Zooms or Primes

I thought that my DA55-300mm slightly worsened in IQ after about 250mm. To be honest I hated it, the focussing was atrociously laboured on my K200D, but I think it's still probably better than any of the alternatives in it's price bracket, and if I really needed 300mm, I would have put up with it's foibles.

A useful summary! Few notes follow.

Longer focal lengths will always have an intrinsic advantage! The trick is to compare the FA31 to other lenses in its focal range. And then it is noticeably better.

But less distortion even than the DA*16-50 and sharper too.

Distinctly better than the alternatives, completely blowing away the off-brand zooms.

Bit of both. The 16-45mm was my walkabout lens, but hasn't been used much since I purchased the 12-24. The K 35mm f3.5 has now become the walkabout lens and a great lens it is too. The 50-135 is excellent but reserved for planned shoots as otherwise the K35, M50 and DFA 100 macro go in tha bag. I have the 55-300 for the long end. If budget wasn't a consideration I'd go for the DA*200 and DA*300, but the 55-300 is very good and I'd have to have a lot of spare money to justify replacing it. I prefer using prime, but zooms will do until I win the lottery. Actually I've had a lot of wine and I don't really know what I'm talking about. I need every single lens, they are all necessary.

Was quite surprised how close the poll was.

Never sen a Poll of this type be so close, Shall we try AV?
Mike you seem to be sellin all your primes
You leaving us by Stealth: