's rather speccific FL IMO. If you use your kit lens a lot on 55 and your 70-300 a lot in under 100 region than 70ltd might be the right choice for you. 10-20 is great lens capable of stunning shots but framing at 10mm is rather tricky. Have you ever felt that your kit lens is not wide enough for your needs? I'd say: don't look at available lenses but look at what do you want the new lens for. Then choose accordingly. And as a side note, as owner of 10-20, 24, and 18-55 I think 21 is definitely wide enough for most landscapes. I often find even 24 is aplenty. BR Peter

10-21-2009, 11:34 AM	#6
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by DennisH I do like the idea of a 21, 40 and 70 Limited collection, I have to admit. So you think 21mm is "wide enough" for most landscape photography? I think it's too wide, personally. Most of my landscapes with the kit lens are shot in the 24-31 range, so I ended up getting a 28mm that is now my favorite landscape lens. Sure, I use the kit lens at 18 a bunch, too, suggesting I might prefer something even wider. The DA15 is catching my eye in that department. but it's just hard to say how often I'd prefer that over a "compromise" focal length like the DA21. I keep going back and forth - and the recent glowing review of the DA15 on photozone.de is not helping, since until then I had all but decided to get a DA21. Anyhow, if you really do perceive that you would shoot a lot of landscapes below 18mm, and you don't mind zooms, the Sigma 10-20 could make sense, as could the DA12-24. But I'd take a good hard llok at the EXIF of your existing landscapes to see what focal lengths you really most. While some people might shoot a lot below 18mm, that's really not the norm for landscape photography, I don't think.

10-21-2009, 11:44 AM	#7
DennisH Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Stratford, CT Photos: Gallery Posts: 730 Original Poster	Well, lately I've taken a lot of landscapes (and everything else) at 40mm, because I love my DA 40. Interesting you mention using 28mm for landscapes, as I was also considering the Sigma 30mm for its low-light capability, but I figured it was too close to my 40, and not really wide enough for landscape shots. One of these days, I'll take my kit lens out and shoot a bunch of shots at 18, 21, and 30, and see what I like in that range. Then I'll probably end up ordering the DA 70 .

10-21-2009, 11:44 AM	#8
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella ...snip....Anyhow, if you really do perceive that you would shoot a lot of landscapes below 18mm, and you don't mind zooms, the Sigma 10-20 could make sense, as could the DA12-24. But I'd take a good hard llok at the EXIF of your existing landscapes to see what focal lengths you really most. While some people might shoot a lot below 18mm, that's really not the norm for landscape photography, I don't think. Agree here. I got 10-20 beccause I did a lot of landscapes but found I was getting a lot of empty shots. It takes great sccene and a lot of skills to utilise ultr wide angles for landscapes. Having said that, 10-20 is increible lens for travel photography.

10-21-2009, 11:46 AM	#9
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by DennisH Well, lately I've taken a lot of landscapes (and everything else) at 40mm, because I love my DA 40. Interesting you mention using 28mm for landscapes, as I was also considering the Sigma 30mm for its low-light capability, but I figured it was too close to my 40, and not really wide enough for landscape shots. One of these days, I'll take my kit lens out and shoot a bunch of shots at 18, 21, and 30, and see what I like in that range. Then I'll probably end up ordering the DA 70 . Difference between 40 and 30 is bigger than you think. I have 31 and 40 and the FOV difference is notable

10-21-2009, 01:39 PM	#10
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	The 10-20 would also 'fill' a gap in your focal range coverage. If you're happy with your current kit and want to do more landscapes, this would be the lens to get. Of course the DA 70 is appealing in other ways, so you can't go wrong with your choice...

10-21-2009, 02:03 PM	#11
EsBee Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: National Capital Region Posts: 739	Hopefully a Pentax-DA* 50-135mm f2.8, came agonizingly close a couple of times though.