I currently have the lenses in my signature, so I have focal lengths of 18 -200 covered, with some sort of 'macro' functionality from the Tamron 103a (which I love using, but it's a little awkward as I have bad eysight and the standard focusing screen, plus my PK/A mount is one of those that only works with the lens not fully clicked in place)
However, the more I get into processing my pictures (using darktable, which is awesome - cannot recommend it enough) the more I get a little disappointed that they're not as sharp as I'd like. I also miss the wider apertures I grew up with - I sold a Sigma 35-200mm zoom I worked all summer to pay for when I was a kid, and bought instead a 28mm f2.8 and a 135mm f2.8.
So I've been thinking about getting some more lenses over the next few years. I shoot all sorts - mainly my kid I'll admit, but I love wildlife too.
As the title says, I'm not rich, but this is my only indulgence, so over the next few years I think I would like to add the following to my kit, preferebaly second hand or in the sales because there is no rush. I think this lot, with my K-7 (which I'll replace with whatever the current top-line body is when it breaks but not before) will make a fairly decent 'all bases covered' kit. Thoughts?
- Giottos MTL9361B aluminium tripod or similar - the best tripod is the one you have with you. My current ones are light, but horrible to use because the contruction is so shoddy. Hopefully I can find one that's a good compromise.
- DA* 16-50 f2.8 - My 'always on' lens needs to be weather sealed, so there is only one option
- DFA 100mm Macro WR - it's a shame it has no apeture control, but I find I like doing macro more and more (albeit I can only get to 1:3 with the Tamron) and this one is WR, and apparently amazing. If the Tamron 90mm was WR I'd probably get that instead - and may do anyway and just be careful. Or I could just get a 50mm and a set of bellows, then I'd have a 50mm too, and it'd be a darn sight cheaper.
- Tamron 70-200 f2.8 Di LD - for my wildllife. Not that long, but at f2.8 I'd be happy to stick a teleconverter on it and use it at f4. 200mm x 1.5 crop x 1.4 TC = 420mm. I don't make a living from this, so that's good enough for me. Some of the Sigma lenses look good, but I don't want to spend tons of cash on something I won't use that much. Maybe as the kid gets older I'll get more time for sitting still waiting for wildlife and I'll get a longer lens, or maybe I'll just sit stiller so it comes closer)
- Metz Wireless Ring Flash - for use with the DFA 100 - but I'd also like something powerful enough to give light to the foreground in 'normal' use as I love the popping colours of Martin Parr (search for his 'Last Resort' images - I saw these in photography magazine when I was a kid, and I've always loved them)
And, I think that is it.
I'd also like a Q too, to use a digital teleconverter and pocket camera - a Q is streets ahead of my phone camera in terms of quality, and if you were to stick the 70-200 on it, it'd effectively be 350 - 1000, which should just about be enough reach for the tiniest bit of fauna!
Brand new that lot comes in at a bit over £2,000 (not includiung the Q), but hopefully with a bit of eBay and a bit of bargain hunting I can get it for much less. I'd probably also get a couple of flash guns, but those manual ones off eBay will be fine for me - I'm happy to adjust manually.
Any thoughts? There is nothing wider than 16mm/24mm and only one prime (but I suppose a Q would come with a 40mm) but I think this covers things reasonably well.
Of course I need to actually use it more, too. But then don't we all?