which lens ?

[davidhampshire]

one of my hardest things with this photography and the k-5 is deciding which lens i want to use at any particular time,   i'd really like to be able to leave one lens on the camera for 90% of my shots,   but which lens ?    my fa 50 1.7 is my best lens,   sharpest,   best autofocus,  even focusing down to almost macro,    but too long for a lot of things,    the A and M ,  and K lenses are excellent,  but then i'm manual focusing ,   which is ok for a while but i keep wanting the autofocus ability  when i have the manual lens on.    primes are great,   but then i want a zoom when i have a prime lens on.     and a prime lens when i have a zoom on there.     maybe it is just me.   maybe this photography is driving me crazy        

[Pacerr]

  maybe this photography is driving me crazy      

Uh-huh . . . an' no less than you deserve for smirkin' when Ron said BCB an' I had too many toys.

The secret is gettin' more bodies to match those under-utilized lenses, right, BCB?

[blackcloudbrew]

Well, you could do what I do and take 7-8 lenses + 3 camera bodies. That way I'm mostly covered, well actually I'd still like another couple of lenses....hmmm, maybe I need a bigger pack.

Ok, actually what I do when going out shooting is to say to myself, what am I most likely going to be shooting? What camera/lens combinations will I need. I then make up a kit with those in them. That helps a lot but there are times that I'm out shooting and realize that I should have had the XXX lens, to bad so sad and I make do.

In my opinion, there is no perfect setup for any of my cameras, that's why I have so many lenses. I do have some favorites. If I want my typical general photog set up, I'll go with the DA*16-50 as it's right for a lot of things. If I want some more range, I'll toss the DA*50-135 in the bag too but if the subjects are going to be further away, I'll substitute the Tamron 70-200 instead. Street shooting? Easy, just pop on the DA 40 Limited and forget the rest. Landscape work, DA 12-24, DA*16-50, and some longer prime DFA100 or M120. Going on a hike? Ok, put the DA 17-70 on and I'm good for the day. I could go on here.

Last year in what wound up as a 365 project I shot with every lens I owned and over the year learned much more about them. That's resulting in me beginning to down size a bit now on lenses because I've learned - through use - what works for me and doesn't work for me in varying situations. I read somewhere a while ago that you needed to shoot at least 100 images with a lens before you got to know it. I see the logic in this now.

Bottom line here David is that you need to 'get familiar' with your lenses by shooting with them a lot. I think then you will be able to see where this one could get you that shot and thus be able to answer your question above. I think it's really personal.

All of that said - I admire a long time pro like Ron who has far fewer lenses and gets much more from them. I still believe it's because he 1) knows what he wants from his lenses, and 2) knows his lenses.

[blackcloudbrew]

Uh-huh . . . an' no less than you deserve for smirkin' when Ron said BCB an' I had too many toys.

The secret is gettin' more bodies to match those under-utilized lenses, right, BCB?

Right on Pacerr! More bodies for sure. That's why I added 6x7 and 645 cameras to my stable so that I could get more lenses!

[Pacerr]

All of that said - I admire a long time pro like Ron who has far fewer lenses and gets much more from them.

Whoa, Nelly! Let's not get too carried away here, BCB. There's other things to take into account, ya know.

Just consider the harm 'e does to the economy by not stirrin' the lens pot on a regular basis.  'S like havin' a hundred dollars and hidin' it under the mattress. He, too, could become a one-man stimulus program and single-handedly restore the economy of Missouri if he'd just carry his share of the lens load.  But no, all he does is drive up the price of used DA 15's.  

Ya gotta pity 'im though for he doesn't know the warm, soft, cozy pleasure of bein' surrounded by cold, hard GLASS on a long winter's night, eh?!

Why, I've heard he doesn't even own the fish he uses!

[blackcloudbrew]

Hank...you said a mouthful there. 

I now have a 'no comment' policy on fish a this point, but I must say that a happiness is good lens (so more lenses = more happiness by standard US American reasoning). I think you are spot on though about the price of the DA15...it's still the next lens I'll get (ok, so I bought a 6x7 75mm lens but it isn't for my K5, really!).

[Pacerr]

. . .6x7 75mm lens but it isn't for my K5, really!

Okaaaay. but you do realize it's . . . ohh, never mind.

I built an adapter that takes my Mamiya M645 lenses to Pentax M-mount functionality just using lens and body caps. Some Mamiya lenses are kind'a interesting on the K200 body . . . especially with a mild extension ring set-up. Talk about yur image circle!

I now have a 'no comment' policy on fish a this point,

Ohhh, the stories I could tell !   

Nevertheless, a great picture stands on it's own, an' Ron's need no apology, eh?

