Special Needs

NiftyFifty · 03-01-2011, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Chex

Yeah I'm REALLY hoping the lens will be here in the next few days along with my 50mm f1.4. I was checking out a few others (I frequent photozone.de for many lens reviews). According to them the sigma 17-70 is also a pretty decent standard zoom lens, I would prefer the tamron due to it also being able to shoot macro, but thats just my preference.

Thanks for the heads up on photozone.de. I'm going to head over there and take a look. I'm going to research that Tamron right now, because it would be great to be able to shoot macros. The 17-70 might be an awesome lens, but it is just too expensive. Maybe one day. Well, I hope you get your lenses sooner rather than later!

m42man · 03-01-2011, 02:33 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by NiftyFifty

...The 55-300 is out of my price range, and there is too much of a gap in range between the long end of the 18-55 (82.5mm) and the short end of the 100-300 (150mm)...

Are you sure the 55-300 is out of your range? Don't forget it's now available in DAL 55-300 form (i.e. no lens hood, plastic mount), and you may well be able to pick one up fairly cheap.

Of course the DA 50-200 will probably still be a bit cheaper, and it's a lovely small, lightweight lens - but be aware that it's not too hot at the 50mm end, and that different copies may vary in quality, so you'll need to thoroughly test any purchase. (Not to say that the 55-300 is immune from this, of course.)

NiftyFifty · 03-01-2011, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by m42man

Are you sure the 55-300 is out of your range? Don't forget it's now available in DAL 55-300 form (i.e. no lens hood, plastic mount), and you may well be able to pick one up fairly cheap.

Of course the DA 50-200 will probably still be a bit cheaper, and it's a lovely small, lightweight lens - but be aware that it's not too hot at the 50mm end, and that different copies may vary in quality, so you'll need to thoroughly test any purchase. (Not to say that the 55-300 is immune from this, of course.)

I think I read that DAL version yesterday, but didn't remember. Thanks! I'll look into it. Just off the top of your head, as far as there being no lens hood would one of those collapsible rubber hoods work? Are there any 3rd party hoods that will work on it?

If I bought the 50-200, I'd be using it for longer range shots. I have the 18-55 AL II and a 50 f1.7 that can handle the 50mm range.

sunny16 · 03-01-2011, 03:29 AM - **1 Like**

I have to put in a second vote for the DA 16-45mm as an upgrade to the 18-55mm. I wouldn't want to over-sell it, but I really noticed a difference when I made this upgrade. I think I paid $240 for it used. Good luck!

jolepp · 03-01-2011, 03:50 AM - **1 Like**

There is the Tamron/Pentax 18-250mm which is well regarded. Discontinued though, but should be reasonably easy to find second hand. The word is Pentax licensed the design from Tamron so both offerhings should be very similar.

NiftyFifty · 03-01-2011, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by sunny16

I have to put in a second vote for the DA 16-45mm as an upgrade to the 18-55mm. I wouldn't want to over-sell it, but I really noticed a difference when I made this upgrade. I think I paid $240 for it used. Good luck!

Originally posted by jolepp

There is the Tamron/Pentax 18-250mm which is well regarded. Discontinued though, but should be reasonably easy to find second hand. The word is Pentax licensed the design from Tamron so both offerhings should be very similar.

Thanks!

RioRico · 03-01-2011, 08:10 AM - **1 Like**

I'll also recommend the 18-250, which for me is my basic lens, with all my ~200 others being specialty items. Two reasons why I think such is better than an 18-55 + 50-200 or 55-300 kit:

1) One lens is simpler and lighter than two; and
2) Much of my shooting is between 35-70mm; a two-lens kit means swapping lenses right in the middle of my main working range.

Unfortunately, the 18-250 is probably out of your price range, even if it's used, even if you sell your 18-55. But it's the best all-around solution, from pretty wide to pretty long. Were I forced to get rid of all but two lenses, those two would be the DA18-250 and FA50/1.4. Add a flash, and the vast majority of needs are taken care of.

m42man · 03-02-2011, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by NiftyFifty

I think I read that DAL version yesterday, but didn't remember. Thanks! I'll look into it. Just off the top of your head, as far as there being no lens hood would one of those collapsible rubber hoods work? Are there any 3rd party hoods that will work on it?

