I like to take photos of various subjects, be they Portrait, macro, nature, street, events etc etc. And I have a reasonable arsenal of lenses to take shots. Now in the past I have posted a specific thread for a type (Portrait lens was the last one), but I am sitting back and thinking what is really my next lens purchase for. I have a certain amount of money for a top quality lens (approx £1k) but where do I invest.
Now, to start, this is my current range of K-mount lenses to use (I am ignoring my 7 M42 mount manual lenses of differing quality)

Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC
Pentax 16-45mm F4 DA
3x 18-55 "kit" Lenses
Tokina 20-35mm F2.8 ATX Pro
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG
Pentax 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 Film "kit" lens
Pentax FA-50 F1.4
Pentax DA* 50-135mm F2.8
Pentax-K 55mm F1.8 (Manual)
Sigma 55-200mm F4-5.6
Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6
Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3
Takumar 135mm F2.5 (manual)
Osawa 200mm F4 (Manual)
Sigma 105mm EX Macro
Tamron 90mm SP Macro F2.5 1:2 (plus 2x to make 180mm F5 1:1) (Manual)

Now, here is conundrum

My Portrait lenses seem to be covered (50mm, 55mm, 24-70mm, 90mm M, 105mm M and 50-135mm - to which I find as one of the best for studio work), but would it be worthwhile getting the 77mm Limited? I am the Theatre tog after all.

Landscapes seem okay (10-20, 16-45, 24-70, 20-35)

Street is difficult as no small lenses, and the 50mm is a bit long, but I do have the 16-45, but not that fast, would getting the 16-50 be better? It has the bonus of WR too, so would be great for landscapes. Or should a nice 35mm be a good bet, or even the 31mm Limited?

Macro is fully covered.

Events, well on friday I did a dinner with the 24-70, and 50-135, but there was an occasion where a longer reach (more than 135mm) would have been ideal, and group shots could have had something better than the 16-45.

Theatre, well portraits for promo is fine, but taking the production with stage lighting, the 50-135mm and 24-70 will be the ones to use.

Nature, well this appears to be the shortfall in my eyes. For long tele's for example birds and deer, the 170-500 is the choice (the 70-300 is faulty, hit and miss)

So, what to go for.

If portraits with shallow DOF effect, the the 77mm or 85mm

General use, would a 16-50mm DA* be better?

Long reach.
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 Plus 1.4x extender Would be good for both nature and events.
Or, stick to 200mm F2.8
Or, 300mm F4 plus 1.4x (not sure if the Sigma extender has the contacts for the SDM though)
Sigma 120-400 as a better, lighter alternative to the 170-500.

It is a shame that the Pentax 1.4x converter is still not out (after 3 years) as potentially the 60-250 with it would be the best option (even if it did blow the budget)



What would you do? as I am struggling to decide.

Remember I only have a limited budget, and want a good option.

Let us know how you feel about it cabstar. My only Tokina is the 20-35mm F2.8 ATX Pro, which is made from the same grade of metal as yours, and my little lens is heavy to say the least, I am sure they got the metal from some old russian tanks.......
I have read the reviews from the "other" forum, and it is highly rated.

I would be seriously tempted by the 35mm as I am looking for one myself.
Also, that FA*200mm would be nice too, along with the 1.4x converter.
May I ask what condition they are in?

SMC-FA 50mm F1.4. Nuff said! Really great lens.

The Sigma 50mm is excellent wide open (just trawl through flickr to see) yet stopped down the Pentax FA comes into its own and is superior to the Sigma.

What I have seen of the Sigma and reviews, people rate it.
However, the people who have had problems with this lens are Canon users. Unfortunately this is not the first time that Sigma lenses are problematic on Canon bodies. It is probably more to do with the reverse engineering of the mount to fit Canon (Sigma won't licence the mount - allegedly) and because Canon users are probably the most out there, the problems seem to be amplified. For example, I know a Canon user is on his 4th copy of the 150-500, as the previous 3 were faulty.
However Nikon owners I know who have this lens seem to be a happy lot, and Pentax users should not be worried as the Sigma mount is only the Pentax mount with mods anyway (not that you can use a Sigma mount on a pentax) so any problems seem to be reduced.

But, and this is thc crunch. If you can afford the extra expense of the Pentax FA, it will be worth it, although might not be quite as good wide open as the sigma, but will be more usable most of the time, and is a LOT smaller.

Hope this helps.

I was just looking at this and was about to start a post.
Interesting results.
We have to take into consideration that they are only jpgs, but the Nikon overtly smooths with the NR on, with NR off, they are not good.
The Pentax is interesting, at high ISO's they are noisy, but no Chroma noise (that blue and red speckled effect) Most impressive and something that could be used.
Would be interesting to compare RAW files, and I think the K-5 will be a killer in this aspect.
The 60D is nowhere to be seen compared to the D7000 and K-5.


Will be interesting to compare to the D300s and 7D as Stefan said. But I have a feeling that the K-5 will have them both licked too. Worringly for Nikon though, I think the D7000 will have the D300s licked too.

Still, will be interesting to see shots in the real world.

Hello and welcome Simon from a fellow Pentaxian from Cheshire (well Stockport )

Hope you enjoy the site, and of course your new camera.

The only places in Manchester are as follows

Jessops - No Pentax gear.
Jacobs - not much Pentax gear, but getting better (have the K-r in 3 colours, the K-7 and K-x in two colours at the moment) They are to get a LOT more Pentax gear in, and have a Pentax Day too.
LCE - sometimes have Pentax gear in, sometimes not. Occasionally have second hand gear too.
Real Camera Company - Only true second hand gear in Manchester, and have lots of Pentax film bodies and lenses too. Bit of a sweet shop for photographers
Calumet - Pro place and excellent for studio stuff. Not had Pentax gear in for a while though

Yes I know its different, I love my K20D, but when I say better in certain aspects, there are some things I wish were on the K20D, such as fps, better AF (allegedly) better ISO performance.
However there are a lot of things where the K20D beats it, such as sealing, pentaprism, general build, Tav, etc.

But I agree, maybe Pentax missed a trick by not having sealing on it anyway.

Still as a mid range camera, I would rather have it than the Nikon D90 let alone the Canon 550D

Funny, I was just thinking of the K-r today, after seeing it at Jacobs in Black white and red colours.
The White is really Stormtrooper white, and whilst I am not keen on these coloured DSLR's it does look very impressive...
apparantly, the Chinese LOVE the white DSLR's and are buying them in droves.

However I have found the What digital Camera review, and all I can say, it is very poorly written
link
K-x replaced the K20D? K-r fits between the K-m and K-7?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Anyway, as a camera, you have to admit it is an impressive spec. Not K-5 good, but far better in certain aspects than the K20D

Actually, if it had a pentaprism rather than a pentamirror, I would be sorely tempted, as a backup to the K20D and primary camera for other subjects such as sport and low light.
However, for me, the K-5 will give me all that I need and will save up for that.
If I only had the *DS and K10D (ie no K20D) then the K-r would really appeal. In fact, it may still do......

Thanks Anvh.

I already have the FA50, so, like you say the DA*55 won't give much more than I already have.

As for the DA70, I think you are right, a very minor increase in speed over my DA* is nothing much. It's only advantage is its size.

So, now to find a good price 77mm