Thank you for your thoughts, j.c. I am just thinking that a full-frame 28mm prime would perform like a, well, somewhere around 50mm prime with the K200D's smaller sensor. That would be awfully close to the DA 40 that I already have, and I am not sure if I really need two primes with such similar focal lengths. But I can see the idea behind it. It's appreciated.
Marcus -- Am 11.03.2008 um 13:35 schrieb J. C. O'Connell: > I would get a good 28mm prime. The sma-A F2.8 is > nice if you like manual focus, the later F and FA > versions would do if you want AF. But in any case > a 28mm prime is very useful/high quality on DSLR. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of > Marcus A. Hofmann > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:51 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss List Mail > Subject: Seeking lens advice > > > Hello. > > I have recently bought a new K200D. I did photograph a lot until about > 15 years ago, but have only used p+s cameras since then. So I figured > the K200D would be more than sufficient to get back into photography. > I am actually very satisfied with the camera. > > But the bundled 18-55mm/3.5-5.8 lens is kind of dissapointing, > especially when compared to the 40mm/f2.8 limited that I also bought > with the camera (mainly beacuse it was so cute), which produces > beautifully sharp and crisp images. So I am now stuck with the 40mm > prime and need to buy some more glass. > > My old analog setup contained a 50mm/1.4 Minolta prime (which I still > own), a 28-85mm/2.8-something Minolta and a 100-400mm Minolta that I > loved (but which I sold). I've been digging around a little and come > up with the following lenses that seem like what I want, and I'd like > to ask those of you that own one of these for their opinions. > Alternatives are also welcome. > > smc DA* 50-135mm/2,8 ED [IF] SDM > > and > > smc DA* 16-50mm/2,8 ED [IF] SDM or smc DA 21mm/3,2 ED [IF] SDM > > I might also get something like the smc DA* 200mm/2,8 ED [IF] SDM > later, depending on how much I'll actually use the camera. > > So I was wondering if the image quality of the 16-50mm/2,8 is > comparable to that of the 40mm/2,8 limited, or if I should rather go > with the 21mm and 40mm limiteds instead of the 16-50mm zoom. Is the > 50-135mm worth the money, and are there alternatives? I like the fact > that it is weather sealed a lot. Can I use the old 50mm/1.4 Minolta > (from the late 80's) on the K200D with an adaptor? Is that > recommendable? > > I might add that I will be taking the thing into the mountains a lot, > and I like to sit in a cafe on a sunday and shoot passers by in the > street. > > > Thanks for any advice. > > Marcus > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
