getting ready to buy some new glass

after getting a raise and seeing a nice bonus coming up at work I am looking into getting some new glass...

My current lineup is like this:
pentax DA 18-55
smc pentax-a 50mm 1.7
Tamron 28-200
Sigma 50mm macro

Any nice ideas what to get?
My thoughts go out to a 12-24 to which I am going to look for a 24-90 to accompany it
Or maybe I'll get a Sigma 10-20, but I don't know which one to get. When walking around a 12-24 and the 28-200 will make for some light walking around whilst having a large coverage.

How usefull are the limited lenses in normal day to day life?

The 12-24 is superb. However, be careful when coupling that to the 24-90 that you make note of what focal lengths you tend to use. For example, if you shoot mainly in the 20-25 region, you will end up changing lenses a lot and the 16-45 might be a better choice.

Ask the question, which do you need most, wide or telephoto coverage, or maybe macro, or maybe something else...

Only you can decide which lenses you need, but I would suggest you stick with pentax for reasons of quality and ergonomics.

Seen a 24-90 on ebay - very popular it seems....
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SMC-PENTAX-FA-24-90mm-f-3-5-4-5-AL-IF-AF-ZOOM-LENS_W0QQitemZ170049551227QQihZ007QQcategoryZ48558QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The 16-45 crossed my mind as well, but I do still plan to keep my 18-55 for the time being.
When I don't want to pack a lot of kit I could opt for a 12-24 in combination with my 28-200. The gap isn't that big.
I like the extension on the wide end which you get with the 12-24.
A 12-24 and 16-45 would be nice, but I doubt my bonus will be that big And I have to keep my girlfriend happy as well

Does anyone have any comparison pics of the Pentax 12-24 and the sigma 10-20?
I am thinking of getting one of these, but I would like some info on both.

I believe Pentax and Tokina worked together to create the 12-24, and the only difference is the factory they roll out of and the Pentax version has SMC. If you can find a comparitive review of the Tokina and the Sigma, that should be close enough, as from what I have heared the SMC (still the best coating system in the world IMHO) makes the Pentax version slightly better than the Tokina for colour rendition and flare resistance bit otherwise they are identical.

Yes, Tokina and Pentax worked together on the 12-24, the 10-17 fisheye, and the new range of "*" lenses due next spring.

There's almost nothing in terms of angle of view, and both are very capable lenses. And yes, there's quite a price difference. However, I bought my 12-24 from Germany and it came in around about £450 which was much more reasonable.

It's a mighty fine lens, but I've found that in some ways the 16-45 is more versatile and perhaps better still! As I found out too, a set of ND grads for the 12-24 will set you back a fair whack (went Lee foundation system plus Cokin Z-pro filters) - so beware (I couldn't get Cokin P filters to work 100%, even when I cut a Cokin holder down I still got some vignetting at 12mm.)

I've seen a comparison of the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 10-17 fisheye, but not between the two you're looking at. I can, however, point you at some Pentax images

It's worth bearing in mind that the Pentax SMC coating is reported to be very hardwearing, as well as flare resistant and with excellent contrast and colour.

HTH!
Matt

let's put it a different way, could someone advise me what to get in addition to my current lineup.

Normally, most shots I take are outside and mostly landscape, architecture, not a lot of people mostly.
For interiour pictures it is mostly at parties and such or when our company attends tradeshows I take the pictures from and on the booth.
Next summer (still some time away) some friends asked me if I would like to take the pictures at their 25th wedding anniversary. They can't afford a professional photographer and I am the most advanced amateur they know

Will in this case a wideangle zoom be a good choice? Or should I opt for the 16-45? Will switching from the 18-55 to the 16-45 be a big difference in quality.

I'm not sure that coupling the 12-24mm with the 28-200mm is a great option as you are mixing a lens of superb quality with one which is of only fair quality.

Pictures from the 18-55mm and the 16-45mm will look equally good to the caual observer or from a distance, but when examined critically the superiority of the 16-45mm will be obvious.

If it helps, Sue and I use the folowing lenses:
12-24, 16-45, 18-55, 24-90, 50-200, 75-300 (all Pentax)

Most shots are taken with the 16-45 (Me) and the 18-55 (Sue) and they look equally good, in fact, I have to say she often produces better pictures than I do....

john, thanks for the input (and offcourse the rest as well)

How is the 50-200? Have you got experience with both this one and the 28-200?
I just did some checking, getting both the 16-45 and the 50-200 from Pentax is less then buying the 12-24.
Getting the 16-45 and the 50-200 as a replacement for the 18-55 and 28-200 looks like a nice alternative to "up" the quality of my lineup.

The 12-24 is 699 Euro's
The 16-45 is 389 Euro's
The 50-200 is 222 Euro's

The other one you listed, the 75-300 is 155 Euro's.

Makes me wonder, getting the 16-45 and the 50-200 together with a ND grad filterset would make for about the same amount of money as the 12-24. I could save that one to a later bonus

I think your logic is sound.

I shoot mainly nature, macro, some architecture, and my current everyday lens line-up is as follows:

10-20 Sigma
16-45 Pentax
50 1.7 Pentax
50-200 Pentax
105mm Macro Sigma


I've only had the 50-200 for a week and haven't had much chance to use it, but initial results are good, and I got it based on the good reviews and high regard found here on the board. Nice and compact too.

I bought the 10-20 after doing some architecture shots where I was struggling to get a wide enough view using the 16-45, and I couldn't justify the higher cost of the Pentax 12-24. I felt that range overlapped the 16-45 too much as well, the Sigma giving me just that little extra. Nice solid build, good results from that too, although I don't use it that often. Can use Cokin P filters with it as well - the holder will actually sit on the front of the lens, where the lens hood normally bayonets on, sort of hangs on to it. Fine if the camera's on a tripod, obviously not hand-held.

The 16-45 is the lens that spends most of the time on the camera. I got it to replace the 18-35 that came with my D. I was used to the the angle of view of a 24mm lens on film, and the 16-45 gives me that.

Think I've got my lenses sorted - now, do I go for the K10D?

Dan

the 50-200 is the best tele-zoom I have ever owned. It is as sharp at 200mm as my SMC-M 200mm F4 prime. It is light and small yet feels as solid as any consumer tele-zoom ever does (and better than most!).

I cannot recommend this lens enough, I have the Pentax SMC-FA 80-320, a Zeiss Jena 75-300 (actually a Sigma I think), Tamron CF 80-200 macro, Zeiss Sonar 135 prime and Pentax SMC-M 200 F4 prime. The 50-200 is comfortably better than any of the above at all focal lengths and at all apertures. It beats the 80-320 by so much that its a toss up weather I'm better off using the 320 or cropping an image from the 200 to get the same FOV.

ok I got it now

After I convince SWMBO then I think I will go for a 16-45 and a 50-200 and a set of cokin ND grad filters.

Then it's time to put some things on ebay I guess...

Pentax MZ-10 together with the 35-80 kitlens and the 80-200 lens, and some other lenses I have here belonging to an old minolta SLR.

Now you got me thinking about wanting/needing new stuff !!!

Not the 16-45 or even the 12-24, I decided on a helicopter.

Not really Pentax related, but I came across a website with some cool pics of Mexico City, taken by a helicopter pilot. So I want/need a helicopter now.

http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PhotoAlbum31.html


Off to check ebay for a pilot's licence and a Huey.