On Mar 2, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Walter Hamler wrote: > "I'm not saying you cant use other specialty ranges but where are > you going > to get a good 18-80mm to go with your 80-200? " > > Sigma makes a 17~70 that is quite nice according to the reviews. I > doubt > that it covers FF at the short end but might at the longer portion. > That > would be important to some. > Personally, I have owned a few of the older Pentax zooms that were > very > nice, but I honestly feel much happier with the new stuff. My > current stable > of three DA lenses cover me seamlessly from 10mm to 200mm ( 17FE to > 300 FF > equivalent) Back in the 60's in my Nikon F days it required two > rather large > camera bags to carry the semi equivalent range of primes along with > 4 camera > bodies!) I was young and in better shape back then! :-)
Why would one need to have lenses that precisely end or begin at the same points? When I look at the focal lengths in most of my photos, with zooms I find I tend to use three focal lengths most of the time ... FA20-35: 28, 20, 35 (in that order) , FA28-105: 28, 50, 105 (in that order), etc. So having gaps is not a big deal. A very useful walking kit that I use sometimes when I want a LOT of focal length flexibility in the minimum number of lenses is the FA20-35 + DA50-200. If I really want something in the middle or faster, I can now add the FA43. The other philosophy is to have a lot of overlap if you are using zooms that end or begin at your critical use points, to minimize changing. So the pair above ... FA20-35 and FA28-105 ... served well since I could reach two of my usual focal lengths with either lens easily. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
