- 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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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.
