[Eagle_Friends]

pick yourself a DA 40 for about 320ish. it'll be worth every penny

[NaClH2O]

I will be using it for mostly macro and the occasional long portrait, so as of now I'm leaning toward either the Tamron 90 or Sigma 70.

This may be a stupid question but I'm trying to learn. Since my K2000 has an APS-C sensor does that mean it has a built in magnification of 1.5x? Therefore making the Tamron 90 more like 135 and the sigma 70 a 105? I could be way off, just needing some clarification.

I sometimes wish that the "crop factor" had never been mentioned. Basically there is NO 1.5X. What that "crop factor" thing is all about is if you are used to how things look thru the viewfinder of a "full frame" film camera (read old film 35mm slr) than the field of view of a 90mm tamron ON YOUR K2000 would look like the field of view of a 135mm ON A FILM CAMERA. Nothing else. If you haven't shot with an old film 35mm slr in a while (or ever) you can forget everything said about 1.5X crop.

NaCl(but it sounds kinda sexy if you say "my 300mm is actually a 450mm" even tho it ain't)H2O

[MCsquared]

Thanks, that makes sense. I ran across the whole 1.5x somewhere and was wondering. Thanks for the clarification.

[excanonfd]

35mm lens as a portrait lens, that's a bit of a stretch don't you think? In full format film cameras, a 35mm focal length lens was considered as the demarkation point between normal and wide angle lens. By the same token, an 85mm lens was long considered to be the ideal focal length for portraits, hence the almost a frenzied demand for 85mm lenses of any vintage in this forum and elsewhere.

35mm lens for macro places your front elements mere millimetres away from the subject. The distance scale marked on the lens is the distance between the subject and the focal plane. My Tamron 72B at 1:1 gives me 28cm distance between the subject and the focal plane, and the 52BB gives a bit more working distance between the subject and the focal plane albeit the maximum magnification at 1:2.

I believe MCsquared would be best served by Tamron 90 for both macro and portrait shots, and keep the kit lens for those group portraits and as a walkabout lens.

Thanks,

[glanglois]

If we're allowed to wander away from primes, the Sigma 17-70 (older model w/o HSM) gives a lot of choices for focal length (family photojournalism) and a 2.2:1 ratio that allows macro-like work. Of course, a close-up adjunct would only help.

70mm works out to 105mm in the old school and covers the traditional portrait range of 85-105mm.

I like the wide look at 17mm for landscapes and wide interiors. The latter works especially well owing to the f/2.8 aperture at 20 mm or less.

Won't be as sharp as the sharpest primes, of course. Consider it a kit lens done right. But it may work for you as you build your kit.

[Pentaxor]

having used lenses from 70-90mm lenses, I would say the OP can't go wrong with either focal lengths for such situations. it would depend on his preference on what he wants. for short, it's a toss-up. just to make it much easier, I would advice him to visit a local camera store which have both lenses and try them.

[MCsquared]

That's a good point Pentaxor. I plan on going to a local shop this weekend that carries both sigma and tamron so I can check out both. In all reality it won't be used for a lot of portrait, mostly macro shots. Looking into the sigma 70 / 105 and the tamron 90.

[HEEGZ]

Pentax DA* 55mm F1.4
D FA 100mm f2.8 Macro WR (although it's more expensive)

I would grab one of these two. If you are really interested in doing lots of Macro I would get the 100mm WR.

[kari]

If we're allowed to wander away from primes, the Sigma 17-70 (older model w/o HSM) gives a lot of choices for focal length (family photojournalism) and a 2.2:1 ratio that allows macro-like work. Of course, a close-up adjunct would only help.

70mm works out to 105mm in the old school and covers the traditional portrait range of 85-105mm.

I like the wide look at 17mm for landscapes and wide interiors. The latter works especially well owing to the f/2.8 aperture at 20 mm or less.

