I'm sure it might be true that the kit lens can rival or better some of the old primes for sharpness. However, if you look at other measures such as rendering, bokeh, etc you may find that the tables turn in favour of the primes.

Sharpness is one of the qualities that we need from a decent lens. But the overall look from a decent prime is different that that from a kit zoom - especially in the defocused areas. Which one you prefer might be a matter of personal taste, but I know which images jump out at me when I look at mine.

Depends what you mean by cheap, but the Tamron Adaptall 24/2.5 is a pretty decent lens and can usually be found at very reasonable prices.

Bump - Voigtlander 40/F2 still for sale. It's starting to feel a little rejected and doesn't understand because it knows it's a stunner!

Spot on:

(1) WR and mark II have same optical formula
(2) there is some sample variation and you can be lucky or unlucky within reasonable limits
(3) you'd need one of the 14MP bodies to notice the difference in resolution between the older and newer lenses. With a K10D, the mark I and mark II would be hard to tell apart
(4) and back to John's original post, the lowly kit lens is indeed highly capable. The WR version is also very nicely put together, and is very pleasant to use.

Jon

[quote:3496ace15f="womble"]One last thing: metering with M series lenses tends to be unreliable compared to the A series. For static shots this isn't a problem (shoot, check histogram, adjust, reshoot...) but for grab shots etc. it is a pain.

This varies depending upon the camera body and focussing screen used - metering with the early *ist bodies and with the K-7 using M lenses seems to me to be more accurate than some of the others - I know of people who installed *ist focussing screens in their K10D/K20D bodies to get around this problem.

One other issue that is worth a mention is build quality for the SMCA f1.7 lens, which does not quite measure up to that the SMCM. The SMCA includes more plastic components, including in the aperture mechanism which can become notchy and unpleasant as the lenses get older. This is not an issue if you only intend to use the lens at its "A" setting and use the e-dial on the camera to stop it down. It is an issue if you want to use the aperture ring on the lens - you'd need to make sure you get a good one.

If I had to pick between 50mm and 90mm, I'd stick with the 50, especially on APS-C.

I'm unconvinced that the Tamron makes a good portrait lens. Slightly too long - esp on crop sensor - and almost too sharp! It's a very fine macro lens, and can be used successfully for non macro shots, but with limitations: not least how long it takes to focus.

You obviously need both!

Sorry but I think the test is somewhat one dimensional.

In addition to sharpness, overall colour, contrast, rendering and bokeh are at least as important - and arguably the reason why people venture towards very fast primes in the first place.

The Nokton delivers superb images when judged against these criteria in the round.

That is not to knock the Pentax 50mm/1.7 lens - which I agree is excellent and superb value for money - but when you consider the overall look and tonality of the image, the Nokton offers a different look and is very impressive indeed.

If those tests had included a Pentax 50mm/1.4 compared to the 1.7, I suspect that the reviewer may well have reached the same conclusion.

PS - I have the Nokton and have never experienced that kind of fringing from it

Voigtlander Ultron still available. Mint - see photos above. Price reduced to £255 incl UK postage (plus PayPal fee).

I thought it was a nice looking camera! It was worth paying that for the lens though... I don't have the equipment or knowledge to strip it down, but it looked as if it would clean up nicely with a bit of tlc.

Good luck!

Jon

OK - here's what I'd do but others may disagree strongly!

If you're OK about manual focus I'd replace the 28-105 and 28-70 with Pentax 35-105 SMC-A which is like having a pile of primes all wrapped up into one lens (but it is quite heavy). Nice constant aperture of f3.5 too, and you should be able to pick a decent one up for around the £100 mark.

As for the others:

Keep the kit lens as you're otherwise stuffed if you want wide angle.

If the Miranda 24mm lens does the job for you, why not sell the Pentax because Pentax 24mm lenses go for serious money, especially fast ones?

Given you don't appear to love any of them, get rid of all of your 28mm lenses and try and find a Pentax 28mm f3.5. SMCK is the best, but SMCM is still very good. The 28/2.8 SMCA is also a pretty decent lens and readily available.

Play with the 40mm lens and decide based on your experience. The focal length is not one that I tend to use terribly much so this one would be pretty optional for me.

Sell one of your 50s. I'd keep the SMCM as I prefer the build quality, but if you like the SMCA then that's probably the one to keep.

Keep your 135 because it's fast and you like it.

Buy a 200mm prime - either the f4 SMCM or possibly Tamron Adaptall f3.5. I picked up the latter last week, complete with PKM adapter, from local camera shop. It's pretty much mint condition and cost £35 including the adapter. It's surprisingly sharp even at f3.5: much better than I expected it was going to be, and I suspect much better than your Sigma telezoom.

Best bang for buck longer zoom is the Tamron 70-300. Better if you can afford it is the Pentax 55-300, but not that much better.

Does this help?

Jon