[davidhampshire]

nice little deer,   pacerr.    i wonder if ron's missouri looks anything like connecticut,   water isn't really frozen here this year,   which it normally is.   fa 50 1.7 lens.    f8,   1/200 sec.  iso 200 
dave

[Ron Kruger]

one of my hardest things with this photography and the k-5 is deciding which lens i want to use at any particular time,   i'd really like to be able to leave one lens on the camera for 90% of my shots,   but which lens ?    my fa 50 1.7 is my best lens,   sharpest,   best autofocus,  even focusing down to almost macro,    but too long for a lot of things,    the A and M ,  and K lenses are excellent,  but then i'm manual focusing ,   which is ok for a while but i keep wanting the autofocus ability  when i have the manual lens on.    primes are great,   but then i want a zoom when i have a prime lens on.     and a prime lens when i have a zoom on there.     maybe it is just me.   maybe this photography is driving me crazy    

This is a very revealing post, so why don't you tell us your real name. Nancy? Peggy? Joyce? Carol? Heather? Aleen? Sounds like all my ex-wives. Can't make a decision and never satisfied.  

[davidhampshire]

 well,   it's obvious now, ron,   you definitely are a body man,  more than lenses. 

dave   

[Ron Kruger]

Having more and more lenses doesn't make one a better photographer. In fact, it just confuses the issue. Some are lensanizers, who jump around from lens to lens without getting to know any of them. Worst of all, they spend far to much time slumming with undesirables, trying to convince themselves that these floozies are pretty, fun, whatever.
I'm actually a lens man, but I believe in quality over quantity. All my lenses have affectionate names.

[blackcloudbrew]

I've gotten to know them all (40+), am not confused, I walk around not jumping, AND I never slum. However, I never name my lenses. I'll bet yours are called names like Bertha, Brunhilde, Lucy, Fifi, Bonbon or something like that!

About being a lensanizer (nicely coined word, I might add), my daughter has called me a gadget geek and I can proudly say that I resemble that remark. Sheesh, having a lot of lenses is one of the prerequisites of being an admin here. Tcom has at least 200 and and I'm sure Mike, Craig, and Cal each have as many as I have. We have to have that many so we can have opinions about everything...

[Pacerr]

There seems to be an assumption . . . pardon me, an unwarranted PRE-sumption . . . about gear that biases this sort of discussion -- that “gear-guys” should be primarily interested in the esthetic or artistic results (the purity?) of the photographic experience. While that’s certainly one aspect of the topic, there are other equally valid incentives to mess about with camera stuff.

There are those, let’s call ‘em “Pros”, who make equipment choices to maximize efficiency – producing the best possible photographic results with the least expenditure of “resources”, e.g., of time, money or risk of failed mission irrespective of brand or false ego issues.

Some folks fall into the category of “Collectors”. The appreciation of the history, scope and social/economic impact of the “gear” has value in its own right. A museum or collection serves as a benchmark to understand where we were, where we might go and a grade card of how well we’ve done.

And there are those who use the photographic process simply as a tool to accomplish other tasks -- just a "Recorder". Over half a century I’ve made thousands of images with various tools and methods simply as a means of recording, presenting and transmitting “facts” in a graphic format. (Fortunately for me, that didn’t require “artistic” talent but I did have to acquire minimal proficiency.)

As for me, I’ve never considered myself a “Photographer”, nor an “Artist” in any sense of those definitions. Perhaps a "Draftsman"?  I simply appreciate the elegance of efficient and effective “tools” of all types. That does lead me to understand and use such things as well as I might even though the results have little or no esthetic value nor an end unto itself. (There's certainly adequate proof of THAT!   )

No doubt there are various fractional amounts of each of those motives and characteristics in each of us, not to mention any possible infusions of psycho-social issues like length-of-lens envy and runaway LCBA syndrome.

In the end, only one thing counts – if you’re not havin’ fun and learnin’ sumthun you’re doin’ it wrong even if you do buy groceries with the results.

I’m pleased to be able to share the vision of those who are truly artists and appreciative of the "pros" that produce superior results on demand using photographic gear -- and especially pleased to discover that even we blind squirrels can occasionally stumble across a juicy acorn!  

[blackcloudbrew]

Interesting points. Have to think about this a bit. With me I go back to my first real camera a Leica III f or g I believe. I had a 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm lens for it. Shot a lot of images with it and a hand held light meter. I was so excited when I got my first SLR (Minolta SRT-202) because I could toss away the light meter but I still had a set of 35, 50, and 135mm lenses for it too. I shot a whole lota images with it. I like having different lenses and with my DSLR's I've been able to feed my LBA. Each lens - to me - offers the possibility of a different way of seeing creatively and ultimately, having fun with it. So I guess I'm just one of the blind squirrels...

[Pacerr]

I was so excited when I got my first  SLR (Minolta SRT-202) because I could toss away the light meter . . .

I suppose you mean because of TTL-metering?  

Ohh, yeah!  Thought I'd died an' gone to photo-heaven when I could afford my first Spotmatic body for macro shots for that very reason.

But like many things, as I became more familiar with TTL-M I began to appreciate SWAGs and external metering as a valuable tool. I still routinely "calibrate" my DSLR exposures with an old analog (1-degree) Pentax Spotmeter.