Won't be as sharp as the sharpest primes, of course. Consider it a kit lens done right. But it may work for you as you build your kit.

What is wrong with the new HSM OS version?

[summonbaka]

Either of the sigma or tamron will fit the bill, i think.

What is wrong with the new HSM OS version?

I'm not sure this is what glanglois was meaning, but it can be because it's somewhat cheaper. But, the HSM apparently is faster (albeit, less than half a stop) at longer focal lenghts being 2.8-4 instead of the 2.8-4.5 of the non-HSM.

[glanglois]

Either of the sigma or tamron will fit the bill, i think.



I'm not sure this is what glanglois was meaning, but it can be because it's somewhat cheaper. But, the HSM apparently is faster (albeit, less than half a stop) at longer focal lenghts being 2.8-4 instead of the 2.8-4.5 of the non-HSM.

Thanks, I somehow left out the aperture difference. Some folks worry about a difference of that magnitude and some don't. Either way, I appreciate your minding us.

But the point I was making is that the OP specifically mentioned macro and the older, non-OS/HSM does somewhat better in that regard. Minimum focus distance is 20 cm and max magnification 1:2.2 per Sigma.

OS/HSM gives us a minimum focus distance of 22 cm and max magnification of 1:2.7, again per Sigma. It seems we gave up some macro capability to get other stuff. Engineering (to a price point) is like that.

Which will work better for this particular photographer? I don't know. But we've tossed another choice into the hopper and someone, somewhere may find that helpful. And that's one reason we're here.

[drougge]

35mm lens for macro places your front elements mere millimetres away from the subject. The distance scale marked on the lens is the distance between the subject and the focal plane. My Tamron 72B at 1:1 gives me 28cm distance between the subject and the focal plane, and the 52BB gives a bit more working distance between the subject and the focal plane albeit the maximum magnification at 1:2.

People seem to forget that shorter lenses are actually (physically) shorter. The front of the lens is 2cm from the point of focus at 1:1 on the DA35. (The front element is a few more mm away.)

Granted this is still very close, but at least semi-useable. And there's nothing magical about 1:1 anyway, focus a little further away if you need the space.

[olenl]

what about Sigma 50mm macro?

it's longer than 35mm which is better for macro, also 35mm limited gets some bad reviews from some people so I don't consider it .. I think it's better to get 40mm limited which seems to be much better.

50mm macro is more suitable for hand held macro shots than 90mm since you need to be farther with 90mm, which means that it's harder to keep subject stable because smaller movements case larger angular movement if the subject when you're farther away.

on the other hand, closer distance to the subject means that insect is more likely to fly away when you try to take a picture... however 50mm is also useful for general purposes more than 70mm or 90mm or 100mm.

[JeffJS]

Hello forum, another new member.

I’m needing help picking a lens for my k2000. I bought the k2000 (with kit lens) about a year ago and although it takes some great pictures I’m wanting to upgrade the quality of my pictures. I’m wanting to keep the price somewhere around 500 usd. I’m getting into macro pictures of flowers / insects but would like to take family photos, and some scenery pictures too (like to take wildlife pictures as well but I’m sure that will be another lens someday).

Lens I’m considering.
Tamron 90mm F2.8 SP Di Macro
Pentax DA* 55mm F1.4
D FA 100mm f2.8 Macro WR (although it's more expensive)

Also, would it be worth it to sell my kit lens and get a
Pentax DA 18-250 / Tamron 18-250 or another superzoom
or just keep my lens kit.

Are these lens selections good and what am I leaving out? I'm far less knowledgeable than many of you and will take all the help I can get.
Thanks for helping out a noobie.

I didn't read the responses and your decision may already be made. Considering your budget and stated use, the Tamron 90 is your best bet. ($500 rules out the other two lenses).

[Mike Cash]

Thirty bucks for an M42 adapter, thirty bucks for some extension rings, a couple hundred for a nice collection of Takumars, and put the rest of your dough back in your pocket.