Need help deciding !

Hi chaps-I need to rely on this most excellent community once again for advice on what lenses to get. This is going to be between now and the end of the year.

In the very near future l'm planning on getting the FA 50 1.4.

I then have my eyes on the DA* 50-135 which I'm thinking of getting in June/July and then at the end of the year I was considering the sigma 150-500 since it's a lot cheaper than the Bigma with hsm to boot...but there's also the da* 60-250....but that is a similar Focal length to my 55-300....and I would rather my lenses didn't stand on each others toes too much.

I definitely would like to use focal lengths of 500mm, and I'm also looking for a good walkabout lens, and I think the da* 50-135 could be that. I want the FA 50mm 1.4 for portraits, but how good is the DA* 50-135 in that regard? (don't want to potentially make it redundant when i get the 50-135

I've also considered the 16-50 as an upgrade to my kit lens, or the 17-70sdm, not bother with the 50-135 and go straight for the 60-250 and use a tc for the 500mm reach (not bothering with the sigma).

I set my mind on what i will do, then a day later i think again...need some opinions please!

Gosh I'd have said a 50-135 is way too long for a walkabout lens. I did find my 10-20 too short (and too big) but I suspect I could have used the 12-24 as the longer end of 24 would just about do it for me.

That said at the moment my 35mm lens is used as the walkabout as it's smaller than the previous title holder 17-50 Tamron.

I'm guessing you're interested in nature shots if you're needing such long lenses and I have almost no interest in birds etc. so my comments may be of no value whatsoever!

Mike

Don't we all, I have wanted a 60-250mm since getting my K10D over 12 months ago but now it is here and I compare the shots I have seen against my MKI Sigma 70-200mm APO EX I am struggling to justify the extra I would have to fork out, especially with a new body possibly round the corner.

If and when I replace my 16-45mm it will probably be with the 17-70mm and I will sacrifice the 1mm at the wide end. These focal lengths are the most generally useful. It will also work just fine as a portrait lens - it's only the focal length that makes a portrait lens (mainly) do a 95mm-equivalent is about perfect.

For the longer lens there's little point in having a 55-300mm and 60-250mm, you are wasting money there IMHO. You only need your longer lens to take you to that 500mm and the choice there you have already made.

For me (and of course this is always a personal choice) a starting point of 50mm is the very maximun I would consider for a walkabout lens.

I am interested in nature shots if something interesting is happening for me to spot - I'm not a 'birdie' or anything - but I have taken a few interesting wildlife shots so far, and I think I would feel more restricted If I was'nt able to get to the long end. I have used the 55-300 a a bit of a walkabout lens already - I find if I am out and about the 18-55 hardly gets a look-in.

But i'd like something with a much shorter minimun focus -I do get a tad frustrated with my 55-300 on that count; though it is a great lens.

I want a 500mm eventually; because very near to where I live there are fantastic views for miles and miles with lots of intresting features everywhere; I'd like to get very close and achieve a viewpoint which is quite unusual and special - and for wildlife too.

I guess I just want a sanity check on my thoughts of the DA*50-135 with a Sigma 150-500 later. And if the 50-135 s a very good performer with portrait shots; then it might not be worth me getting the FA50mm 1.4 (could get a decent flashgun instead).

Hope that all made sense!

We all have different photographic requirements and you're likely to get a lot of alternative ideas in a thread like this, as a consequence of that.

In the end you know what you want to photograph and therefore what lenses you need. As opposed to what lenses you want!

For me, the 16-45mm fulfills 90% or more of what I need. The other 10% needs a disproportionate number of lenses for a lot of different tasks.

Thanks guys for your input - you'll actually changed my mind!

I've had a very good couple of days with my camera and the kit lens (i'll have to post some piccies) and that coupled with what John and Em have said has sealed it - i'm opting for the DA*16-50 initially instead of the 50-135; and then much later in the year i'll go for the 50-135 then. These two lenses compliment each other really well.

I have seriously considered the 17-70; however I would like to have a weather sealed lens; as I'm interested in taking snaps in a new butterfly enclosure at Chester Zoo, and my current lenses get steamed up. Considering the excellent IQ of the 16-50 and the huge resolution I have on the K20D; I can easily crop in to simulate 70mm and have no degregation of quality.

Once again - thanks guys for helping me. I've stuck to this idea for a few days without changing my mind, so I think its a winner.

I think the 16-50mm is a cracking lens but mine still steamed up at Marwell last week. I think every lens will unless you take precautions before going in.

Hi Mike - could I clariffy which part of the lens steamed up?

I would always expect the outside of the glass to steam up - this you can address with a quick wipe until the glass itself warms up. But for me the biggest headache was the inside elements steaming up; and I would have expected a weather sealed lens not to be able to do this - am I correct?

Ah thats ok then, thought you were talking about the outside element

Phew phew phew - my plan can still work! Thanks Mike.