What to do first when upgrading?

kthung · 12-01-2008, 01:13 PM

Having shot with my K100D for about a year and a half now, and having pretty much filled the focal length range I would ever use, I think I'm ready to start upgrading rather than adding on. I think I'm pretty set on what I want to keep and replace, I'm just not sure whats the best order to go about it because I'm not gonna be able to do all this in one fell swoop.

Here's what I envision:
K100 -> K20
Sigma 24-70 -> Tamron 17-50
Promaster 75-210 -> Pentax 50-135

The 24-70 is just monstrous to the point that when I pull it out people get scared

And the range would probably be much more useful if it were for a FF camera, but I'm probably going to just stick with APS-C.

The DA* 50-135 is just a beautiful lens that I've been lusting after for a lonnngg time (I'm sure I'm not the only one

) And like the move from 24-70 to 17-50 I don't think I'll miss the range from 135 to 210

*Stratario* · 12-01-2008, 01:21 PM

I think the Tamron 17-50 can be had for about $270 from ProDigital2000 on the auction site. Just make them a counter offer on their $300 asking price. That's what I would get first.

kthung · 12-01-2008, 01:41 PM

I was definately looking into Prodigital for possibly the K20 and 50-135 but it appears they only have the 17-50 for other mounts, not pentax :/

*bwield* · 12-01-2008, 01:47 PM

THere is one currently available in pentax mount that has just showed up! ... make them an offer

**Marc Sabatella** · 12-01-2008, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by kthung

The 24-70 is just monstrous to the point that when I pull it out people get scared And the range would probably be much more useful if it were for a FF camera, but I'm probably going to just stick with APS-C.

The DA* 50-135 is just a beautiful lens that I've been lusting after for a lonnngg time

But not really much smaller than the "monstrous" 28-70, is it?

SpecialK · 12-01-2008, 07:56 PM

The K20D is down to about $727 at Amazon. For how long, who knows...

rvannatta · 12-01-2008, 08:25 PM

there is much to be said for the SDM technology. there is also much to be said for sticking with brand name lenses ifyou are spending serious dollars. The brand name lenses are worth something on the second hand market and the brand x's aren't.

While benefits SDM lenses are not available to you unless you have a K100 super,
I wouldn't buy an expensive lens that wasn't SDM at this time, which implies that you should upgrade your camera body first.

P.S. You are missing a awhole world of fun without a macro lens. There is a whole world of things out there the size of your fingernail that go right by you without a macro lens.

For example I had no idea how pretty this violet was until I got a photo of it. You can't even see thte thing unless you lay down on your belly to look at it. Some of natures' prettyist things are pretty small so don't go traipsing through thte tuilips. --- get a macro.

kthung · 12-02-2008, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Marc Sabatella

But not really much smaller than the "monstrous" 28-70, is it?

Well the purposes of the lens would be different. Currently the 24-70 serves as my general walk around lens, and its pretty hefty to walk around with. That's why I would be replacing that with the 17-50 not the 50-135

kthung · 12-02-2008, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by rvannatta

there is much to be said for the SDM technology. there is also much to be said for sticking with brand name lenses ifyou are spending serious dollars. The brand name lenses are worth something on the second hand market and the brand x's aren't.

While benefits SDM lenses are not available to you unless you have a K100 super,
I wouldn't buy an expensive lens that wasn't SDM at this time, which implies that you should upgrade your camera body first.

P.S. You are missing a awhole world of fun without a macro lens. There is a whole world of things out there the size of your fingernail that go right by you without a macro lens.

For example I had no idea how pretty this violet was until I got a photo of it. You can't even see thte thing unless you lay down on your belly to look at it. Some of natures' prettyist things are pretty small so don't go traipsing through thte tuilips. --- get a macro.

Thanks for the suggestion. Macro is definitely something I'd want to try as well. I would be lying if I said the 35 ltd hasn't piqued some interest as well.

Lowell Goudge · 12-02-2008, 08:16 AM

I guess I would question a couple of things when I look at your plans.

If it were me, I would keep the 24-70 and add either a sigma 10-20 , pentax 12-24, or perhaps the new tamron 10-24 to fill out the bottom.

