Ok, so I'm thinking about wether to get the K-x with the extra 55-300 lens. It supposedly is a "good" lens and I would never have the opportunity to get it as cheaply as in the kit bundle.
So, that would provide an 18-55mm and 55-300mm combination. Would that mean that other lenses within that range (50mm, 135mm primes, etc.) are essentially redundant and unnecessary? I've always heard that primes generally have better image quality than zooms - is that still true in 2009?
Of course it's
fun to get other lenses and try them (I already have some
), but is it really just diminishing returns, so to speak? Are the old M primes that much better than these two lenses?
For me personally, I don't intend to go longer than 300mm (except for a 500mm mirror) so it's really tempting to get the 2 lens bundle (as long as it's $750 or less). Actually, one
real reason to get some primes (28mm or 50mm) is for the size, even though they're in the 18-55 range. The 50s are so inexpensive and it really turns it into a small camera - that is worth something despite being already in the focal length range.
I'm just wondering if having the two zooms would convince me not to get primes.