Don't rule out the new DA* zooms. They're as good or better than many primes. I would venture to say that the DA* 16-50/2.8 is better than the old 24/2.8 prime. I once shot nothing but primes. I think I bought my first zoom just a few years ago after 30 years of shooting primes. But I'm very happy with the DA( 16-50, 50-134 and 60-250. Paul On Jan 1, 2010, at 10:49 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:
> I'm on a limited budget, looking for fairly lightweight travel > combination. I have a fairly strong bias toward primes, though just > getting the 16-50 as a single lens does tempt me some. > > My last good camera (stolen some time back & not yet replaced) was an > MX and on it, I used the 85/1.4 for at least 75% of shots and a 28 for > most others. I had the 40 mm pancake and a teleconverter, didn't use > either much. So this one will be a K-X with the 58/1.4 Voigtlander. > Comments on that choice appreciated too. > > What I really want to know, though, is what can folks suggest as a > wide angle to go with that? Zeiss is beyond my budget and a 12-24 or > 10-20 zoom too heavy. I need a good prime, around 24 mm, at a moderate > price. The Pentax 21/3.2 Limited and Sigma 24/1.8 are obvious > possibilities; either might suit but I'm not sure either is ideal for > me. > > What else should I be considering? Checking Pentax's site, I don't see > a 24/2 or 24/2.8 among current offerings. > > -- > 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.
