Yet another lens question...sorry.

I think I have decided to hang on to the Ds rather than get the K10D, tempting though it is now....
So I am in the market for more glass instead
I'm thinking of getting a prime. I have a 50mm 1.7 A, but want something a bit wider for landscapes and general use.
Would you go for the DA 40mm 1:2.8 limited, the 43mm 1.9 limited or something else? The 31mm is out of my price range.
All suggestions are welcome! I won't go into a rant I promise

I got an A28f2.8 and I must say it is very good. Sadly the test shot I took was not very good but, even wide open it seems to be pretty sharp.

The DA 12-24mm zoom is an excellent choice for landscapes. You'll probably find that the 40/43mm lenses are not wide enough because they become a short tele on digital at 60/64.5 mm. In older glass I'd say the SMCP-A 24mm 1:2.8 is just about wide enough, or the 28mm at a squeeze. In Pentax glass, interesting results can be had from the 10-17mm fisheye. Sigma produce a creditable 10-20mm non-fisheye lens too.

31mm is not especially wide, but if you like that focal length, the FA 35 1:2 is very good and rather cheaper. 43mm is too close to 50mm to make much of a difference.

Of the 28mm lenses, the FA is considerably better than all the others.

G

The 16-45mm is wide enough for most landscapes, the wider end being a very useful 24mm-equivalent.

If you are needing something wider, the 12-24mm is versatile and excellent.

But before spending, the question to ask is how often would you need a 18mm-equivalent lens?

These are excellent lenses. But they are not primes.

G

Thanks for the imput - lots to think about.
Is the 16-45 a lot better quality than the kit lens? As I already have that I'm reluctant to duplicate it unless it really is an improvement.
I don't like fish-eye lenses, just not my "thing", and I have seen photos from the Sigma 10-20 that do show distortion at the wide end. I don't really think I need one that wide.
Mmm, this is going to be tough I can see. I shall look into the FA 28, see how available it is here. Does anyone have the 40mm limited? It may not be that wide but it looks like it should be a good all-purpose lens. Nice and lightweight too for taking on hikes. The less Sherpas I need to carry my gear the better
Secondhand lenses of any quality are thin on the ground nowadays since half of Holland seems to have discovered the K10D.

Maybe I'd better buy the K10D instead. OH says he'll use the Ds but sadly he only wants to use it as a glorified P&S - stick my Tamron 28-300 on it and he wil be happy I think (for now).

As I said more thinking to be done.....

The kit lens is much better than I first thought, where it falls down for landscapes is the corners are soft when set wide. The 16-45 is much better in this respect. the 16-45 has a constant aperture which is handy and the 16-45 is wider, but not as long. Finally, resolution characteristics are more even than the 18-55.

The last time I trekked in the Himalayas, we had to make do with only six Sherpas. So I just took my old Super A and the 50mm 1:1.7.

What it lacked in versatility it made up for in quality and luggability. Perfect for the interiors of the nearly 1,000 year-old monastery at Kulu. And the sharpness of the lens was well suited to the clear mountain air.

If I went again I would leave the K10D at home, and just take the *ist D, plus the 21mm Ltd and the 70mm Ltd lenses (neither of which I have at the moment, but I reckon they would be just right for the job).

Plus a million CF cards, of course.

G

True, I was just wondering if they had to be. Whilst not denigrating at all the the quality of the primes, the zooms are very, very good and much more versatile in the field.

It ultimately also depends on the final use. magazine reproduction and large prints demand high quality, but 6x4 inch commercial prints are another matter.

Well George I don't think I'll make it to the Himalayas but lightweight is an increasing requirement for me - I take my camera pretty much everywhere I go and it can get to be a real pain after a few hours of hiking carrying a couple of lenses in the backpack. The Bigma doesn't tend to go unless I'm sure I will get to use it. We are off to Scotland in a couple of weeks, by car so I could take everything, but I'm still trying to minimise the kit to make the mountains easier.
When flying I take the gear as handbaggage and so many airlines weigh it as well as measure it. KLM Africa do for instance. I'm still hoping to get to Tanzania again in the foreseeable future, inspite of the horrific price increases there, but if I do it will just be the Bigma that goes I expect.

I will see if I can borrow a 16-45 from someone here and try it out. He may have the 40mm too, as he has a serious case of LBA. Pity the 31mm is so expensive. The only 28 FA I have found here is labeled Soft so I don't think that's for me.

I wouldn't personally go for any of them as they're not wide enough for general landscape use IMHO. Very wide primes are expensive however the Pentax 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 are both good performers. They're both slow compared to primes however that's not such an issue with landscapes as using smaller apertures is preferably anyway.

I've had two of the 18-55's and I've now had a 16-45 for a couple of months and there is no comparison - the 16-45 is a massive improvement especially in terms of corner sharpness which I find important for landscape use. The extra width of 16mm v 18mm is quite significant as well, it's more or less the same as 24mm v 28mm with film - I never used to find 28mm quite wide enough where 24mm was very useful.

Yoshihiko Takinami tested many of the 28's on film a few years ago (http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_28-30.html). He ranks them like this:

K28/3.5, K28/2 >= M28/3.5 >= FA28/2.8AL >>> M28/2.8 (old) >M28/2.8 (later), A28/2.8, F28/2.8

My own subjective experience tends to bear out the conclusion that the K28/3.5 is the best Pentax 28, but YMMV

Reuben0

You are quite correct. I should have mentioned that I was talking about the 1:2.8 lenses, because, although the 1:3.5 lenses are well-regarded, they are also rare as hens' teeth. Also, I hesitate to recommend any K or M lens nowadays unless it is to be used wide-open.

So, of the ones you might actually be able to buy, the FA is still the best.

G