I need help making the Right choice for once...

DRT-Maverick

I'm about to purchase a new lens for my camera. I've got a Pentax K20D (I started with an *ist D back in 2004). I've currently got 4 lenses in my kit, and only two of them give good sharpness, but they're both too heavy.

When I was young I bought big lenses, a 180mm macro lens because I loved to chase butterflies around, and a 50-500mm lens because I wanted to do aviary photography, and couldn't afford the prime 500mm lens. I made the same mistake with both these lenses, they're both too heavy, even if they produce quality photos.

My other two lenses are pretty much kit lenses, the standard 18-55mm F3.5 lens and a 28-200mm lens that came with my dad's film Pentax. I'm ready to replace my primary lens with something useful. I need something faster than F3.5, and for both night photography as well as portraiture (I can never get a good boca with 3.5). My problem is I only have about $500 to spend, and that limits me to either a really fast lens (say F1.8) with something between 28 to 50mm (prime nonzoom) or I can get a good wide angle lens that has a zoom but is around F2.8.
I love taking landscape photography, and I love doing panoramics as well, should I get a wide angle? Or should I get a prime, and get a panoramic head in the future and just stitch images? (I hear this is higher quality anyway). Help!

I wish I could trade my 50-500mm for a 70-200mm and the 180mm macro for a 50mm macro lol.

Matthew Saville

DRT-Maverick wrote: »

I'm about to purchase a new lens for my camera. I've got a Pentax K20D (I started with an *ist D back in 2004). I've currently got 4 lenses in my kit, and only two of them give good sharpness, but they're both too heavy.

When I was young I bought big lenses, a 180mm macro lens because I loved to chase butterflies around, and a 50-500mm lens because I wanted to do aviary photography, and couldn't afford the prime 500mm lens. I made the same mistake with both these lenses, they're both too heavy, even if they produce quality photos.

My other two lenses are pretty much kit lenses, the standard 18-55mm F3.5 lens and a 28-200mm lens that came with my dad's film Pentax. I'm ready to replace my primary lens with something useful. I need something faster than F3.5, and for both night photography as well as portraiture (I can never get a good boca with 3.5). My problem is I only have about $500 to spend, and that limits me to either a really fast lens (say F1.8) with something between 28 to 50mm (prime nonzoom) or I can get a good wide angle lens that has a zoom but is around F2.8.
I love taking landscape photography, and I love doing panoramics as well, should I get a wide angle? Or should I get a prime, and get a panoramic head in the future and just stitch images? (I hear this is higher quality anyway). Help!

I wish I could trade my 50-500mm for a 70-200mm and the 180mm macro for a 50mm macro lol.

If you like landscapes, get yourself a good Sigma 10-20 and call it a day. You'll wonder how you lived without such an angle in the first place!

=Matt=

DRT-Maverick

I like the idea, but I don't have anything faster than 3.5 and I love low light photography.
Though I also love doing landscape, and I want to get really clean sharp landscape photos and panoramics.


Should I focus on angle or on speed right now? This will probably take me couple days to figure out lol.