The 8-16 is great for landscapes - especially if you want to include plenty of dramatic skies - the couple of shots on my flickr page of cornfields were taken with it.

The only downside - as has already been said, is that it doesn't take filters. I've been wondering if there's a solution to this - large filters held in front etc. but haven't found a solution yet.

Martyn

Do it! You won't regret it for moment.

I upgraded from K10D to K5 in Feb and as Mike said it's like having a different lens. I use a Sigma 120-400mm and if, like me, you shoot a lot of wildlife you'll find that you can take pictures that would have been impossible before.

And yes, I got around £200 for the K10D

ok, I know we all suffer from LBA.

But that aside, is there REALLY any need these days for more than one lens of the same focal length?

I currently have:
sigma 8-10mm
Pentax 16-45mm
Tamron 70-300mm macro
Sigma 70mm macro
Sigma 120-400mm

At the moment I'm on the point of getting a sigma 18-250 which, with its close focusing MIGHT mean I could get rid of the 16-45 and the 70-300mm. But I think before I do I'll take some comparison pics just to see if there is any NOTICEABLE difference - I don't mean pixel peeping but real-world viewing.

I know there's the question of aperture.. but with the K5's high ISO handling this is much less of a problem than it used to be.

Has anyone else shrunk their lens collection in a similar way - or do I really need to get a prime lens to see why people say they're so much better??

Martyn

I shall read this thread with interest, as I currently use the Sigma 120-400mm and was wondering the same thing!

Martyn

I wish you luck with the course.

I think the big benefits are the discipline of having to go along every week and the interaction with the tutor and other students.

Sure, you can learn a lot from books and practice... but it takes a certain amount of organisation and self-discipline to approach things as IF you were doing a proper course.

I have looked at the OCA course but have my doubts about the benefits of distance learning - but then I teach in FE (absolutely nothing to do with photography!!) so I'm perhaps biased

I recon £203 to be able to spend an evening a week with like minded individuals doing nothing but photography is pretty good value!!

Martyn

Well I resisted the temptation... having taken to the woods with my 120-400mm to see how useful F12 would be the answer was - hardly at all, even with ISO 12800 - allowing for a reasonable shutter speed.

I also seriously thought about how often I would be in a position to take a shot the setup would be useful for and, again, the answer was not often - unless I'm in a hide somewhere on a reserve.

Always comes back to the same old thing - a £1,000 of lens won't give you good pictures of wildlife if you can't track and stawk it and get close!

I do think though, as dcw said, a cheap compact attached to a scope would probably be as good, if not better, an option than attaching an SLR

I think it depends exactly the type of landscape you want to take - and no lens will be the best on EVERY occasion - sometimes you'll want a wider angle, sometimes you'll want a zoom to isolate some of the view.

Recently, I acquired the sigma 8-16mm which I'm still experimenting with - but in the right setting it's great - especially for including dramatic skies or for taking shots where you couldn't otherwise include everything you want in the scene. If you take a look at my Flickr page, the last three landscape shots were all taken with the lens at 8mm or there abouts.

You didn't actually say what 'wide angle' you already have?

On top of my current lens dilema I've recently been to the Birdfair at Rutland Water and had a play around on the Pentax stand.

They've got a spotting scope and adapter arrangement that fits on the K5 and, depending on the model of scope, provides a manual focus lens at a constant F12 of (quoted) up to 1,500mm (not clear if this is 35mm equivalent or not) for between £700-£1,000. Details are in the scopes section on SRS website if anyone wants more info.

I had a play around with it and the results, even hand held, were better than I would have expected.

In the past F12 would have ruled the thing out pretty much, but with the K5s low light performance it's not so clear.

Has anyone got/used this type of arrangement? I'm sorely tempted - but something tells me I'm probably expecting a lot more that is really achievable.

Martyn

ah ... sorry. Forget the 150mm... I was looking at a somewhat mis-leading ad! I thought there wasn't a pentax version -180mm anyway. Thought I'd missed something!!

I do already have a Sigma 70mm macro, but it's just not high enough magnification for butterflies etc. I did think about a 2x teleconvertor... I guess that's another option!

I've been using a Tamron 70-300mm lens with macro for butterfly shots.

I'm now considering various options with vastly different sums of money involved!
1. Get the lens repaired for £80.
2. Buy the Sigma 18-250mm for £400 - I could do with a doitall lens and I believe this does close focus so should do the butterflies.
3. Buy a Sigma 70-200mm Macro for £600
4. Buy a Sigma 150mm Macro for £800

Questions are ....would the 18-250 serve as well as the Tamron for insect shots ... and would I notice £600 of difference in the quality of the images if I go for the macro lenses?

Any comments from anyone that's used all or any of these would be MOST welcome!!

martyn