[Lowell Goudge]

I would agree wiith the general thoughts above, try and understand where you are limited with the kit you have got... and then expand/improve to fill that gap.... if you really dont feel limited then save yourself some money.

I got my K20D early last year with kit lens and immediately felt I needed something for lower light situations so got a K50 1.4. Needed something longer so got the DA*50-135 and then recently replaced the kit lens with the DA*16-50. In 'my' case I feel I need something longer (DA*60-250) as I will likely do a safari this year and would also like at some point to replaced the K50 with a AF lens.. maybe FA31. Thats my plan, but its personal for my needs. definately worth trying to define your personal roadmap... and again, if you are happy with what you have save the money.

My only observation in your planning is that from a focal length point of view, the 60-250 has so much overlap with the 50-135, except for low light situations with the 50-135 this is an either or combination.

Is the 300F4 perhaps a better alternative?

[mikem]

I ran ExposurePlot and got some results that were interesting and mostly what I had expected.

Focal length:

With the kit lens on, about 30% are shot at 18mm while another 30% are at 55mm with the remaing 40% spread evenly throughout the range.

With the 70-300 I'm usually right at 70 or all the way out at 300 with the rest falling mostly above 180.

ISO:

I was surprised to see that I shoot a full 50% of my photos at ISO 100.

Aperture:

Most popular by far: f/8.0. It also looks like I use the kit lens at max aperture quite a bit. I do have the 50 f/1.7 for more speed, but I think I'd like something wider (ie 24-28 to 60-80 f/2.8) or perhaps a shorter prime.

Shutter speed:

Mostly between 1/8th and 1/500th. Doesn't mean much to me.

Conclusion:

Hmm!!! I guess this leaves me mostly where I started. I use 18mm quite a bit so an UW would be nice. However, I'm often shooting with the kit lens at max aperture so it would be nice to have something faster in that range (and that covers a little more past 55 it seems). I could certainly benefit from more reach at the long end too, but I think cost will keep me from upgrading that end right now.

I think I'd mostly be torn between an UW and a faster standard zoom. I do shoot a lot of panoramas with the kit lens so in a way I get around that limitation. I know I often feel limited by the 50mm when I need the speed, which is usually indoors so I could use something wider.

So will it be 10-24, 10-20, or 12-24? Or one of the many standard f/2.8 zooms? Hmmm!!!

[B Grace]

Mikem,

Let's look at the other side of this and assume you are completely satisfied with your current lens combo. It sure looks like you most of your shots covered. Let's say you still have a couple of empty places in the camera bag.

Option 1.) How about that fisheye zoom already mentioned or a fisheye prime? That's a pretty good way to mix things up.

Option 2.) A matched pair of older primes that can be used together. Say, a 28/3.5 and 50/1.4 SMC-Tak combo. This is my favorite lens selection for hikes and walk-abouts with the effect being similar to that of using a nice zoom but also slowing me down so that I spend more time on each shot.

Option 3.) It looks like you're in the US. New on the 1040 this year is the option to roll up to $5k of your refund into T-bills. They're worth at least as much as the paper they're printed on! Okay, maybe not.

[Lowell Goudge]

Mikem

In looking at the stats, unless you are really upset with the lenses you have, I would go vor an ultra wide zoom first.

if you are shooting 50% at ISO 100 you can make up a little speed there. Your K10D is pretty good up to ISO 400 and that is the same as changing your kit lens for an F2.8.

My normal recommendation beyond the kit is to expand focal length first (if you need to) and then improve lens speed.

BUT, once you go beyond the standard kit, buy good quality lenses, so they don't get replaced over and over again.

[Marc Sabatella]

I agree with the notion that if you aren't aware of any holes, you might as well save your money until you *do* become aware of the holes. But when you've money to spend, the notion of experimenting to see if you end up liking something you hadn't already known you would is attractive too.

For me personally, ultra wide is the obvious choice here. Both because I made a similar leap of faith before buying the DA15 that I'd like it (and I do - a lot), but also because your 30% of shots at 18mm strongly suggest you really want something wider. Whether 15mm is wide enough I can't really say - obviously, a zoom that goes wider still opens up more options. I chose the 15 because I wanted to retire my 18-55, and was looking for one small prime wider than my previous widest, a 28, that would serve as a general wide angle as well as provide that extra "fun" factor.

A true macro lens - even just a Raynox adaptor - would be another possible choice. As would a longer telephoto lens, since you specifically mentioned that - and while a good one might be expensive, you could always try a mirror lens, or one of the manual 400's that pop up pretty regularly.

if it were me, though, I'd be noticing *glaring* holes in your current lneup with respect to speed. The only fast lens you have is the single most useless focal length on APS-C in my experience (yes, I realize that's an exaggeration). I would need something wider and something longer, both f/2.8 or better, or probably half my photography would be out the window.

[Pentaxor]

something in the middle would be of great use. a mid-range zoom like a 24-70/2.8 or 28-75/2.8 zoom lens is what you need. I would suggest the 24-70 though, as you would mostly need something wider like a 24mm for certain shots and a 70mm is enough for short telephoto use. besides, a 75mm is not much of a gap from 70mm.

[mikem]

What are the options in the standard zoom range? There seem to be many. A quick look at B&H gives me this list. And I'm always up for finding a used discontinued lens.

Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 $349
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 $350
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 $500
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 $449
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 $459
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 $569

I'd lean towards a 24-28 on the wide end rather than 17-18. I don't really need speed on the wide end and I wouldn't mind a bit more reach past 55.

[AirSupply]

Which one of those lenses a bove can replace the DA* 16-50mm at the f2.8? Many people recommend me stay away from that lens due to the SDM issue. But I still can't find which one to buy instead of 16-50

[tokyoso]

What are the options in the standard zoom range? There seem to be many. A quick look at B&H gives me this list. And I'm always up for finding a used discontinued lens.

Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 $349
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 $350
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 $500
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 $449
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 $459
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 $569

I'd lean towards a 24-28 on the wide end rather than 17-18. I don't really need speed on the wide end and I wouldn't mind a bit more reach past 55.

Hello

Just so you know, Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is priced similarly to Sigma 28-70/2.8 in Japan for about $340.

TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical [IF] MACRO
You can see a collection of 28-75 2.8 photos here:
User fotos

I took a serious look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8 before I decided to buy DA40/2.8 limited (for the same price).


I'm interested to see what you end up buying.

[mikem]

In reality, I'd like to expand the wide of my lineup an add something faster in the standard zoom range. I feel that 18mm is good enough for now for the outdoor work I do. And I really don't want to add another lens to my hiking backpacking setup for weight reasons.

A 24-28 to 70-80 will be a general walkaround and indoor-at-a-party lens. So now I'm in the market for one of those as cheap as I can get it.

[mikem]

So I ended up with a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. It's a big lens, but it was a good deal. I wanted the wider 24 over the 28 the Tamron offers.

I'll hopefully get some sample shots up soon, maybe this weekend.