I don't think the lack of lens hood is such a big deal at all (it's just a way of Pentax differentiating their product for different market sectors). By all means find a third-party hood!

atupdate · 03-02-2011, 05:30 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by NiftyFifty

I think I read that DAL version yesterday, but didn't remember. Thanks! I'll look into it. Just off the top of your head, as far as there being no lens hood would one of those collapsible rubber hoods work? Are there any 3rd party hoods that will work on it?

If I bought the 50-200, I'd be using it for longer range shots. I have the 18-55 AL II and a 50 f1.7 that can handle the 50mm range.

I don't think you will find a better, light weight, auto focus zoom for under $100 then a used DA 50-200mm from the marketplace. Paired with the DA 18-55, this combo has been my main kit since 2005. All but two of my PPG and Exclusive Gallery images were taken with one of these two lenses.

But, and you knew there had to be one, these lenses are not as sharp or contrasty as the better glass that people in this forum tend to crave. To counter this, a little work in post processing is often needed. I am always willing to help someone upgrade their post processing skills when asked (heck, I've been known to do the asking when someone seems open to the idea of PP tutoring).

Tim

bdery · 03-02-2011, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by NiftyFifty

18-55 (82.5mm)

Careful with that. A 55 mm lens remains a 55 mm lens. The field of view is the only thing that changes.

Originally posted by NiftyFifty

The Sigma 17-70 is out. Photography is my hobby, not my livelihood. Good grief.

It's my hobby too

and I never regreetted purchasing the Siggy. You can find it used, from time to time, for around 280$ here on the marketplace. If you want an improvement in IQ, without paying too much, on that range it's probably either the Siggy or a used DA 16-45. The DA has a wider end, but the Siggy has close focusing, a longer range, is faster at most apertures, and is regarded as an excellent all-around lens. It's actually a steal at the price it sells.

Happy shopping!

NiftyFifty · 03-02-2011, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

I'll also recommend the 18-250, which for me is my basic lens, with all my ~200 others being specialty items. Two reasons why I think such is better than an 18-55 + 50-200 or 55-300 kit:

1) One lens is simpler and lighter than two; and
2) Much of my shooting is between 35-70mm; a two-lens kit means swapping lenses right in the middle of my main working range.

Unfortunately, the 18-250 is probably out of your price range, even if it's used, even if you sell your 18-55. But it's the best all-around solution, from pretty wide to pretty long. Were I forced to get rid of all but two lenses, those two would be the DA18-250 and FA50/1.4. Add a flash, and the vast majority of needs are taken care of.

Thanks, but I really can't justify the cost of the 18-250 right now. It's looking like the 55-200 is going to be the way for me to go.

Originally posted by m42man

I don't think the lack of lens hood is such a big deal at all (it's just a way of Pentax differentiating their product for different market sectors). By all means find a third-party hood!

Thanks! I just wanted to make sure a 3rd party one would work. I thought so all along, because there isn't any good reason I can think of where one wouldn't work, LOL. I just needed to make sure. It's better to be safe than sorry!

Originally posted by atupdate

I don't think you will find a better, light weight, auto focus zoom for under $100 then a used DA 50-200mm from the marketplace. Paired with the DA 18-55, this combo has been my main kit since 2005. All but two of my PPG and Exclusive Gallery images were taken with one of these two lenses.

But, and you knew there had to be one, these lenses are not as sharp or contrasty as the better glass that people in this forum tend to crave. To counter this, a little work in post processing is often needed. I am always willing to help someone upgrade their post processing skills when asked (heck, I've been known to do the asking when someone seems open to the idea of PP tutoring).

Tim

Well, if having to spend a little extra time tweaking during PP is the only real thing that sets the 55-200 apart from the better glass, then I can live with that. I now think this lens is the way for me to go. Thanks!

Originally posted by bdery

Careful with that. A 55 mm lens remains a 55 mm lens. The field of view is the only thing that changes.

It's my hobby too

and I never regreetted purchasing the Siggy. You can find it used, from time to time, for around 280$ here on the marketplace. If you want an improvement in IQ, without paying too much, on that range it's probably either the Siggy or a used DA 16-45. The DA has a wider end, but the Siggy has close focusing, a longer range, is faster at most apertures, and is regarded as an excellent all-around lens. It's actually a steal at the price it sells.

