On 6/12/2011 17:55, Christine Nielsen wrote:
I know... it can be hard to sort out the truth in online reviews (of all kinds). It did seem that those who were happiest with the lens had a k-5... which introduces a whole 'nother kind of enablement crisis..
Or it could mean that a conditional probability of these people being a bit of Pentax fanboys is actually increased with pixel count of their cameras (K-5 having the highest pixel count among those with K-mount).
Realistically and seriously the lens that has only average resolution/sharpness would likely have more trouble with K-5 due to its higher pixel density.
Another vote for the 21mm! For my own "shooting style", I prefer to keep things simple. I am deathly afraid of fumbling an expensive lens on a busy city sidewalk or onto the sand at the beach. So, I'm not sure I'd have the courage to take a set of primes on a family trip... But I like the idea of the 21 plus the 50-135 and/or the 50...
The smaller lens, the more fumbling you would have to be to inflict any damage on your gear. To that end 50-135 may be ill-advised.
I should point out the obvious - no matter what gear you'd take, it is very likely that you'd see scenes that you'd like to photograph but couldn't be able to - no suitable lens with you at the moment, too far away, too close, too wide, too narrow, no tripod at hand, etc.
Any luck on your trade? I made Ecke an offer for his, but haven't heard back yet. ;)
I cannot say that I am all set on that. May be I'd just buy DA 16-45/4 (after all K-5 has a very good sensor) and settle for that. Or even I can stay with that Sigma 24-60/2.8 despite some of its imperfections.
Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
