[nostatic]

12-24
35macro
50-135

It really depends what/how you shoot in the club. If you can move around a prime is best. If you can't, having a zoom helps a lot.

Have you considered a good p&s for the club stuff? Again, depending on what you're looking for, something like the Ricoh GX-100 or GRD2 could be killer. Then use the K20d for the landscape stuff or when you need a longer throw or "clean" shots. The small sensor draws differently than the apc one, and I think I prefer it for more of an art/abstract look, especially street/low light.

Check out some of Mitch Alland's stuff:

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[PentaxPoke]

I have similar interests to yours, except that I also like sports photography. My lens strategy is simple: I have two fast, fixed primes for indoors, and the Pentax 18-250 for outdoors.

For indoors:
FA 35 f/2
FA 50 f/1.4

Both are excellent lenses, relatively small, and value is outstanding. The FA35 is nice for those situations where you are in a more crowded situation, or smaller club setting where the 50 would be too long. The 50 gives you one more stop of light however. Both are outstanding for the many situations where flash is not an option. Of course with any fast lens, learning how to manage focus and depth of field is critical.

For outdoors (or with my 360 fgz flash):
Pentax 18-250

With enough light, this lens is hard to beat since it covers such a wide range.

[susanc]

I want to thank all of you for your thoughtful input. I was going to try to do a multi-quote reply to all this, but it just seems easier to do it this way.

- I'm still really want the 12-24 (and the 10-17 fisheye)

-J

If you are keen to get ultra-wide, you may want to also consider the Sigma 10-20mm. It's way cheaper than the 12-24 and wider. It would allow you free up some cash for the fisheye.

[superfuzzy]

- Happy to see that most of you support the idea of the *16-50. I feel like I need that lens, and I've decided to pick it up.

- I think I'll skip the *50-135 in favor of the Tamron 18-250. That just seems to make more sense to me right now... and frees up some cash to fuel my new-found LBA -- which has kicked into full gear before I own a single one!!! :-D

- I think I will go ahead and pick up the Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4. It sounds like there are lots of reasons to love this lens, and since it's so affordable, I'm inclined to pick it up even if it's partly redundant. Since I have pretty good range of motion in the club environment, I could possibly alter my shooting style to use primes. I think the 50mm 1.4 will be a good "testing" lens for that, and if I like it, I may go for some other primes in the future.

You originally stated:
• What I want to shoot:
--- Low-light nightlife situations.
--- Urban and Landscape Scenery from my travels
--- Candid Portraits of people, though not typically “close-ups”

The Tamron 18-250mm is a VERY nice lens, but it won't useful for low light shooting. This is an outdoor lens, and will be fine for candid portraits, as long as the subjects are outside during the day, or inside with a ton of light (assuming you won't be using a strobe indoors). The 50 f/1.4 is a great choice since you're holding off on a 16-50mm, and will come in handy for shooting in clubs. Good luck!

---

Last edited by superfuzzy; 03-14-2008 at 08:05 AM.

[regken]

Hi All:


My Top Considerations:
• Pentax SMC DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 – $669
My thoughts:
• Quality control issues aside, it seems like the *16-50 is a very nice/fast/versatile lens, and that it would provide a solid foundation upon which to build out the rest of my kit. The v

Jason,
With the number of threads dealing with the problems this lens has are you sure you want to risk that type of investment? Even Ben has returned his in favor of the 16-45. It's not just a matter of getting a good copy, there seems to be some doubt as to the integrity of the design for longer wear and problems down the road. Even isteve has rejected this lens.

Regards,
Ken

[jasonwarth]

Well, I've gone ahead and pulled the trigger. Here's how I netted out, lens-wise:

- FA 50 f/1.4
- DA* 16-50
- DA 10-17
- DA 100 Macro

Even with all the helpful advice, I found this decision to be extremely difficult. I opted to go for the 10-17 instead of the 12-24 because of a) the significant difference in price, and b) the additional creativity that the 10-17 would afford me. Having a fish-eye is something I've always wanted, and I just couldn't justify spending so much on the 12-24 when I could get somewhat similar abilities with the wide end of the 16-50, or with the 17-end of the 10-17.

I also opted to go for the dedicated Macro instead of the either the 18-250 or the *50-135. This decision was more of a function of which I want to have first, as I envision picking up one of the above lenses next.

Thanks again to all of you for your help! Keepin' my fingers crossed that I get a good copy of the *16-50!

-Jason

[loudbay]

Your next lens should be the 50-135 paired with the Tamron 1.4x That will round out your longer end quite nicely. There's a thread right now with examples of this combination. Very good results.

Matt

[jasonwarth]

Your next lens should be the 50-135 paired with the Tamron 1.4x That will round out your longer end quite nicely. There's a thread right now with examples of this combination. Very good results.

Matt

Yep... sounds like that's the plan! After all the mental toiling, I'm feeling good about where I netted out.

Next up:
- DA* 50-135 (+TC)
- DA 12-24
- one of the DA primes