[Wind Chaser]

I have one prime lens by Pentax, the FA 50 1.4, but find it hard to know when to use it because of the fixed focal length.  The bottom line is it's a hassle to change lenses and there's always the concern of dust getting on the sensor.  So I changed my mind about buying more prime lenses and picked up two new zooms instead, the Sigma 10-20 and the 17-70 with matching polarizers.  Those two polarizers cost almost as much as Sigma 17-70.  Are they really worth it?

In addition to the above, I also have the kit lens (not sure what to do with that) and the Pentax 55-300.  Considering I have spent almost $1800 on lenses so far, I wonder if there was a better option that would give the same range and IQ in one hassle free lens?

I had no idea… or intention… of spending this much money on lenses.  If there is a decent 10-300, chances are I wouldn't have considered it because it’s easier to spend incrementally than all in one lump sum.  Besides mounting an $1800 on a $600 body doesn’t seem right.  Maybe I’m just dumber than I think, but I don’t get it.  OTOH, when I was 18, I bought a $4000 cartridge and mounted it on a $500 tone arm and it sounded pretty damn good.

[Goosepond]

Welcome to the club! 

From where you are right now (especially if you visit the online forums), the next thing you'll do is realize you just have to get a better body. I'm not familiar with the Pentax line, I pretty much started and stayed with Canon.

I started with a crop body but eventually just had to see what the pro line of bodies were like and then the full frame pro line. And then of course you realize the crappy lenses you now have just can't be put on that great body. So you then start collecting those really expensive top-of-the-line lenses.

It's a disease for sure. At some point you also realize you're still the same crappy photog you were when you started. It's a journey but if you're really into it, you begin to enjoy the hobby and forget the gear.

Good luck! 

Gene

[srb]

Good post.  I don't have any answers or advice for you, but good post.
 

OTOH, when I was 18, I bought a $4000 cartridge and mounted it on a $500 tone arm and it sounded pretty damn good.

How did you come up with $4000 for a cartridge at age 18?  I couldn't come up with $4K for a car when I was 18.
 
Steve

[Wind Chaser]

It's a disease for sure. At some point you also realize you're still the same crappy photog you were when you started. It's a journey but if you're really into it, you begin to enjoy the hobby and forget the gear.

I'm coming up quick to the point of forgetting the gear.  It's a hobby / disease all right, but I can do without another journey on some money sucking merry-go-round.  Right now the goal is to learn... and hopefully take some pictures that are worth keeping.  If that doesn't happen, then this will all end up being flogged for next to nothing.

It must be impossible to make a 10-300 zoom lens because nobody seems to offer one.  So I'm comfortable with my choice of lenses based on the images I've seen other people get with them.  Got the gear, need talent.  Too bad that can't be bought with a money back guarantee.

How did you come up with $4000 for a cartridge at age 18?  I couldn't come up with $4K for a car when I was 18.

Union job while living at home with mommy and daddy.

[JohnR]

I'm not familiar with Pentax (-compatible) lenses but those two give you a nice range - you can always get a dedicated macro or telephoto lens later.. after you've posted pictures with the lenses you have now

[Mr Content]

John (Wind Chaser), you can take great photos with the lenses you have. Don't worry about buying more lenses until you find the need to buy them. I say that because you may find you have no need for a certain lens...........if you get my logic. 

Nig

[Wind Chaser]

Yeah, I think I have enough lens.  They cover the enough range from 10mm up to 300mm.  I did post two shots in 'picture of the day' and two more in 'FOV 10mm vs. 20mm' with more to come.  I just don't get out enough to take pictures.  It’s too cold and I’m some what distracted with other things.  Besides, who wants to show off when they know they're work sucks?

[cjr888]

You could grab the Pentax 18-250, Tamrom 18-250 or similar Sigma.  None of them are blazing fast unfortunately, but all $400ish.

Sticking totally to Pentax glass, you could do their 50-135mm F2.8 for around $800 and the 16-50mm F2.8 for $700, and keep the 50mm and still be under the amount you have on the table today.  Equally, a lot of people seem happy with the 28-75mm F2.8 Tamron and Sigma's.

The one benefit of photography over audio addiction is that glass holds its value well, and there are less total options, thus more interested parties, so it's easy to put things on the used market and not lose an enormous piece of your investment in the way its possible to do in audio.

But I'd ask, what range do you find yourself shooting most of your pictures within? 

But I'd disagree with worrying about $1800 on a $600 body.  But lean towards the setup that you'll use.  It's perfectly easy to take crappy pictures and worry about dinging a body with $10k.  It's also easy to take great pictures with a $80 camera.  And its twice as easy to yell at DLSR settings and quirky interfaces and crappy AF mechanisms.  But what I shoot with primarily is a cheaper Pentax DSLR with the Pentax 31mm F/1.8 Limited lens which is financially imbalanced as you describe. 

And if it ends up driving you nuts in the end -- sell it all, and go with an all-in-one 4/3rd's camera.  You'll get pictures, range, it won't technically be a DSLR, but it cures the nervousa and you don't have to think as much about stuff....but you do get to take pictures!

Plus, once you find the right combo, figure out it's 1000 quirks and knobs, that's only phase one.  After that you get to go insane messing with RAW conversion and software settings! 

[Wind Chaser]

cjr888

I’m done shopping for lenses.  I need to practice more than anything else.  I’m too new to know what lens will be used the most, but I suspect it will be either the 10-20 or the 17-70.  The 50mm is my fastest lens and it is also the most challenging to use because it doesn’t zoom.  The 300mm will come in handy on occasion but I don’t think it will see as much use as the wide angles.

It’s probably better to have a variety of lenses than one costly lens that can do everything.  The way I understand it, the lens is more important than the body.  IMO a better lens on a lesser camera will produce a better result than an ordinary lens on a high end camera. The K-x is good enough for the lenses I have and it will be a long time before it is replaced with something else.

Selling this system for a 4/3rd isn’t an option.  I’m in it for the education and experience.  From where I’m standing the learning curve looks steep and long.  And that’s fine.

[Goosepond]

Another suggestion in case you aren't already doing it is to shoot RAW. Don't leave it up to the camera to make those critical decisions. Use some good s/w on your PC and learn what is possible.

Gene

[Wind Chaser]

Use some good s/w on your PC and learn what is possible.

What do you recommend, besides Photoshop? 

[Goosepond]

What do you recommend, besides Photoshop?

I don't recommend anything besides PS! 

Of course there's lots of s/w out there that others will swear by. But I'm not a good enough photographer to be that picky. I started out with the bottom-of-the-barrel free stuff from Canon. I then graduated to their better but still free stuff.

I'm now determined to start using PS mostly because I've had it for years but was intimidated by it. But I've bought a couple of books and a few DVDs and will go for it.

Gene

[Wind Chaser]

I don't recommend anything besides PS! 

I've had it for years but was intimidated by it. But I've bought a couple of books and a few DVDs and will go for it.

I know what you mean by intimidated.  It seems like Photoshop is the preferred choice of pro photographers.  I don’t think I will ever rise to that level.  So in time I will explore the options.

[Goosepond]

I'm currently running PS2 which is 2 versions behind the latest. I bought an early version cheap on eBay and then bought upgrades on ebay until I reached PS2.

I'm pretty happy shooting RAW and using DPP (free Canon s/w). But from all the stuff I read about doing special stuff to images, it seems like PS is universally the big dog on the block. So I've decided I want to be able to do the cool stuff like using layers and selections and selective sharpening, etc. My plan is to start using ACR for RAW and then PS for post-processing.

We'll see. 

Gene