just saved a bunch of money..

And it has nothing to do with car insurance :^|

My plan was to pick up a gap lens between the 18-50 and 100-300 zooms. The clear choice would be a DA70/2.4, which would be $200 (used, black) at best. Silver would be nice.. oh that's $375 if I am a lucky bidder. Well, no hurry.

No hurry became no need, as I found a bargain DA∙L 50-200wr lens. Now weather seals extend from 18 to 200mm, no gaps and about $150 less spent than on the Limited 70. Sure I'd still love to have one.. but that is for another day.

I've used numerous copies of the 50-200 - in fact I believe my first copy came as a swap for my first copy of the 55-300mm lens. I've tried both DA and DA∙L copies, both WR - and strangely enough the L version (composite mount, no quick-shift focus) has provided consistently preferable images! In any case I have preferred the overall results from the 50-200 over the 55-300, whose slower focus and less-consistent bokeh are drawbacks. OK I also admit to greatly preferring the shorter lens' bulk.

The image here is with an early copy of the DA 50-200wr on a K-7. I dropped the exposure deliberately, because it's my photo and I can do what I choose with it.

walking the fine line

I'm quite happy with my gear right now.  If anything were to change it would be the K24mm, which has shown me the value of modern coatings. If it were replaced with a DA21 the problem would become the gap between 21 and 50mm, which a DA35 would fill nicely.  So that is the question that I must ask myself, again: for what I shoot, does the abundance of primes become more of a problem than a really good zoom?

I've always tried to limit any lens to a weight below 500g.  If anything beyond that limit is in my gear, I find ways to leave it behind.  The DA* 50-135 is an excellent lens, but the 410g 55-300 is good enough and substantially lighter.  No 120mm f/2.8 shot with that lens of course.. but I seldom shoot those anyway since I never had any practice before!  In a similar vein I've noted before that my 18-50mm Sigma covers the 21-50mm gap very well, and at around f/4 most of the time.

As the wet season approaches I feel the lack of a WR kit more keenly.  I do enjoy getting the in-storm images of water droplets and fierce weather, and the K-s1 and 18-50 would not be the best choice.  I also found during the lunar eclipse that the lack of interval timing/video troubles me, as it did receive some use at important times in the past.  The K-r did that for me during the eclipse so it's not a big deal - but I have two DSLR camera bodies and neither is foul-weather friendly.  That's sad.

image from Pentaxforums.com

Once the home refinance is complete and a few other items are taken care of, I will give this more thought.  I had once planned to pick up the 20-40mm Limited zoom as part of a future WR kit, but the Sigma 18-50 can replicate 20-40 and with the same aperture range and silent focus.  No WR like the Limited though.  On the other hand the DA 16-85 can do a few things I'm not able to do: all the good things of the 18-50 but with WR and Pentax' quiet focus motor, and that extra bit of range (on both ends!) that I use a lot.  To keep the 55-300 from being overly prominent this would be a good choice.  But it's near my 500g limit.

On yet another hand, my DA15/K24/DFA50 triplet is a clean 100g heavier than the 16-85.  Going with my lightest trio (the 50A non-macro) I am just about smack on the 500g barrier.  So with primes I can shoot with a lighter lens on the camera but the overall pack weighs the same or more!  And as for price.. well if I sold the Sigma and DA15 (gasp!), the K24  and perhaps the smc-M 100/2.8 .. the switch would be self-financing.  That puts me back near prime-free mode but it cuts way back on the feeling that I should have carried another lens or two.  The two DA zooms will manage 16-300mm, and the DFA50 can come along for closeups.. I'd be OK with that.

One more problem relates to video, and Pentax' fake (digital) stabilization instead of SR.  The 18-50 Sigma has internal OS so it can stabilize in a better manner than the camera.  Back in the K-r days the SR system did stabilize the video but those days have passed, for some unclear reasons..

The other big WR piece then needs to be addressed.  K-s2 or K-3?  While the K-s2 would address nearly every need I have, I'm not prepared to speak with certainty on this one.  Both weigh more than the comfy little K-s1, but the absence of a few big features (e.g. interval shooting of stills/video and custom settings on the mode dial) is being felt.  I'd be fine holding out a while on that decision and let the WR lens be on the K-s1 despite its relative nose-heavy feel.  Baby steps are OK for now.

