The other thing I have realised using exposure plot is that the lack of viewfinder information has meant I was leaving aperture largely to the camera.

I now have a deposit on a K10D, so hopefully I won’t have too long to wait before I get my hands on my new toy.

Question away.

Assuming I am satisfied with the results after I have tested my K mount lens I should only need extra lens at the short end. In fact there may be an argument for using the kit lens as the walkaround lens and get a separate lens just for the wide angles as I have longer focal lengths in my existing K mount lenses.

Choosing between the 16-45 and 18-70's is just a balancing act:
Pentax 16-45 giving me the 35mm equivalent of 24mm at the short end, but not so good at the long end, the 24mm equivalent is what attracts me to this lens
Pentax 17-70 17-70 constant f4 with DSM better at the long end, nearly as good at the short end
Sigma as for Pentax 17-70, but not HSM, variable aperture from f2.8-f4.5

If I already had the Sigma lens I doubt I would change it for the sake of an ultrasonic motor, but I expect I would want to see what the Pentax 17-70 was like before deciding between the two. I see the Sigma 17-70 is f2.8-4.5, how does the f-number vary with focal length?

Mind you, still no nearer making a decision.

Thanks for the comments.

The focal lengths quoted are for Pentax digital lenses, not 35mm equivalent. I used exposure plot to get an idea of the 35 equivalent and then used the crop factor.

The 16-45 does look very good value and I have not discounted it, it is just a little short at the telephoto end for a walkaround lens. Hence the interest in the 17-70 f4 on the roadmap which would seem to be my ideal choice for the camera. The obvious unknown, apart from price, being how soon they can deliver, but if it produced this year will give some idea of Hoya's commitment to the brand. While waiting i can always experiment with my existing manual K-mount lens to see if I am happy with the results when paired with the digital body. The comments I have read about the 16-50 f2.8 suggest that SDM is good, but the lens is too heavy for everyday use. The disadvantage with the Sigma 17-70 is that it does not have the HSM motor, and without the motor I would probably go straight for the 16-45.

I am in no hurry to get an ultra-wide at the moment, of course this does not stop me developing LBA once I have the camera.

Hello all, an occasional lurker, I decided that I should register, after all I have been thinking about a DSLR for a few years now.

Currently I am using a Panasonic DMC-FZ20, generally I am quite happy with it. The major drawbacks I find with it is the lack of real wide angle, the evf and low-light performance. I also have a Canon PowerShot S45 that was given away, but has now returned to me. There is also some old Pentax 35mm equipment that is no longer in use.

Recently I noticed the new K20D, which looks very interesting. However, I also found the current deals on the Pentax K10D and they look to good to pass by without serious thought. Still not quite what to do, 90% my shots are wide angle to 70mm. So the 17-70 SDM shown on the Pentax roadmap would seem to be almost ideal for my needs and should be usable with the K10D.

Two possibilities spring to mind with the K10D. Either get the kit lens, with or without the telephoto bundle from SRS, for now and see if Pentax look like the are going to deliver the 17-70 within a reasonable time, or buy the K10D with the 16-45 now. I will have manual lens which cover up to 200mm anyhow so the 70-300 is not really essential.

Bias is just general photography, natural light with no specialised wildlife or sport. Any thoughts appreciated.

Deryck

The PROXB has a centre column that rotates through 90 degrees to horizontal, browse the English photo catalogue from http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/pid/1798/lang/en to see what I mean.