good lens?

rwheeler · 12-25-2008, 04:12 PM

I am pretty new to the photography world. I got a K10D about a year ago and have loved it but i'm over the kit lens. I have been saving up for a while and am thinking about going with the Pentax SMCP-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 ED (IF) SDM Lens. I'm going to be using it for a pretty wide variety of things. Sports, Wildlife and some portraits. Would this be a good option for me? Or if it's not does anyone know if there is another lens that would work out better for me at about the same price range? Thanks ahead of time!

SpecialK · 12-25-2008, 09:24 PM

There are several threads going already on this :-)

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...uct=295&cat=43

Testing my second DA*50-135mm

an example of why the 50-135* doesn't suck

CaymanImaging · 12-25-2008, 09:56 PM

Portraits, heck yeah!! Sports, not so much just because it doesn't have the reach it needs. For that, I use a Sigma f/4 100-300 APO lens. It's a film lens, so it turns into a 150-450. Very nice.

But the lens you are looking at is awesome and my fav!!

audiobomber · 12-26-2008, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by CaymanImaging

Portraits, heck yeah!! Sports, not so much just because it doesn't have the reach it needs.

Not for wildlife either. 300 mm is the absolute shortest FL for wildlife IME.

Another possibility would be a good prime like the FA 50mm for portraits, and a DA 55-300mm for wildlife and sports. Maybe add a 100mm macro later. The 50mm 1.4 and 100mm macro combo will do anything the 50-135 can do and more (i.e. faster apertures with 50mm, macro with 100mm). The 50-135 is a very nice portrait lens, but not terribly versatile.

rwheeler · 12-27-2008, 02:43 PM

ok cool, I will have to check out some of the primes. The other thing I was thinking is maybe getting the 50-135 and then a teleconverter. is there any out that would work well with that lens? sorry for all of the noob questions, hah.

*maxwell1295* · 12-27-2008, 02:56 PM

The 50-135 is a fantastic portrait lens and a good sports lens provided you're pretty close to the playing field. If you're sitting in the stands somewhere, you probably won't have enough reach. It's great for basketball and good for soccer/football if you're standing on the sidelines.

rwheeler · 12-27-2008, 03:14 PM

ok great. I am going to be doing a lot of pictures of short track speedskating where i will be right next to the ice so i think i will be ok there. And for wildlife stuff i was wondering how much the tele converter was going to slow the lens down

rfortson · 12-29-2008, 11:05 AM

Portraits and sports (assuming you can get close enough) are great with this lens. I even cropped some football shots from the second deck that turned out pretty well with the lens.

*jglover* · 12-29-2008, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by rwheeler

..... And for wildlife stuff i was wondering how much the tele converter was going to slow the lens down

A 1.4x telelconverter will slow you down one stop, while a 2x costs 2 stops.

Jasvox · 12-29-2008, 02:12 PM

If you plan to simply replace your kit lens with a step-up lens, keeping similar focal lengths, consider the Pentax 16-50 or the Tamron 17-50. Both would provide much better glass, providing you get your hands on a tack sharp copy.
The 50-135 is a fine lens, but seems a little long for everyday use. Maybe you plan to use this to augment your kit lens?

Jason

rwheeler · 12-29-2008, 03:46 PM

yea, I was going to be using it along with my kit lens. I would just like to have a lens with a longer reach that is still somewhar versitile.

rwheeler · 01-03-2009, 03:35 PM

So I decided to go for the DA 50-135. I have been looking around to find where to buy from and i'm thinking either B and H or Adorama. They both have it for 724 with free shipping. I was just wondering if there was any way to tell if they were domestic or imported lenses because I didn't see an option to choose. And also since they have them for the same price will one place be better to get it from than the other? Or does anyone have some other retailers that they have had good luck with?

*heliphoto* · 01-03-2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by CaymanImaging

Portraits, heck yeah!! Sports, not so much just because it doesn't have the reach it needs. For that, I use a Sigma f/4 100-300 APO lens. It's a film lens, so it turns into a 150-450. Very nice.

But the lens you are looking at is awesome and my fav!!

Agree 100% that the 50-135 is not really suitable for sports or wildlife (esp. wildlife)... Waaaay better for portraits (I'm using it for family/candids today).

I want to clarify for the OP and the general record that a 100-300mm built for film will give you exactly the same magnification (on a given camera) as a digital only 100-300mm. On a APS-C sized sensor, either would provide a magnification and field of view which approximates that which a 150-450mm would have provided on a film or full frame body. The only difference you would see between a 100mm lens made for digital vs. 100mm lens made for film is that if you used the digital lens on a full frame or film SLR, the image circle wouldn't cover the frame all the way and you would have severe vignetting. To sum up, crop factor applies the same to full frame/film lenses and to DA style APS-C only lenses - Exactly the same view on a crop sensor body... Sorry to go on and on, but this issue crops up (

) all the time, and can be quite confusing to noobs (it was to me about a year ago)...