Happy shopping!

I thought that all focal lengths had to be multiplied by the 1.5 crop factor, unless the lens was on a 35mm film camera or on a full frame DSLR. Is this not correct? Also, I checked out the prices on the DA 16-45 lens, and it's out of range as well. I'm going to get the 50-200 and just start saving up for better glass. Thanks!

NiftyFifty · 03-02-2011, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Chex

Yeah I'm REALLY hoping the lens will be here in the next few days along with my 50mm f1.4. I was checking out a few others (I frequent photozone.de for many lens reviews). According to them the sigma 17-70 is also a pretty decent standard zoom lens, I would prefer the tamron due to it also being able to shoot macro, but thats just my preference.

Did you get your lens yet?

Chex · 03-02-2011, 07:31 PM

Not yet... its driving me mad, in another thread I'm looking at pics from the lens and seeing how bad its distortion is and wondering if I really want it! barrel at 18mm and noticeable pincushion from 31-135mm... Maybe I'll send it back and get a 100mm WR macro instead. I'm interested to see how much the K-5's distortion correction could help the lens, but it would be better to not need to use it, for the price the lens shouldn't distort THAT much.

NiftyFifty · 03-02-2011, 07:32 PM

There was a DA L 50-200 for sale in the Marketplace, and I was lucky enough to land it, even though I saw it kind of late! *HappyDance* Thank you guys SO MUCH for all your help! If the board lets me, I'm going to give you all rep points.

At first, I was kind of bummed that I couldn't buy something regarded to be better and, out of frustration, even considered selling all my gear and reverting (regressing?) back to an advanced P&S, but I had to have a "talk" with myself about being ungrateful about having gear that other people would LOVE to have, and would trade places with me in a heartbeat to get. So, I had an attitude adjustment session.

When I sat myself down and thought about it, I had to admit that I've never been disappointed by the quality of my kit lens. I've taken some bad shots because of poor composition, or not having the right settings (I try not to shoot in automatic mode), or for some other reason - but it's never been my 18-55 lens' fault. And, when I get it right, my kit is awesome IMHO. If I get at least the same quality results with the 50-200 as I got with my 18-55 I'll be more than content for where I am in my skills development.

So now, I'm going to have an SMC Pentax DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL II; SMC Pentax DA L 50-200mm f4-5.6 ED; SMC Pentax-M 50mm f1.7; and an SMC Pentax-M 50mm f2 as a backup. ('An' is correct here because the 'S' in SMC sounds like it starts with the vowel 'E'. Right?

) I have two Takumar Bayonets that I'm going to sacrifice towards the worthy cause of a decent macro lens and then I'll have all my bases covered.

Thanks again, everyone!

NiftyFifty · 03-02-2011, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Chex

Not yet... its driving me mad, in another thread I'm looking at pics from the lens and seeing how bad its distortion is and wondering if I really want it! barrel at 18mm and noticeable pincushion from 31-135mm... Maybe I'll send it back and get a 100mm WR macro instead. I'm interested to see how much the K-5's distortion correction could help the lens, but it would be better to not need to use it, for the price the lens shouldn't distort THAT much.

Wow. I can imagine that it would be really disappointing if the K-5's distortion correction couldn't get you passable images, because it sounds like this is a pricey lens. Expensive stuff that turns out not to live up to its hype tees me off, LOL. If the K-5 makes a good enough difference where you could easily take care of the rest of the distortions in PP, would you keep it? Or, would you just send it back and go for the macro?

Don't forget to keep us posted. You are going to start your own thread with your test shots, etc, right?

03-01-2011, 08:10 AM - 1 Like	#22
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I'll also recommend the 18-250, which for me is my basic lens, with all my ~200 others being specialty items. Two reasons why I think such is better than an 18-55 + 50-200 or 55-300 kit: 1) One lens is simpler and lighter than two; and 2) Much of my shooting is between 35-70mm; a two-lens kit means swapping lenses right in the middle of my main working range. Unfortunately, the 18-250 is probably out of your price range, even if it's used, even if you sell your 18-55. But it's the best all-around solution, from pretty wide to pretty long. Were I forced to get rid of all but two lenses, those two would be the DA18-250 and FA50/1.4. Add a flash, and the vast majority of needs are taken care of.

03-02-2011, 02:09 PM	#26
NiftyFifty Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: South Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 164 Original Poster	Originally posted by RioRico I'll also recommend the 18-250, which for me is my basic lens, with all my ~200 others being specialty items. Two reasons why I think such is better than an 18-55 + 50-200 or 55-300 kit: 1) One lens is simpler and lighter than two; and 2) Much of my shooting is between 35-70mm; a two-lens kit means swapping lenses right in the middle of my main working range. Unfortunately, the 18-250 is probably out of your price range, even if it's used, even if you sell your 18-55. But it's the best all-around solution, from pretty wide to pretty long. Were I forced to get rid of all but two lenses, those two would be the DA18-250 and FA50/1.4. Add a flash, and the vast majority of needs are taken care of. Thanks, but I really can't justify the cost of the 18-250 right now. It's looking like the 55-200 is going to be the way for me to go. Originally posted by m42man I don't think the lack of lens hood is such a big deal at all (it's just a way of Pentax differentiating their product for different market sectors). By all means find a third-party hood! Thanks! I just wanted to make sure a 3rd party one would work. I thought so all along, because there isn't any good reason I can think of where one wouldn't work, LOL. I just needed to make sure. It's better to be safe than sorry! Originally posted by atupdate I don't think you will find a better, light weight, auto focus zoom for under $100 then a used DA 50-200mm from the marketplace. Paired with the DA 18-55, this combo has been my main kit since 2005. All but two of my PPG and Exclusive Gallery images were taken with one of these two lenses. But, and you knew there had to be one, these lenses are not as sharp or contrasty as the better glass that people in this forum tend to crave. To counter this, a little work in post processing is often needed. I am always willing to help someone upgrade their post processing skills when asked (heck, I've been known to do the asking when someone seems open to the idea of PP tutoring). Tim Well, if having to spend a little extra time tweaking during PP is the only real thing that sets the 55-200 apart from the better glass, then I can live with that. I now think this lens is the way for me to go. Thanks! Originally posted by bdery Careful with that. A 55 mm lens remains a 55 mm lens. The field of view is the only thing that changes. It's my hobby too and I never regreetted purchasing the Siggy. You can find it used, from time to time, for around 280$ here on the marketplace. If you want an improvement in IQ, without paying too much, on that range it's probably either the Siggy or a used DA 16-45. The DA has a wider end, but the Siggy has close focusing, a longer range, is faster at most apertures, and is regarded as an excellent all-around lens. It's actually a steal at the price it sells. Happy shopping! I thought that all focal lengths had to be multiplied by the 1.5 crop factor, unless the lens was on a 35mm film camera or on a full frame DSLR. Is this not correct? Also, I checked out the prices on the DA 16-45 lens, and it's out of range as well. I'm going to get the 50-200 and just start saving up for better glass. Thanks!

03-02-2011, 07:32 PM	#29
NiftyFifty Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: South Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 164 Original Poster	I Made My Choice and Bought a Longer Lens! There was a DA L 50-200 for sale in the Marketplace, and I was lucky enough to land it, even though I saw it kind of late! HappyDance Thank you guys SO MUCH for all your help! If the board lets me, I'm going to give you all rep points. At first, I was kind of bummed that I couldn't buy something regarded to be better and, out of frustration, even considered selling all my gear and reverting (regressing?) back to an advanced P&S, but I had to have a "talk" with myself about being ungrateful about having gear that other people would LOVE to have, and would trade places with me in a heartbeat to get. So, I had an attitude adjustment session. When I sat myself down and thought about it, I had to admit that I've never been disappointed by the quality of my kit lens. I've taken some bad shots because of poor composition, or not having the right settings (I try not to shoot in automatic mode), or for some other reason - but it's never been my 18-55 lens' fault. And, when I get it right, my kit is awesome IMHO. If I get at least the same quality results with the 50-200 as I got with my 18-55 I'll be more than content for where I am in my skills development. So now, I'm going to have an SMC Pentax DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL II; SMC Pentax DA L 50-200mm f4-5.6 ED; SMC Pentax-M 50mm f1.7; and an SMC Pentax-M 50mm f2 as a backup. ('An' is correct here because the 'S' in SMC sounds like it starts with the vowel 'E'. Right? ) I have two Takumar Bayonets that I'm going to sacrifice towards the worthy cause of a decent macro lens and then I'll have all my bases covered. Thanks again, everyone!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's so special about the LX?	DanielT74	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	38	02-24-2011 10:46 AM
A special thanks to Adam	charliezap	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	6	09-18-2010 04:33 AM
Spotmatic is special but gto is very special!	pickles	General Talk	23	08-10-2010 09:46 PM
special time with a special lens (larger images)	Marc Langille	Post Your Photos!	30	11-01-2008 09:38 AM
FA 50 MM 1.4 Special	Denis	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	12-14-2007 11:09 PM

