Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-24-2010, 02:54 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 971
pick yourself a DA 40 for about 320ish. it'll be worth every penny

06-24-2010, 03:07 PM   #17
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by MCsquared Quote
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
06-24-2010, 03:15 PM   #18
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 84
Original Poster
Thanks, that makes sense. I ran across the whole 1.5x somewhere and was wondering. Thanks for the clarification.
06-29-2010, 01:13 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
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,

06-29-2010, 04:11 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Madison, Wis., USA
Posts: 1,510
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.
06-29-2010, 10:16 PM   #21
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
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.
06-29-2010, 10:31 PM   #22
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 84
Original Poster
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.
06-30-2010, 03:33 PM   #23
Senior Member
HEEGZ's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Missouri
Photos: Albums
Posts: 258
QuoteOriginally posted by MCsquared Quote
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.

07-01-2010, 01:45 AM   #24
Senior Member
kari's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 149
QuoteOriginally posted by glanglois Quote
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?
07-01-2010, 07:45 PM   #25
Senior Member
summonbaka's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kagoshima, Japan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 237
Either of the sigma or tamron will fit the bill, i think.

QuoteOriginally posted by kari Quote
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.
07-02-2010, 07:33 AM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Madison, Wis., USA
Posts: 1,510
Differences in models of Sigma 17-70

QuoteOriginally posted by summonbaka Quote
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.
07-02-2010, 01:22 PM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: MalmŲ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
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.
07-05-2010, 12:08 AM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 113
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.
07-05-2010, 12:43 AM   #29
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
QuoteOriginally posted by MCsquared Quote
Hello forum, another new member.

Iím 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 Iím wanting to upgrade the quality of my pictures. Iím wanting to keep the price somewhere around 500 usd. Iím 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 Iím sure that will be another lens someday).

Lens Iím 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).

07-05-2010, 12:49 AM   #30
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
f2.8, help, k-mount, kit, lens, lens selection, macro, noobie, pentax, pentax lens, pictures, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best lens for noobie? Konos Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 28 10-15-2008 09:23 AM
manual lens noobie gokenin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 03-11-2008 06:00 PM
noobie lens question pete_pf Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 03-11-2008 05:09 PM
Help with lens selection JamesD Pentax DSLR Discussion 39 10-30-2007 04:59 PM
Lens selection Flaco Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 12-01-2006 06:23 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top