Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-30-2011, 05:15 PM   #1
Veteran Member
krp's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Illinois
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 470
Another 'What Lens to Get' Thread

I've saved up some money for a new lens, about $350. To get a better deal I'll buy a used lens. There are 3 kinds of lenses I want, but I can only afford one. A fast standard zoom, An ultra-wide zoom, and a f/fa 50mm f1.4/1.7.
Out of those 3, I'm leaning towards a fast standard zoom like the Tamron 17-50. But I'm not sure if I should save up a little more for an ultra-wide zoom. The Tamron 10-24 is a little cheaper, but the image quality looks pretty bad wide open compared to the Sigma 10-20, at least according to the tests on slrgear. I like taking pictures of landscapes and also pictures of the stars, so iq wide open is important for that. At first I thought an ultra wide zoom would be the first lens I saved up for, but I read it makes it so much harder to get a good composition. It's hard for me to know since I've never used one. If I get the Tamron 17-50 then I'll have a good sharp lens and I can sell my kit lens, but I just can't decide.

Kevin


Last edited by krp; 01-30-2011 at 08:27 PM.
01-30-2011, 05:24 PM   #2
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 764
I think the Tamron would be a good choice. The Sigma 10-20 f4.5-5.6 is also a good lens. I would try to keep the kit lens though. At some point in time you will want to sell your KX and it will bring more even with a kit lens that would mot bring much money if you sell it.
01-30-2011, 05:42 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Coeurdechene's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: madrid
Photos: Albums
Posts: 833
The tamron 17-50 is pretty good and it is, new, in that price range...there is also a tamron 28-75 f2.8 wich is fine too...those are in my next lens list...haven't decided wich one though..probably the 28-75 since i want a wide prime at some point too (a 14 or 15 mm).
01-30-2011, 06:20 PM   #4
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteOriginally posted by krp Quote
I've saved up some money for a new lens, about $350. To get a better deal I'll buy a used lens. There are 3 kinds of lenses I want, but I can only afford one. A fast standard zoom, An ultra-wide zoom, and a f/fa 50mm f1.4/1.7.
Out of those 3, I'm leaning towards a fast standard zoom like the Tamron 17-50. But I'm not sure if I should save up a little more for an ultra-wide zoom. The Tamron 10-24 is a little cheaper, but the image quality looks pretty bad wide compared to the Sigma 10-20, at least according to the tests on slrgear. I like taking pictures of landscapes and also pictures of the stars, so iq wide open is important for that. At first I thought an ultra wide zoom would be the first lens I saved up for, but I read it makes it so much harder to get a good composition. It's hard for me to know since I've never used one. If I get the Tamron 17-50 then I'll have a good sharp lens and I can sell my kit lens, but I just can't decide.

Kevin
Hi Kevin and welcome to the difficult world of picking the right lens. The key things you say are "I'm leaning towards a fast standard zoom," & "I like taking pictures of landscapes and also pictures of the stars, so iq wide open is important for that." I own the Tamron 17-50, the Tamron 28-75, the Sigma 10-20, and other Tamron zooms.

If you really need a landscape lens which is fast and excellent wide open, the 17-50mm f 2.8 is great. I have taken over 15 thousand shots with mine and love the lens now, much more than when I first got it. However, be sure you really need the constant 2.8 aperture, before you shell out the extra bucks it costs. I also shoot with another Tamron zoom which is excellent, the SP Tamron 24-135 f3.5-5.6. I love the advantage it enjoys in focal range over my 17-50, when I do not need 17-23 of course. But I also love the fact that the IQ is awesome on the 24-135 and the lens can currently be bought for $299 brand new because it was discontinued. The 17-50 is going to cost you a good deal more. Personally, I find 24mm about the best range for landscaping, though of course it can be done at mostly any range. I usually do not use my Sigma 10-20mm for landscapes; it really is too wide for most landscape applications.

If your budget is $350, then you are probably looking at a used 17-50. Also, the 17-50 is not Full Frame, but the 28-75 & 24-135 are. It would be hard for you to go wrong, no matter which one you choose. If you are going to shoot star trails, you really need really long shutter speeds, not large apertures--consider this. Below is a shot with the Tamron 17-50, & one with the 24-135--just a peak into the IQ world of these most excellent Tamron zooms.





Oh, and best of luck to you!

