That gap in between 21 and 31 is humongous. Look into a 24 or a 28 or both

I guess it has to be BOTH, of course. There is no "or" allowed here.

you need atleast a 24mm, 85mm and a 135mm.

gaps in those focal lengths are huge from my experience.

I bought the Da12-24 not because I only needed an ultrawide, but also need something at 16mm and 24mm. since it's a zoom lens, it eliminated the need for individual lenses. I got an 85mm since I find the 70mm short on some occasions and the 100mm too long for some. as for outdoor telephoto, I went for an 135mm since the 100mm can't cover quite some distance which I needed. I know I had a 55-300 zoom which I found really handy, but I can't simply ignore the optimal quality of the primes and it's use under demanding situations such as poor/low lighting. who knows, I might consider getting myself a Tammy or a Sigma 70-200/2.8.

At the moment, DA 15 is just barely wide enough, and wider would be nice. I think about that often. 70 on APS-C is a weird one for me, but I love that 70 ltd so much that I ignore that weird part. I actually have a DA*50-135, and while it is not a prime, I use it like a 135 prime. I think that at 135, it can almost stack up against any other 135 prime, although at f/2.8 some people might disagree.

In the words of another, on a forum far, far away, try the Tamron zooms 70-210 19AH SP or the SP 60-300.

They actually think that they are primes.

I think 70-210 is a fine fine lens. 60-300 I have never tried out before . . . .

[thomascdk]

You need a 10-17 FE. And maybe a LensBaby.

[Pentaxor]

At the moment, DA 15 is just barely wide enough, and wider would be nice. I think about that often. 70 on APS-C is a weird one for me, but I love that 70 ltd so much that I ignore that weird part. I actually have a DA*50-135, and while it is not a prime, I use it like a 135 prime. I think that at 135, it can almost stack up against any other 135 prime, although at f/2.8 some people might disagree.

something wider would be useful in close corners. 70mm is really a weird focal length. it is somehow requires you to work on it. 77mm would be pretty much acceptable.

regarding the DA50-135, I'm curious as to how it performs against the FA135. maybe you could show some side by side identical samples, perhaps?

something wider would be useful in close corners. 70mm is really a weird focal length. it is somehow requires you to work on it. 77mm would be pretty much acceptable.

regarding the DA50-135, I'm curious as to how it performs against the FA135. maybe you could show some side by side identical samples, perhaps?

Hm... I don't have a FA 135, but I have seen many prints shot with FA 135, and I felt that 50-135 at 135 was at least in the same league for sure. I just don't feel the need to go get a prime at 135, because I am satisfied with 50-135.

You need a 10-17 FE. And maybe a LensBaby.

Lensbaby, yes. I am very interested.

[Pentaxor]

Hm... I don't have a FA 135, but I have seen many prints shot with FA 135, and I felt that 50-135 at 135 was at least in the same league for sure. I just don't feel the need to go get a prime at 135, because I am satisfied with 50-135.

probably so. I think the DA50-135mm would be alright optically speaking and as long as you aren't concerned about pixel-peeping or blowing up images revealing the onion ring bokeh manifested by the lens ( a phenomena that was mentioned before by some of the forum members).

the strongest asset of the DA50-135 is it's versatility. while the FA135mm is it's blazing fast AF and smaller, lighter build. I do appreciate something more handy and fast focusing as well.

probably so. I think the DA50-135mm would be alright optically speaking and as long as you aren't concerned about pixel-peeping or blowing up images revealing the onion ring bokeh manifested by the lens ( a phenomena that was mentioned before by some of the forum members).

the strongest asset of the DA50-135 is it's versatility. while the FA135mm is it's blazing fast AF and smaller, lighter build. I do appreciate something more handy and fast focusing as well.

I have noticed the onion ring bokeh also, but only when I crop. The thing about cropping is that I hardly ever crop. I mean, the whole point of shooting prime is that you walk around and get the shot you want, so that you don't have to crop later.

[Steve Beswick]

Oh my goodness! You have a huge gaping hole between 40mm and 50mm! What will you do?

Why don't you sell a few of those lenses you have and use the money for a photo excursion. You did buy them to take photos with, did you not? Better yet, pack all of those lenses into one giant bag with 1 camera body and take them on a one day photo trip. You must carry the bag the whole time. Make sure you get at least 10 frames with each one! If you want to cover every focal length on earth I believe Tamron makes an 18-300 or something close to that.