At the high end, I don't see anything wrong with the 50-135, but you are selling yourself a little short. I would think you might want something longer, but that might just be me. I sometimes lerave my 70-200F2.8 home and take an old K135 F2.5 to lighten the load, and while it is not too bad on some shots, I have been left wanting a little more.

The reason I recommend going for an ultra wide zoom is that 16mm is not wide enough on an ASP -C sensor for travel. I existed for years with a 24mm on film and was always frustrated, with the restricted field of view. the 16mm will put you in the same position.

axl · 12-02-2008, 08:31 AM

I kind of agree with Lowell in here. Keep 24-70. It's big and heave but it's f2.8 zoom with very useful range. You'll find yourself in tight spot with 17-50 you want. Not just on the wide end. But sometimes you'll find it just too short. I know you want to get 50-135 but sometimes you just take 1 lens. And then 24-70 is much more usefull then 17-50. So my advice (talking zoomwise) get 10-20, keep 24-70 and get either 50-135 or 70-200 (both sigma and tamron are making f2.8 and I believe there is older but still veery good Pentax FA * in that range).
Anyway, I'm becoming "prime kind of guy" so take my advices with some reservation...
good luck

*heliphoto* · 12-02-2008, 10:12 AM

Here I'm gonna disagree with axl and Lowell... I just traded my 24-60/2.8 for a 18-50/2.8, which will soon be replaced with a *16-50. IMHO, once you get a K20D, you can crop 50mm to 60 or 70mm without significant loss, but at 24mm you'll have to stitch a few frames together to get the field of view of an 18mm lens. For me at least, having the added wide end makes up for the loss of the long end... and of course that's what it comes down to here, personal use and taste. For me, 18mm is plenty wide for travel, though I'll get a ultra-wide rectilinear someday just to cover the range.

I think your plan sounds reasonable. I'd hesitate to call the *50-135 a replacement for the range of the 75-210, but if you find yourself mostly in the lower end of that range I'm sure it'll blow doors on the promaster.

Order wise I'd probably do it as you have listed... Camera first, then the short end, finally the long end, but that's just me.

Lowell Goudge · 12-02-2008, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by heliphoto

Here I'm gonna disagree with axl and Lowell... I just traded my 24-60/2.8 for a 18-50/2.8, which will soon be replaced with a *16-50.

this just goes to show that there is more than one way to "skin a cat

IMHO, once you get a K20D, you can crop 50mm to 60 or 70mm without significant loss, but at 24mm you'll have to stitch a few frames together to get the field of view of an 18mm lens.

which is why I suggested getting a 10-20 or 12-24, because once you start shooting you dind 18 or 16 is not wide enough

For me at least, having the added wide end makes up for the loss of the long end... and of course that's what it comes down to here, personal use and taste. For me, 18mm is plenty wide for travel,

I totally disagree, if yoou are doing landscapes fine, but just try travelling through old europeen cities and getting shots of a cathedral, let alone interior shots

though I'll get a ultra-wide rectilinear someday just to cover the range.

I think your plan sounds reasonable. I'd hesitate to call the *50-135 a replacement for the range of the 75-210, but if you find yourself mostly in the lower end of that range I'm sure it'll blow doors on the promaster.

Order wise I'd probably do it as you have listed... Camera first, then the short end, finally the long end, but that's just me.

it's not just you, but everyone

I think some of the problem is that every person has their own approach to building a lens system, and the real issue is planning out the whole thing from the onset. A lot of people, myself included, might not end up with the same lenses if we started over today from scratch, BUT one thing is for certain.

you need to plan eventually to cover from 10mm to 200mm, with the focal lengths from the mid 20mm range of that being F2.8

How you get there, and what you are willing to carry is an individual decision some of it based upon whether you still use film or not.

kthung · 12-02-2008, 10:31 AM

I already own the sigma 10-20 and its great. But when I am just carrying one lens, I find that I'm hitting the wide end of the 24-70 more often than the tele end. And with regards to the 135 vs. 210 I might just keep the 75-210 since it only set me back 65 bucks and MF is kinda fun