And perhaps the next APSc Pentax will be a much better fit for my style, as it could incorporate the SAFOX XI AF system with the new Clarity function, and toss in the 200k shutter life. As always - we shall see!

as always, just one little kit problem

While taking photos of my staircase project I could see the SMC 24mm contrast was poor.  It turned out to be a small corner of the image was showing a piece of the cloudy-bright sky, and that was enough to produce veiling flare across the image.  I re-shot with my arm covering the bright area, only to find I had too much image shake for the SR to overcome.  I learned later that I had SR set for a 180mm lens, so it was working for a telephoto lens not a wide angle.  Oopz.

All of this points to the down side of classic glass.  SR does not set itself for them, the 40-year-old SMC coating isn't the best option for modern digital sensors, and relative to other options it's easy to make silly mistakes!

On the one hand a DA21 would cure the problem nicely - but it does leave a larger gap between 21 and 50mm (return of the DA35/2.4?).  On the other hand the Sigma 18-50 covers the range with modern optics and coatings and is silent to focus unlike the DA21 (and DFA 50 for that matter).  A bit more bulk for sure, but at 21mm it just straddles the f/2.8-3.2 maximim so the DA21 is no faster.  And the zoom is already in hand - so no further expense.  The age-old conundrum of carrying a few great primes vs. a convenient zoom reappears, especially when one of the few primes is not quite "great"!  Must check the 100/2.8 for veiling flare in similar circumstances now . .

DA15, K24, DFA50, M100, DAL55-300 on K-s1; Sigma 18-50 above.

While updating the group photo I noticed another new thing: not only does the K-s1 not come in the Pentax 'stormtrooper/panda' White and Black trim (it has grey trim), its white is not in fact white!  I know this because I put my broken white DAL 18-55 next to the camera and it's clearly not a good match - the lens is more intensely white than the body.  That saves me some effort, as I have a black DAL with a good mount which I could use to repair the white lens' cracked mount.  Now that I know the colors would look really wrong it saves me the effort.  To spare the fashion-conscious I left the hideous, clashing lens out of the photo.

one last lens to confuse everything!

Of the common features that I was missing in my Pentax lens collection, two big ones come to mind.  Weather sealing is one, but without a sealed camera the point is rather lost.  The other is silent focus.  That's worth having for creatures or circumstances where loud noises like a screw-drive focusing system are out of place.

Pentax has several very nice lenses with quiet motors, but generally not at the price point I had in mind (i.e. Cheap).  I found a Sigma HSM 50-200 that would do nicely, but starting at 50mm was not what I'd had in mind when my 55-300mm is so good by every other measure but silence.  Today I found the answer, and it's an answer that I have tried before: Amazon's used warehouse had a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8-4.5  in Good condition for $96.  Good is good enough for me - so I bought it.

This lens is curious in several ways.  For one it's a budget zoom that put its money into surprising spots: motor, stabilization, focus and zoom are done internally.   Internal zoom designs tend not to appear at the low end of a lens range - but here it is.  The result is not weather sealed yet moisture will not find easy entry with this design.  The silent HSM justifies its place in my bag.  Some reviewers claim the lens OS works a bit better than Pentax' SR but it's hard to justify the effort to switch over for a shot or two; we'll see how often I try it.

Another curiosity is that it competes* with Sigma's own 17-50 and 17-70mm models for shelf space.  Both of those are well regarded but this lens' unique design is unmatched by them. And the price is no contest at all!  *The competition is over in fact: the 18-50 has been discontinued while the other two live on.

As I said I've owned this lens before.  I liked that its zoom ring goes the same way as Pentax, and opposite most other Sigma zooms that I have tried (including those 17-50 and 17-70 models).  It's decent at closeups though it does not compete with a true macro.  The lens is somewhat bulky compared to the DA18-55 but that's because it's f/2.8-4.5 instead of 3.5-5.6 - and the size never changes when zooming or focusing so its bulk never changes shape!

On days when carrying less is handy, the 18-50 + 55-300 covers my typical shooting range really well.   Toss in the DA15 and coverage is even better!  Add the DFA50 when closeups are needed.  As long as you've done that, why not bring the K24?  With that you can now leave the 18-50 at home!

Hmm wait a moment.. oh yes, I see it now: there's the confusion! :~)