[kpfeifle]

Hi All:

I curently own the following:
K100D
18-55 DA Kit lens
50/1.4
Sigma 70-300 macro

Which lens would you purchase next (and why)?

I have some ideas, but I would like to hear what you say!

---

Last edited by kpfeifle; 06-23-2007 at 03:56 AM. Reason: Bad Spelling!

[bottesini]

It really depends what the use is going to be but personally I would relace the kit lens. I did and I chose the 16-45 f4 which is a really nice lens for lanscapes and architecture so long as you get some software to correct the distortions at the short end (I have ptlens that works fine and costs buttons). The other option for me would be the Sigma 17-70 DC. I had one of these for another camera and it was on the camera for 90% of the time. It's a really useful lens having a larger zoom range than the 16-45 and the macro is useful at 1:2 for flowers etc. I would say that the optical quality is about equal between these 2 and the Sigma is about £70-80 cheaper.

Carl

[pentkon52]

Hi All:

I curently own the following:
K100D
18-55 DA Kit lens
50/1.4
Sigma 70-300 macro

Which lens would you purchase next (and why)?

I have some ideas, but I would like to hear what you say!

I also recomend the 16-45 F4. Its very sharp and an alround lens.
I also use the A 28 on my istD which is nice and compact, but i would like the AF version just to be more stealth in street photography. If you want something long and a prime, i have the Sigma 300 F4 which is a lovely lens and decently sharp.
The FA 70-200 is not as doggy as we have heard and produces nice photos with good detail

Dave

[silverbullet]

Three thoughts, a little different than the above posters:

1)From your sig I assume you shoot equestrian events. You may want to consider a fast tele or tele-zoom. I'm the wrong guy to offer specific suggestions.

2)Do you do any macro work? A good dedicated macro is always a good choice.

3)A 'normal' prime, such as the FA35. Very versatile, and reasonably fast.

[Peter Zack]

Hi All:

I curently own the following:
K100D
18-55 DA Kit lens
50/1.4
Sigma 70-300 macro

Kevin, I had a look through your pbase shots and from what you shoot I'd say a few lenses come to mind.
First the shots in that portfolio are great. You have a very good eye and indeed the manhole cover is a long way from home!
Keep the DA 18-55. Very good kit lens and it may see less use as your collection expands but why buy another lens that almost replaces the same focal range. When you've filled the other spots in your bag then it's time to look at that range. But for me personally the primes, a macro or a wider zoom are the way to add to the bag first.

I'll suggest a couple of different choices. I also have no idea what your budget is but get the best you can afford because (in my experience) upgrading a lens in 6 months will just cost money most of the time unless you can sell and break even on the old lens. (I've regretted a couple of cheapo choices).

I think you have an interest in close ups since many of your shots isolate the subject from it's surroundings. Maybe the TAMRON SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di Macro 1:1
which will offer a mid length telephoto and great macro ability. My own preference is that this lens is FF so if you ever want to pick up a film camera or there is a FF body a couple of years down the road, who knows. Plus (and I'd like to hear others thoughts on this) there may be less tendency of a FF lens to vignette at wide open.

Also a few of your shots ("Lines","No Boats") are wide and I'm wondering if your current lens bag limits you from shooting more like this. I have the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX DG and it's a wonderful lens in many ways even at wide open. CA's seem well controlled and it is very sharp. It's very similar to the DA 12-24 and I think it just depends on which you can get for a better price.

Much of the rest of your work posted is in the mid tele range so maybe the 70mm Limited would be a good choice. Another longer and more economical lens could be the 135 A SMC f2.8. Fast and sharp just MF. But between the 70,90 and 135, I guess I'd suggest the Tamron first since it is multi purpose. You can use it as a mid tele to catch a longer shot and then shoot a bug or flower right in front of you.

And again if budget is not an issue then the 31mm Limited or try to find a 35mm f2.0 I've got that lens and it's a great 'normal' lens on a DSLR and almost as sharp as the Limited's. Great street shooting lens, closer portraits etc.

The huge advantage (lots has been written about the picture qualities) of the Limited's has to be the size. You can take 2-3 and your long Tele in a hip bag and go walk in the woods without feeling like a pack mule. They are all so fast that often a tripod is not required, which makes travel even better.

[Lowell Goudge]

It all depends on what you shoot.

You may find the kit lens is not wide enough.

I waited a long time and finally bought a 10-20 mm Sigma.

Before that, if I wanted wide, I took out my PZ1 and used the 18-35mm that came with the *istD as it was a full frame lens. The 10-20 mm is slightly wider (for digirtal format) than the 17 mm on film, but it was the best I could do at the time.

[Buddha Jones]

Tamron 28-75mm f2.8

[kpfeifle]

Thanks everybody (especially Peter for your detailed reply). I have some thinking to do, but am leaning towards a macro lens of some type.

[TDN]

A macro lens would definitly not be a waste

I got the Kiron 105mm f2.8 about 6 months ago, and now it's one of my favourite and most used lenses!

A fast macro lens has some wonderful applications:

- macro, of course
but also:
- portrait: if you've got a macro, it'll probably give you a nice bokeh, good colors and contrast and good sharpness.
- concert photography: due to its qualities as a portrait lens and the fast aperture, mine proved to be quite useful while shooting at concerts...

I'm sure you can think of some more...

Look for a nice macro prime, you won't regret it

Tom

[NaClH2O]

Hi All:

I curently own the following:
K100D
18-55 DA Kit lens
50/1.4
Sigma 70-300 macro

Which lens would you purchase next (and why)?

I have some ideas, but I would like to hear what you say!

Hi Kevin

My thoughts range somewhat along the lines of Peter's. After looking thru your pbase gallery (my favs were the beach, woods and part of things galleries...good shots in all of them), I would say that you'd probably most enjoy either a good macro like the Tamron 90, or maybe an ultrawide like the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 fish eye.
When I first got my Zenitar, I posted here saying "fun lens but I don't think I'll be using it much". Some members just laughed. They were right. It's a good inexpensive lens with excellent IQ and it's fisheye distortion is minimal enough that with careful framing and cropping you don't even notice it. It's one of a very few lenses that is always in my bag. It's downside is bad CA and flare.
The Tamron 90 is the macro I own, again much more versitile than I thought it would be at first, excellent macro of course, but also a good medium range tele, and an excellent protrait lens...I use it a lot for flower portraits, I personally think it's a bit too sharp for most people portraits, who wants to see every wrinkle, blemish and imperfection is absolute clarity? It's downsides are that it's a bit soft at f22 and narrower, and the deep front element recess makes it difficult to get good insect macros, and you have to get the front edge of the body of the lens too close. However it is also on the very short list of lenses that is always in my bag.

NaCl(good luck and let us know what you get)H2O

[kpfeifle]

I know this has been discussed before, but if I'm going the macro route...would you get a Tamron 90mm or the new Sigma 70mm? I think I like the 70mm range better.