Minestrone!! Macaroni!!!

Steve

Agree 200%. If you don't see it, no lens is going to help you.

Steve

The Sigma 10-20mm, Pentax 18-135mm and Pentax 55-300mm are your equivalent of my 10-24mm, 16-85mm and 55-300mm - a decent set of general purpose primes that, as pschlute says, covers everything from 10 to 300mm. Yes, there is some FL overlap, but that's necessary in order to minimise difficult lens changes (e.g. a superb rainbow has just appeared but it would require a lens change and it's just started to rain). So why change those three lenses? What do you want that they don't give you?

The Sigma 17-50 does duplicate FL, but it is f2.8 which is wider than the others and might also have other attributes that the other lenses don't have. Only you can decide whether you want those attributes in your kit. And part of the decision inevitably involves how much you'd get for the lens if you sold it. MPB has one for £184 so you might get, say, £150 for a private sale. What would you do with the money? Would it be better just to keep the lens?

Steve

That's a bargain for a good banger. A local butcher sells them at the Wednesday market in town for about five quid for five. Yes, that's a quid a banger. But they are superb quality and big - significantly bigger than their supermarket cousins. And the butcher does discounts for multiple meat purchases so you can get 'em for three quid for five (60p each) if you buy enough.

What do you put in your mash? I sometimes add cheese or spring onion (chopped up :wink or both.

Steve

Certainly not. I have seven (from 25mm to 180mm) plus tubes and a Raynox macro conversion lens. And then there are the reversing rings and coupling ring... And I'm not a greedy person - just someone who wants a macro lens for every occasion .

Steve

Right, I'll reveal my approach to the lens collection issue, it might help here. It has at least served me well for many years and will probably last me until the inevitable end.
1. Have a set of general purpose zooms covering wide angle to long tele. This is now Tamron 10-24mm, Pentax 16-85mm and 55-300mm. It's what I will take with me if I'm going to be out and about and don't have a reason for taking an alternative lens. Leave either the 10-24mm or 55-300mm at home if I only want to carry 2 lenses. Take the 16-85mm if I only want to carry one lens. (To be fair, I might also put a Q with a couple of lenses into the pocket.)
2. Buy other lenses when I want (sometimes even need) them for specific purposes. So DA*300mm f4 + 1.4TC when I became interested in birds. Macro lenses when I got into close-up and macro. 135mm when I realised how useful it would be for flowers that are at the back of a flower bed. And so on.
3. Buy a lens or two for fun, just to see what they can do - but only when I spot what I think is a bargain. That's why I've got the DA10-17mm fisheye and Tamron 500mm mirror lenses.
4. Don't dispose of any lens even if its function has been taken over by another lens. The DA16-45mm was my first 'made for digital' lens. The 16-85mm replaced it because of the longer reach. But I get some nostalgic pleasure out of taking the old 16-45mm for a quick spin once in a while - and the restriction to 45mm rater than 85mm challenges me to think differently (or perhaps to think like I used to!). Similarly, the 18-55mm might not have the range of focal length or IQ of the 16-85mm, but it is smaller and lighter which can be important (speaking as someone who damaged his back last year and hopes never to go through it again!).

That might or might not help you ... .

Steve

Street tends to push you towards a fairly narrow range of subject distance and focal length which then determines the best type of lens to use. Others can advise, I don't do street, but I would expect small and unobtrusive to be a consideration.

Abstract, however, can be at any scale from the microscopic to hugely huge so pretty well any lens can be used provided it is appropriate for the subject. I've done abstract ultra-macro, which pretty well demands a prime lens, and big-scale abstract which can be done with a zoom. One of my recent favourite abstracts is the bonnet of a car link. It was taken with a 500mm mirror lens simply because that was the lens on the camera when I spotted the opportunity. Another favourite is the surface of dried paint link. That was taken with a 70mm macro lens. With abstract, it can be useful to have the possibility of using narrow depth of field to isolate part of a picture. That pushes for a fast (wide aperture) prime. However, superb abstracts can also be taken with narrow aperture and edge-to-edge sharpness. You need to match your lens to your vision and style. Or vice-versa - get a lens then find the abstracts which suit it. Or even try taking abstracts with your existing lenses and see where it takes you .

Steve

In addition to the 85mm lenses, the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro is superb for ... macro. Then there is the Pentax FA 77mm f1.8 ltd, which has acquired near-legendary status for normal use and can do nice things with a tube attached. It's horses for courses, so which course do you want your horse to run on then we can suggest which horse to buy/beg/borrow?

Steve

Shark or vampire?

Lots of potential here. With a bit of tinkering with the order of the images, and one or two more, you could produce a nice little sequence of vile, luminous, tangled thread gradually emerging from the throat of the monster then being vomited out of its mouth. Perhaps a bit early for it - something for the end of the month and halloween?? Or perhaps my imagination is a bit too vivid...

Steve

Is it natural for someone to go on so many nocturnal outings? When you're on them do you ever get a strong urge to go to Whitby or a fierce aversion to looking in a mirror?

Excellent pictures, by the way . The red patch in the first one is particularly effective IMHO, as are the stars in the top left (need to see the photo big to get the full effect).

Steve