However - the 20mm took the slow path to my home, and a bargain-price 16/2.4 reached me first. It's also a fine lens and needs no stitching to capture a big field. So now they are all here and want to play. Should they all stay, or is the 16 or 20 expendable?Here's the first set of shots to make things interesting. All were shot so that the fence-post would remain at the far left edge of the scene. Not surprisingly, those four mm on the wide end lead to a large difference, bringing an entirely new tree into the shot. Looking at it this way, the three lenses do not interfere with each other.
But would I take them all with me on a backpacking jaunt?
Here's a shot of the 20mm in portrait mode. Yes, it clearly covers more vertical space than the 16 shot horizontally, no real surprise here. Is that enough to take over for the 16? And imagine the 16mm oriented this way, how cool would that be? That could keep the Samyang 12mm f/2 from my bag.. whether for good or ill it's hard to say. That Samyang sounds like a fun lens, especially for sky imaging after dark.. but funds will be tight for a while. In the end that will likely determine if one of these pancakes must go.
To play fair it must be noted that the 30mm in stitched-portrait mode can do to the 20 what the 20 does to the 16, so one can play all sorts of games to eliminate a lens! So for now I'll hold on to the trio and give it all more thought. The ideal of keeping 16 and 30 makes more sense for spacing, but the 20mm has other ideas...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In Pentax news, those same tight funds referenced above have led to the 50/2.8 Macro's departure. The 50/2 and a close-up diopter will do for a bit. The 135 and 80-200 zoom are also on the block; given the 50/100/150 K-trio I will be just fine with them moving on since they are all f/3.5 or faster anyway.
