[grainbelt]

I'm in a sort of lens/body acquisition quandary. Currently have K200D, 18-55 II, DA 35, FA 50, DA 55-300.

Considering my next lens upgrade, and the 17-70 has my eye as a walkaround, with an eye towards a K-r or K-5 down the road.

Can anyone comment on how well the K-r or K-5 do in regard to indoor AF with an F4 lens? Selling the FA 50 and K200D would get me pretty close to a K-r, down the road.

Between the 17-70 and 55-300 I'd be F4 from 17-100mm. I rarely need thinner DOF, and find myself stopping the FA 50 down to at least F2.8 for my casual candids anyway...

[john5100]

I would say that it is. F2.8 is always better than f4 but high ISO is so good now that it should be fine.

[rparmar]

Not answering your question I nonetheless have two pieces of advice.

Graduate to a two dial camera body and you might wonder how you ever got by without. I prefer my K20D over the newer generation K-x, even though I need high ISO and I prefer small. But the ergonomics of the K20D comes up trumps every time. Mind you, I do a lot of manual focus and manual exposure as well.

The improvements from the kit lens to the 17-70 are unlikely to be noticeable, unless you are trying to address a key limitation you currently have. Whereas getting something totally new like an UWA, macro or FA Limited would change your options.

[grainbelt]

The improvements from the kit lens to the 17-70 are unlikely to be noticeable, unless you are trying to address a key limitation you currently have. Whereas getting something totally new like an UWA, macro or FA Limited would change your options.

I had a Sigma 10-20 and a Tamron 90mm Macro. I never got along with the ultrawide mentally, and the tamron was good, but the only macro I do is floral, so the DA 35 is plenty good for that.

I spent an hour reading reviews tonight and was fairly disappointed that the 17-70 has as pronounced, if not more, distortion at the wide end.

I have this silly overlap of 18-55, 35 Ltd, 50 1.4, and I'd like to simplify some of that.

Really, the best solution is probably the DA 15. I could do DA 15 / DA 35 / DA 55-300 as my only lenses without much difficulty. I shoot for fun, and when traveling (on a motorcycle, no less) so a compact kit is paramount.

At the end of the day that is a much more likely outcome, and I could sell my M 40, M 100, FA 50, and 18-55 to help fund the DA 15.

I really want a K-5, but I can wait until prices drop considerably.

[hramat]

For indoor photography.

Even thou K-x, K-r and K-5 has amazing low noise on low light, I find low aperture very important for indoor photographs. I do not find F/4 enough for indoor, even F/2.8 is a question. I also try to limit my ISO to not above 3200.

For indoor the lowest I have is FA31 F/1.8. I would like to have FA50 F/1.4 or FA55 F/1.4

Just an example:
K-x, Sigma 17-70, F/4, ISO 3200
IMGP3060 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

For outdoor, I find F/4 reasonably enough. Of course F/2.8 would be better :-)

[simico]

Can anyone comment on how well the K-r or K-5 do in regard to indoor AF with an F4 lens?

It does very well. I used my 17-70 with the K-m and the K-5 indoors in fairly low light (EV 4.4) with no issues, I took most of my photos with 17-70 indoors.
In my opinion the DA 17-70 is a fine lens, good range, sharp wide open (took more than 90% of my photos wide open with it), good microcontrast and nice colors. Yes, there is distortion at 17mm, but DA* 16-50 is even worse. I really regret selling this lens, it served me well for almost 2 years.

[grainbelt]

Should have mentioned that I'm usually shooting in family environments, not at a bar or club, so flash is fine, and my AF360 can strobe for AF assistance.

Glad to hear some have had success with the newer AF systems at F4.

[rparmar]

I had a Sigma 10-20 and a Tamron 90mm Macro. I never got along with the ultrawide mentally, and the tamron was good, but the only macro I do is floral, so the DA 35 is plenty good for that.

The DA35 is absolutely brilliant for that!

I have this silly overlap of 18-55, 35 Ltd, 50 1.4, and I'd like to simplify some of that.

That's not an overlap of functionality, it's only an overlap of focal lengths, which is perfectly reasonable. I too have kept a standard zoom for convenience even though I never really use it... convenience is over-rated.

Really, the best solution is probably the DA 15. I could do DA 15 / DA 35 / DA 55-300 as my only lenses without much difficulty.

That sounds like a great plan!