>A nice slightly odd-ball kit I have tried is 24/2.8, 30/2.8, 40/2.8, 50/2.8 macro, 85/1.8.
>A variation which intrigues me would be 20/4, 40/2.8, 85/1.8, 150/2.8, >300/4.0. Obviously not a light travel kit but not too bad if you stop at 135 >or 150. >Stan 150... 3.5? About your variation, Stan, I would suggest to pick the 85/2 because of filter size and too high a value for the 85/1.8 (if you drop it or anything else...). 85/2 is 200-300 bucks, the 85/1.8 is double that... Actually, the whole kit is rather expensive, as the 20 M goes for 300-400$ and the 40/2.8 for 100-150$. And I am sure you meant (in your dream) a 300/4*... that is still a comparatively heavy lens that will outweights all the others... 825g/800g. So what about the 20 M + 40 + 85/2 + 150/3.5 + T6-2X (for an occasionnal 300/7)? A bit over 2 pounds, less than a kilo (940g)! 3 pounds with a small MZ body. For my last outings, I found myself using 20/4 (M) + 40/2.8 + 85/2 and a LX. Everything fits in the small Lowe "Topload zoom 1". A spare films on each side of the body's lens. In the top part, a Minolta achromatic close-up lens (fits both 40 & 80 but I have to test these combinations), a YG filter and/or polarizer, and a bubble level. A bubble level? With a wide-angle, if some water surface (a lake, a river) is not level, the result will give the viewer a strange unbalanced feeling. I put the level on, finalize what I want and check the level. It is usually fine, but maybe 25% of the time I have to correct it. The corrected photo might have to be recomposed a bit. In fact it is usually quite easy to do it without a level, but not always for some reason. Sometimes strong elements in the picture seem to create a diversion. Andre -- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