I see now why Pentax has been charging so much more for their lenses - it's you!

If you want to do something truly usefull with your lens collection sell two thirds of it and donate the proceeds to charity. I hear there are some people in Hati that could use some help right now.

[pcarfan]

I guess it has to be BOTH, of course. There is no "or" allowed here.

Right on!

I have since sold the 28, so I only have the 24 in between the 21 and 35. But, I am selling my FA 35 (for sale at the marketplace) and get the 31. So, it will be 15,21, 24,31, 43......

P.S: Would love to see a picture of the DA*200 and DA*300 next to one another.

Right on!

I have since sold the 28, so I only have the 24 in between the 21 and 35. But, I am selling my FA 35 (for sale at the marketplace) and get the 31. So, it will be 15,21, 24,31, 43......

P.S: Would love to see a picture of the DA*200 and DA*300 next to one another.

I think that your LBA is just as bad as mine. I hope that I am at the tail end of that. We have a small property up in a place called Lake Arrowhead, about an hour north of here up the mountain. My K20D with DA300* on a tripod usually reside there; I will make sure to retrieve them the next time up there. On and off I have them down here, but it is just that you don't find much use for them, or that I find it more useful(?) up there sort of thing. I wish I can say it is beautiful there, but the surrounding pine forrest is now infested with Japanese bark beetles, and here and there we have wild fire that just make the place look almost desolate there. As for both DA*200 and 300, they are both very difficult lenses to get comfy with. A bit out of my league, almost certainly. I have had them for almost a month now. I think that 200 I will probably get to know first because I guessed that it would be just like the old 300/2.8 in 135mm. But the thing is that it is NOT like the old 300/2.8. Just hard to explain. DA 300 I am not sure if I ever get comfortable with, or even before that, I am not sure if I really needed it to begin with. I do wonder what 400mm feels like, and visualizing that, I am not sure if you really need something between 200 and 400 (all of this based on APS-C config of course). But I guess different photographers "live" between various focal lengths, and they all have different needs. I am probably like the 99 % of all photographers in that I mainly shoot between 15 and 135, maybe up to 200. One thing for sure, nobody should need as many lenses as I have. It is absurd, really.

[Abbazz]

Here is my pathetic line up

Takumar 14 Fisheye
DA 15 ltd
DA 21 ltd
FA 31 ltd
DA 35 ltd macro
DA 40 ltd
FA 50 ltd
DA 70 ltd

DFA 100 macro wr
DA*200
DA*300


As you can see, there is a huge chasm between 70 and 100. What do I fill it with??

As you already have the DA 70 for portrait work and the DFA 100 for macro, I think what you really need is a good landscape lens in the 70-90mm range. Portrait lenses like the Pentax DA 70, FA77, A*85 or FA*85 are not designed to deliver their best results at infinity, and they usually exhibit quite a lot of chromatic aberrations, which can become pretty annoying when shooting high contrast scenes in bright sunlight (think of those tree branches with green or purple halos).

I think the Cosina/Voigtländer 90/3.5 SL APO-Lanthar is one of the best landscape lenses ever made. There are still a few samples available from Cameraquest. Grab one now, or you will regret not having done so later. The 90/3.5 is not the fastest 90mm lens, it's not even an autofocus lens, but it delivers much better optical quality as any other Pentax lens of similar focal length (including the DA 70, FA 77, A*85 and FA*85), competing with the best Leica and Zeiss glass.

Even the Leica guru Erwin Puts, who is often accused of being partial to German glass has nice things to say about this lens:

Given the price of the Apo-Lanthar 90, this lens is a better choice than most second hand 90s from Leica on the market and is very close to the performance of the current 2.8/90, which is some act: the apo-lanthar is unbeatable in price/performance relation.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[pcarfan]

Nubi,

I've searched the web and found an image of the 300 and 200 together. You and I don't even have a touch of LBA, as you only own one 50 and me none at all, I've heard you've got to have at least three 50's in your bag to join that league

I am gradually consolidating my line-up, sold two a few days back, and currently selling one more and may add an other to it. Then again I will get a couple of them to replace the four.

[newarts]

Here's a strictly mathematical approach to lens coverage.

If each lens is 1/3 shorter (wider) than the preceeding lens in the series, starting with 300mm, we have:
300
200
135
90
60
40
27
18
12
8

your largest gap is at around 135mm.