On Sat, Jul 06, 2013, P.J. Alling wrote: > On 7/6/2013 10:26 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote: >> >>Right -- the question is whether I'll enjoy the glass enough over 5-10 >>years. The way I think about stuff like this, I guess/calculate how much >>it costs per hour. So a movie these days is about $10-$15/hour (ticket >>plus munchies). So let's look at how much "basic" Pentax gear would cost >>me, assuming I buy new (all Amazon prices, rounding to nearest $50): >> >>K-5 II with 18-135 WR $1150 >>DA* 60-250 $1350 >>D-FA 100mm macro WR $700 >> >>Normally I wouldn't be quite so rigorous in my analysis, but that much >>money makes me think, especially when I already have equipment that gives >>me about eighty percent of this capability (and is significantly better >>in some respects, namely bulk/weight/convenience: Nikon P7100, Canon G1X >>with 250D closeup lens, and a Fuji X-S1 that arrives Tuesday). So >>really, that's 25 hrs/yr *in addition* to what I'm already doing for >>taking photos. Makes it a lot harder to justify to myself. > > My take would be if that's the system you want look at capabilities, > not actual lenses. You could save a bit by getting a used DA 16-50mm > a very good lens, assuming you're going to want the extra reach of > 60-250 which will cover the middle to long telephoto range and look > for a good used A 100mm f4.0 since most macro work is best manual > focus anyway, and it's very good lens that can be had for a lot less > money. That combo would give you almost the same capability and cut > your cost by 1/3 to 1/2.
Assuming you mean the DA* 16-50 (as opposed to the DA 16-45), that's a pretty spendy lens itself, and I had some issues with it (more details in another post, but my experience was that it's very nice glass in a shitty lens) -- would only get it as a second-tier lens. I do specifically want the 18-135 WR because of the "WR" and the zoom range (for walk-around capability), plus it's a pretty nice lens. Ditto the D-FA 100mm (which also has a wider aperture), and the kind of macro work I do (mostly outdoor flower porn) definitely takes advantage of auto-focus. (I took a fair number of shots in the rain on my Alaska cruise, IMO there's not much point spending the money on a DSLR-like unless my primary bodies and lenses are WR.) I have indeed thought about capabilities. ;-) -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- 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.
