5.25.2014

so if all this were true...

Speculation on how the nearly-reconfigured kit works in different circumstances - mixing & matching for different events!

  • the 90-percent kit: 18-250mm Sigma.  This would be somewhat slow at telephoto, but covers the range I'm using at least 90% of the time.  It also does 1:3ish closeups, quite close.
  • the 95-percent kit: add the 17 Fish-Eye in a pocket to cover the widest shots!
  • the foul-weather kit: DA18-55wr (nyIH = not yet in hand) and a prime or two as circumstances suggest.  The 18-55 focuses pretty closely too, so the also-nyIH 85mm f/2± sounds like a good fit, especially when 55mm f/5.6 is simply too slow.
  • the mostly-prime kit: 17, 24, 50 1:2, 105 and occasionally 200mm, or swap in the slow but decent 100-300 for long coverage.  When the ~80mm arrives, maybe 80+135 for longer shots?
  • the bird kit: 200, 300, plus nyIH 1.5x TC (standing still), or 100-300 and high ISO (flying)
  • the astronomy kit: hopefully the Q plus 1.25" eyepiece mount to Q adapter (we shall see) or K-5IIs plus the nyIH O-GPS1 astro-tracker
  • the Backpacking Kit - hmmm.  The safest choice would be the 17FE, 18-55wr, 50 macro and a fast 80-135mm prime.  For weekends when the weather isn't likely to fail the 18-250 can go instead, but in the PacNW the weather can never be fully guaranteed!
That's about it. 

I need no sports kit, speed kit or such as that, and if I need a tiny kit the Q or X-5 will do as it must, with the best mini-kit being the IIs and 24mm and/or 50 macro.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Strange to go this far without giving the DA* 16-50mm any support.  I have owned every kit-like lens except the Tamron 17-50 and the DA*.  I've always liked the 16-45 so why not spend more when the house sale finally happens, and get 'the best'?  It's a thought, but places like photozone.de and even pentaxforums itself do not give the impression that the * lens is in fact best, asterisk or no*.  Given the $500 premium over the 18-55wr, or $400 over the 16-45, it just doesn't win by enough.  Yes f/2.8 all the way is great, but I already have a 50/2.8 with 1:2 macro so that seat is taken, thank you.  When I need weather protection I need it - but I've had great results with the 18-55wr so why not keep a good thing going?  Also, anything moving me away from the 18-250 is a distraction best avoided.  We'll see.