I think the first thing you need to do is answer whether or not you want a 'cropped' DSLR to put the lenses on too.
IF you get one of these then your 85 becomes a 130, your 50 becomes a 75 and your 35 becomes a 50. You have no wide angle anymore on this body. So if you have a DSLR in your future I would push to get the widest wide angle you can put up with. The 24 at least only becomes a 35, so some limited WA is retained. If no DSLR is in your future, then an obvious 3 lens lineup would be the 31/43/77 combo. Now obviously this is not a cheap combo and doesn't include your beloved 50, but you would retain a consistent look across the range with similar charateristics for every frame you shoot. Personally I would look at the FA*24 (best WA going for film and still semi-wide on DSLR), 77ltd (it is soooo much more portable and versatile than the 85) and either the 43 or 50. This would give you a 35, a 65/75 and a 105 on the DSLR which is still a good set. Of course I may be biased because I already have the 24 and 77 and am considering a 50 for when I get the DSLR... Wast it you that said the limited lenses were the best lenses ever made? "And nobody pays all that much attention to Pentax. Pentax does have some pretty pedestrian optics in its bag, it's true. What many photographers aren't aware of is that Pentax still also makes some of the best SLR lenses on the planet. For pure picture quality, taking bokeh into account, my considered opinion is that the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 is the best fast fifty (and I say that having carefully tested damn near everything out there). The FA 24mm f/2 is certainly one of the best 24mm AF lenses going. And if you were to directly compare the Leica 80mm Summilux-R, the Zeiss Contax 85mm f/1.4, the AF-Nikkor 85mm f/1.4, and the Pentax SMC-FA 85mm f/1.4, it would be very clear to you that the latter lens absolutely belongs in the company of the former three. For portraiture, it might even edge the others out. Yet the very best AF SLR lenses made today are the Pentax Limiteds. There are only three, and they have focal lengths apparently chosen by means of occultish numerology: there's a 31mm f/1.8 wide, a 43mm f/1.9 "true" normal, and a 77mm f/1.8 short tele. All three are made of metal (imagine that), focus manually more than passably well, and are of an size and weight that doesn't constantly penalize you, whether you're lugging them around or holding them up to your eye on a camera. They have beautiful matching metal lens hoods and a feel of quality that puts them above virtually all other AF lenses. " > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 29 January 2003 14:34 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts > > > One possibility for the upcoming show is that there may be a > new FILM body from Pentax. Pal keeps hoping for an "AF LX," > and it's also possible that there may be a new > "budget/serious" camera one tier below the MZ-S (which I > can't afford). > > So I've been trying to think about FA lens outfits recently. > I don't currently own any FA lenses, but there are a number > I'm attracted to. > > What I do is general snapshooting in black-and-white. I'm a > great fan of 35mm normal lenses, but also of the 50/1.4 > Pentax lens. Generally, what I need is an all-purpose lens, > and also a portrait lens. But a 50mm is too long to be my > widest lens. Here's what I've shot with over the past few > years: > > --Just a 50mm. > > --a 35mm and an 85mm. > > --a 50mm, an 85mm for portraits, and a wider lens--since the > wider lens is mostly for indoors, it needs to be pretty fast. > > Personally, since my long(er)-lens use is _exclusively_ for > portraits, I'm leaning towards the 85mm f/1.4. The 77mm also > has a great reputation and has a better form-factor. So one > obvious kit would be the 85/1.4 and the 35/2. A kit > comprising the 35/2 and the 77mm would also be very nice. > > But that leaves me without my stone favorite 50/1.4. If I > were to add that, I'd want to use it as my "most of the time > normal lens." At that point, the 35/2 becomes rather > superfluous, and I'd rather move a bit further away on the > wide and tele ends...which would mean a three-lens kit with > the 24/2 or 31mm, 50/1.4, and 77 or 85mm. Since 77mm is > rather closer to 50mm than to 35mm, this thought pushes me > more towards the 85mm again. > > The trouble with this is that, in the real world, I don't > have very much cash. So to think of buying both the very > expensive 31mm and the very expensive 85mm is rather > daunting...especially when the inexpensive 50mm would be my > "most of the time" lens. > > I'd like to begin investing in a kit of FA lenses, but I'm > unsure of which way to go. I could do any of the following... > > --50/1.4 only (not really a very flexible option). > --35/2 and 85/1.4. > --35/2 and 77mm. > --31mm, 50/1.4, and 85mm. > --24/2, 50/1.4, and 85mm. > > --something else--? > > My little brother Scott has insisted for years that I am very > good at giving advice to others, but not very good at > choosing things for myself. His reasoning is that I remain > objective and clear-headed when I give advice to others, but > when I'm shopping for myself, I succumb to emotion and > fetishizing and hair-splittng, and make dumb decisions. > > What would you recommend? Keep in mind I want an _optimum_ 2- > or 3-lens FA kit for my uses, not something that will just > "get me by." > > --Mike > > P.S. This is not a troll. I'm serious. <s> > >