03-01-2011, 02:06 AM	#16
NiftyFifty Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: South Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 164 Original Poster	Originally posted by Chex Yeah I'm REALLY hoping the lens will be here in the next few days along with my 50mm f1.4. I was checking out a few others (I frequent photozone.de for many lens reviews). According to them the sigma 17-70 is also a pretty decent standard zoom lens, I would prefer the tamron due to it also being able to shoot macro, but thats just my preference. Thanks for the heads up on photozone.de. I'm going to head over there and take a look. I'm going to research that Tamron right now, because it would be great to be able to shoot macros. The 17-70 might be an awesome lens, but it is just too expensive. Maybe one day. Well, I hope you get your lenses sooner rather than later!

03-01-2011, 02:33 AM - 1 Like	#17
m42man Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 623	Originally posted by NiftyFifty ...The 55-300 is out of my price range, and there is too much of a gap in range between the long end of the 18-55 (82.5mm) and the short end of the 100-300 (150mm)... Are you sure the 55-300 is out of your range? Don't forget it's now available in DAL 55-300 form (i.e. no lens hood, plastic mount), and you may well be able to pick one up fairly cheap. Of course the DA 50-200 will probably still be a bit cheaper, and it's a lovely small, lightweight lens - but be aware that it's not too hot at the 50mm end, and that different copies may vary in quality, so you'll need to thoroughly test any purchase. (Not to say that the 55-300 is immune from this, of course.)

03-01-2011, 02:46 AM	#18
NiftyFifty Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: South Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 164 Original Poster	Originally posted by m42man Are you sure the 55-300 is out of your range? Don't forget it's now available in DAL 55-300 form (i.e. no lens hood, plastic mount), and you may well be able to pick one up fairly cheap. Of course the DA 50-200 will probably still be a bit cheaper, and it's a lovely small, lightweight lens - but be aware that it's not too hot at the 50mm end, and that different copies may vary in quality, so you'll need to thoroughly test any purchase. (Not to say that the 55-300 is immune from this, of course.) I think I read that DAL version yesterday, but didn't remember. Thanks! I'll look into it. Just off the top of your head, as far as there being no lens hood would one of those collapsible rubber hoods work? Are there any 3rd party hoods that will work on it? If I bought the 50-200, I'd be using it for longer range shots. I have the 18-55 AL II and a 50 f1.7 that can handle the 50mm range.

03-01-2011, 03:29 AM - 1 Like	#19
sunny16 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Maryland, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 309	I have to put in a second vote for the DA 16-45mm as an upgrade to the 18-55mm. I wouldn't want to over-sell it, but I really noticed a difference when I made this upgrade. I think I paid $240 for it used. Good luck!

03-01-2011, 03:50 AM - 1 Like	#20
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	There is the Tamron/Pentax 18-250mm which is well regarded. Discontinued though, but should be reasonably easy to find second hand. The word is Pentax licensed the design from Tamron so both offerhings should be very similar.

03-01-2011, 04:23 AM	#21
NiftyFifty Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: South Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 164 Original Poster	Originally posted by sunny16 I have to put in a second vote for the DA 16-45mm as an upgrade to the 18-55mm. I wouldn't want to over-sell it, but I really noticed a difference when I made this upgrade. I think I paid $240 for it used. Good luck! Originally posted by jolepp There is the Tamron/Pentax 18-250mm which is well regarded. Discontinued though, but should be reasonably easy to find second hand. The word is Pentax licensed the design from Tamron so both offerhings should be very similar. Thanks!