JT


Last edited by Jewelltrail; 01-30-2011 at 07:05 PM.
01-30-2011, 06:45 PM   #5
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
I'm with Jewel on this one. Of the lenses you suggested the Tamron 17-50 will give you the most flexibility.
01-30-2011, 07:06 PM   #6
krp
Veteran Member
krp's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Illinois
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 470
Original Poster
Thanks for your replies everyone. Jewel I usually take a ton of 30 second pictures of the stars and put them together to avoid DFS, so that's why a faster lens would be beneficial. I haven't heard much about the that 24-135 lens. I think I would rather have wider than longer though.
01-30-2011, 07:11 PM   #7
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Get all the lenses you can. You an never have too much glass. Except when you're broke.
01-30-2011, 07:47 PM   #8
krp
Veteran Member
krp's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Illinois
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 470
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Get all the lenses you can. You an never have too much glass. Except when you're broke.
So are you saying I should buy 10 cheap, low iq lenses instead of 1 good lens?

01-30-2011, 08:06 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteOriginally posted by krp Quote
Thanks for your replies everyone. Jewel I usually take a ton of 30 second pictures of the stars and put them together to avoid DFS, so that's why a faster lens would be beneficial. I haven't heard much about the that 24-135 lens. I think I would rather have wider than longer though.
Hi Kevin:

I was just hoping to get you to consider everything, carefully, so that you make the best choice for you--money is too hard to get. It sounds like the Tamron 17-50mm is best for you--I do see them close to your budget range, used.

Yes, the 24-135mm gives up the larger aperture & the 17-23mm range, but returns a range of 51-135mm. I just wanted you to weigh these against your needs. BTW, the 24-135mm is the highest rated Tamron zoom lens at this site here, where hundreds of ratings are accesible, for example: FM Reviews -
It gets better ratings than the 17-50mm here, but mostly on C & N bodies. So, it is not the end all, but it should figure into your calculations and considerations, because the IQ is very nice, especially for landscapes--not as sharp as the 17-50, but sharpness is only part of the IQ equation--here is one with the 24-135 Tammy, but not in the best of light--look for tons of shots before you decide--be sure with your decision:

01-31-2011, 12:02 AM   #10
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,691
QuoteOriginally posted by krp Quote
So are you saying I should buy 10 cheap, low iq lenses instead of 1 good lens?
I'm sure that's not what he meant, and I think you knew that too.
Getting good lenses creates an insatiable appetite for acquiring more great lenses, so don't try and fight the LBA.

But in your specific request, you can't go wrong with the 17-50 - it is definitely the best value for money IQ-wise, and probably the best purchase you can make within your budget.
01-31-2011, 09:33 AM   #11
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by krp Quote
So are you saying I should buy 10 cheap, low iq lenses instead of 1 good lens?
No, I'm saying you should buy 10 cheap, low iq lenses AND 10 good lenses AND another ten lenses just to be sure.
01-31-2011, 09:41 AM   #12
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,264
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
No, I'm saying you should buy 10 cheap, low iq lenses AND 10 good lenses AND another ten lenses just to be sure.
Rico always recruiting people into the world of incurable LBA

and I'm pretty certain the 30 you recommend here are just the 50mm lenses then on to other focal lengths
01-31-2011, 10:12 AM   #13
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
and I'm pretty certain the 30 you recommend here are just the 50mm lenses then on to other focal lengths
Ah yes grasshopper, you are very perceptive. The proper number of lenses to own in any focal-length group is the focal number of that group. Thus we must own 20 twenty's, 50 fifty's, 100 hundreds, etc.
LBA we must; all others eat dust.
01-31-2011, 10:14 AM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,264
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Ah yes grasshopper, you are very perceptive. The proper number of lenses to own in any focal-length group is the focal number of that group. Thus we must own 20 twenty's, 50 fifty's, 100 hundreds, etc.
LBA we must; all others eat dust.
01-31-2011, 12:48 PM   #15
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,691
Now that's going beyond an addiction - that's an unshakeable persistent obsession, a permanent infatuation, a hopeless case of overwhelming collector's fetish...
That's a bee in your bonnet if ever I saw one!
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!
k-mount, lens, pentax lens, pictures, slr lens, tamron, ultra-wide
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My Lens Comparison Thread Jimfear Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 09-05-2010 01:54 AM
another which lens should i buy thread JesusOutlaw Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 08-27-2010 06:41 AM
The lens collection thread blu3ness Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 11-02-2009 01:03 PM
yet another how is my lens thread architorture Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 07-12-2008 06:48 AM
Another lens buying strategy thread. Sprags Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 02-06-2008 07:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:23 PM. | 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