>Ok, so where are they? >None of the above match my simple requirement. I just need 50-150mm focal >length (more or less equivalent to 70-210 on film), f/4 and good >performance >on the *ist D (APS or FF). >A typical advanced amateur outfit: >60's: 28 (or 35) + 50 + 85 (or 105) + 135 (or 200) >70's: 28 + 50 + 70-210 >80's: 24 (or 28) + 50 (or 35-70) + 70-210 >90's: 24-90 (or 28-80) + 100-300 (or 80-320) >*ist D: 16-45 + ???
>Please replace ??? with a matching Pentax lens. K45-125/4.0, M75-150/4.0 ( neither of which you can buy new of course) Actually, when I went digital I replaced my 80-200 with a 70-200, because I found that I wasn't using the short end nearly as much as the now "longer" end anyway. Since I missed my 85 I tried a 50 and then a 35-70 to fill in the shorter end--neither one is a really good replacement and I'd LOVE to see a Nikon 58 or 60mm f/1.4 AFS ( or a full frame sensor...) On that note, you could try A70-210/4.0 and any 50mm lens. I sympathise with being used to specific angles of view and not being able to get them on a DSLR. I've carried pretty much the same kit professionally for 15 years, and it looks like this over time: 1) 2xSuper Program,K24/2.8,M28/2.8,M50/1.4,A*85/1.4,A*200/2.8, outboard LX, 135/1.8 and 300s (for sports only) If I'd have known better back then it would have been: A20/2.8,K28/2.0,A50/1.4,K85/1.4,A*200/2.8! 2) 2xNikon F3,24/2.0 or 18/3.5--later 20/2.8,28/2.0,50/1.8,85/2.0,180/2.8, outboard 135/2.0 and 300s 3) 2xNikon F4,20/2.0,28/1.4,50/1.4,85/1.8,180/2.8--later 80-200/2.8, outboard MF lenses as above Given this, when we went Nikon digital at work I COULD have gone to 14/2.8 (big, expensive, no filter, flares easily) = 21mm effective 20/2.8 (smaller and cheaper than faster 28mm MFs) = 30mm effective 35/2.0 or 35/1.4MF (not as good as 50mm nikkors, or 35mm pentaxes) = 52mm 50/1.4 = 75mm or 60macro (slow, hard to MF) = 90mm Nikon's only 135AF is a big, heavy, expensive 2.0, so 80-200 = 120-300mm effective. Notice that this does not use many of the better, faster, more expensive lenses I already own. In fact, what I now carry is: Nikon D1h, 14/3.5 sigma (ugh, but cheaper),17-35/2.8,35-70/3.3-4.5 (for 85mm portraits), 70-200/2.8, with outboard 85/1.4 and 300/2.8. This leaves me with no fast glass at all in my bag since the big zooms leave no room for a 35/1.4 or 50/1.4. This bothers me. BTW, when photographing for fun I generally carry a lighter version of the same thing. When my girlfriend and I go on vacation I'll carry one of the following, depending on how successful her arguments are: 1) LX and ZX-M, FA20/2.8 (yet unbought), K30/2.8, M50/2.0, maybe M85/2.0, K135/2.5 or M80-210/4. There really should be another LX in this mix, but I absolutely cannot justify it. That leaves her with Super Programs, M24-35, A35-70, A50/1.7,M200/4 (she dislikes the long zoom because of creep and size), and perhaps the 85/2.0. I'm hoping to find money for an A135/2.8 at some point as a better option for her cameras than the K135/2.5. 2) 2xSpotmatic SPII, 20/4.5 (ugh, but no options), 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 105/2.8, 200/4.0 (or 85/1.8 and 150/4.0), M42-PK adapter ring, handheld light meter. 3) 2xNikkormat EL, 20/3.5, 28/3.5, 50/2.0, 105/2.5, 200/4.0 (pentax equiv is 2xK2, M20/4.0, K28/3.5, M50/2.0, K105/2.8, M200/4.0, which I'd happily carry instead except that I own only two of these Pentax lenses and distrust my sole K2 intensely) DJE