03-02-2011, 02:29 AM	#23
m42man Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 623	Originally posted by NiftyFifty I think I read that DAL version yesterday, but didn't remember. Thanks! I'll look into it. Just off the top of your head, as far as there being no lens hood would one of those collapsible rubber hoods work? Are there any 3rd party hoods that will work on it? I don't think the lack of lens hood is such a big deal at all (it's just a way of Pentax differentiating their product for different market sectors). By all means find a third-party hood!

03-02-2011, 05:30 AM - 1 Like	#24
atupdate Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dayton, OH Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,724	Originally posted by NiftyFifty I think I read that DAL version yesterday, but didn't remember. Thanks! I'll look into it. Just off the top of your head, as far as there being no lens hood would one of those collapsible rubber hoods work? Are there any 3rd party hoods that will work on it? If I bought the 50-200, I'd be using it for longer range shots. I have the 18-55 AL II and a 50 f1.7 that can handle the 50mm range. I don't think you will find a better, light weight, auto focus zoom for under $100 then a used DA 50-200mm from the marketplace. Paired with the DA 18-55, this combo has been my main kit since 2005. All but two of my PPG and Exclusive Gallery images were taken with one of these two lenses. But, and you knew there had to be one, these lenses are not as sharp or contrasty as the better glass that people in this forum tend to crave. To counter this, a little work in post processing is often needed. I am always willing to help someone upgrade their post processing skills when asked (heck, I've been known to do the asking when someone seems open to the idea of PP tutoring). Tim

03-02-2011, 06:36 AM	#25
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Originally posted by NiftyFifty 18-55 (82.5mm) Careful with that. A 55 mm lens remains a 55 mm lens. The field of view is the only thing that changes. Originally posted by NiftyFifty The Sigma 17-70 is out. Photography is my hobby, not my livelihood. Good grief. It's my hobby too and I never regreetted purchasing the Siggy. You can find it used, from time to time, for around 280$ here on the marketplace. If you want an improvement in IQ, without paying too much, on that range it's probably either the Siggy or a used DA 16-45. The DA has a wider end, but the Siggy has close focusing, a longer range, is faster at most apertures, and is regarded as an excellent all-around lens. It's actually a steal at the price it sells. Happy shopping!

03-02-2011, 06:32 PM	#27
NiftyFifty Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: South Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 164 Original Poster	Originally posted by Chex Yeah I'm REALLY hoping the lens will be here in the next few days along with my 50mm f1.4. I was checking out a few others (I frequent photozone.de for many lens reviews). According to them the sigma 17-70 is also a pretty decent standard zoom lens, I would prefer the tamron due to it also being able to shoot macro, but thats just my preference. Did you get your lens yet?

03-02-2011, 07:31 PM	#28
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	Not yet... its driving me mad, in another thread I'm looking at pics from the lens and seeing how bad its distortion is and wondering if I really want it! barrel at 18mm and noticeable pincushion from 31-135mm... Maybe I'll send it back and get a 100mm WR macro instead. I'm interested to see how much the K-5's distortion correction could help the lens, but it would be better to not need to use it, for the price the lens shouldn't distort THAT much.

03-02-2011, 07:40 PM	#30
NiftyFifty Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: South Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 164 Original Poster	Originally posted by Chex Not yet... its driving me mad, in another thread I'm looking at pics from the lens and seeing how bad its distortion is and wondering if I really want it! barrel at 18mm and noticeable pincushion from 31-135mm... Maybe I'll send it back and get a 100mm WR macro instead. I'm interested to see how much the K-5's distortion correction could help the lens, but it would be better to not need to use it, for the price the lens shouldn't distort THAT much. Wow. I can imagine that it would be really disappointing if the K-5's distortion correction couldn't get you passable images, because it sounds like this is a pricey lens. Expensive stuff that turns out not to live up to its hype tees me off, LOL. If the K-5 makes a good enough difference where you could easily take care of the rest of the distortions in PP, would you keep it? Or, would you just send it back and go for the macro? Don't forget to keep us posted. You are going to start your own thread with your test shots, etc, right?