> You can probably afford the 40 limited. It's very cheap (About 2/3rds > the cost of a new FA 35/2 here in Canada)
> The Sigma's not worth the money. The Tamron is, but the SMC-DA 16-45 f4 > goes for similar (or less) cost and is a better option IMHO. The 18-55 > is actually decent (unlike the mediocre kit lenses from Canon and Nikon). > -Adam Sorry, I just realized you meant the 40/2.8 Limited. It's tiny and not very expensive, but if I got it I'd probably still want something faster for night use. So I might as well omit it and save the money. Thanks for pointing out the 16-45/4. I'd wrongly assumed that it would be very expensive, yet it's priced like the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4. It looks like the cheap route would be the kit lens and a used manual focus 28/2 or 35/2, and the more expensive route would be the 16-45/4 with the FA 35/2. I'm aware of the Vivitar/Kiron 28/2 lenses. In fact my 28/2 in FD mount is a Kiron, and I like it very much. But Kirons in Pentax KA mount aren't cheap or common either... Benjamin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
