Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-05-2011, 07:52 AM - 1 Like   #46
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,670
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lurch Quote
As a person who...well, doesn't like kids much - I *really* like your shots here.
There is a certain vibrancy and life to them.
Yeah, kids can be pretty annoying sometimes. But I've found that they more than make up for it with the happiness they bring during the good moments. And I've heard them described as an insurance policy for happiness in later life.

And although they did cost me one hobby (RIP my Yamaha YZF600R and Triumph Daytona 600), I never would have picked up photography as a hobby without them. They grow up so fast, so I'm trying to preserve these precious early years as well as I can, and beautiful photography seems like a good way to do that. And I must say, I get much more enjoyment and satisfaction out of my photography hobby than I ever did from my motorcycles. And it's a lot cheaper (and safer) too! Who knows, maybe someday when they leave the nest, I'll combine the two hobbies.

Yes, eBay would probably be your best bet for finding a used 28-75mm. But I recently saw one advertised here locally in Indianapolis on Craigslist in K-mount for $275, so you should keep an eye out there. (Although I just checked out the Canberra Craigslist page and it seems rather...barren).

Used copies on eBay generally go for $300 - $350...sometimes a little less, sometimes a little more. There's no used copies on eBay right now. The cheapest new one is from Japan for $449 US plus $20 shipping (to Australia). If you're wanting to get a deal on a used copy, you can setup a "saved search" on eBay and eBay will email you one is listed.

06-05-2011, 09:06 AM   #47
Veteran Member
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
On the assumption that one wants one zoom for most usage and a small prime to extend the one is worried about, I would actually think either 28-75 + 15 *or* 17-50 + 70 would work out more or less equally well depending on your needs, but I'd probably lean toward the former.
06-05-2011, 01:49 PM - 3 Likes   #48
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
I certainly did read your post. But I still don't think it's an apples-to-apples comparison to compare vignetting of the 28-75mm on FF to the 17-50mm on APS-C, when we're only talking about APS-C cameras.

Since Pentax doesn't even make a full-frame DSLR, I really fail to see the value of comparing the 28-75mm on a theoretical full-frame sensor versus the 17-50mm on an APS-C sensor. Why would that matter to any Pentax DSLR user trying to decide on a lens? Taken as a whole, your post kind of seems to dismiss the vignetting advantage of the 28-75mm. You really should have included the APS-C numbers to paint the full picture.

The original purpose of this thread was to point out what a great value the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is for Pentax DSLR users. It really doesn't concern me whether a lens was originally designed for full-frame or APS-C. All that matters is how it works on my camera. And in regards to the current discussion, the bottom line is that a Pentax DSLR user will experience much less vignetting than with the 17-50mm.

But yes, I admit that everything you said was technically correct.


Edgar, since you are not clear about why I make certain points, I’ll try again. However, this time I’ll try a different route, so please do not take me as being curt--okay?

In a nutshell, you can not compare a wide-to-normal lens to a near-normal-to-short-telephoto lens and call that apples to apples--IT IS THAT SIMPLE!

Compromises go into wide angle design--compromises which affect performance in other areas, particularly vignetting. Let me give you a concrete example of why your illustration is not apples to apples. What are the vignetting numbers for the 28-75mm @ 17, 18, 19, 20 and so on MMs? There are none, because the 28-75mm is not apples to apples to 17-50mm--right? However, ironically for our discussion, there is a way to provide apples to apples for these 2 lenses because they each provide almost exactly the same focal range on their designed format--right? In other words, on their designed formats, each lens is a wide to normal lens--in other words, on their respective formats, the lenses are apples to apples. ta----daaaaaaaa.

Natural vignetting is unduly affected by wide angle lenses. Again, Natural vignetting is unduly affected by wide angle lenses. Conversely, Natural vignetting is not unduly affected by normal lenses. Is this helping?

If you want apples to apples, place each lens on their intended mounts and look at the vignetting numbers. The reason I did not provide vignetting numbers for the 28-75 on APS-c is because those numbers have no place in this discussion. Now, once again, the reason I got into this discussion is because you wrote something which is not accurate. Here it is again:

QuoteQuote:
Edgar in Indy: The only real optical weakness I noticed with the 17-50mm was noticeable vignetting in certain situations. But this is typical for lenses designed for APS-C, as opposed to lenses designed for full-frame (such as the 28-75mm).
Am I more clear in this post? The vignette performance of the 17-50 is not a weakness; rather, it is an inherent result of designing a lens from wide to normal--. Also, and again, this is NOT, as you say, “typical for lenses designed for APS-C as opposed to lenses designed for full frame (such as the 28-75mm).” In fact, vignetting is much more typical of lenses designed for full frame. PERIOD!!!!!

Okay, sure, you have a purpose in this thread. You wish to explain the awesome nature of the 28-75. I too bought a 28-75mm Tamron, because I knew it was great value. I too wish to relay its awesome nature here in this thread--but I will not make unfounded claims for its performance---this is our point of departure. You started the thread, this does not license you to censor or dogmatize its content. Okay, I am finished--will not return to this thread now because I have done all time will allow me to do. Best of luck to you.
06-05-2011, 02:47 PM - 1 Like   #49
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,670
Original Poster
Okay JewelTrail, whatever.

06-05-2011, 03:26 PM   #50
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,395
What Jewel says makes sense.

One of the advantages of ASP-C lenses is that they require less glass, therefore, the equivalent lens design might be the same price, but of higher quality, than a lens design for FF which achieves the same basic purposes.

Vingetting is not exactly a major concern anymore with the advent of digital. I personally prefer the focal lengths of 28mm - 75mm, so I would imagine I would prefer this lens as well. However, on a technical level I'm not so sure one would be *much* better than the other.
06-05-2011, 07:14 PM   #51
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,670
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
What Jewel says makes sense.
Of course it makes sense. It's just not relevant when we're only talking about using the lens on an APS-C camera.
06-07-2011, 03:23 PM   #52
Senior Member
taiweitai's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: HI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 168
very nice pictures !
06-07-2011, 06:44 PM   #53
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Antioch, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 197
Reading this thread makes me want this lens even more :X

06-07-2011, 06:46 PM   #54
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by SirJangly Quote
Reading this thread makes me want this lens even more :X
It should, it's a truly fantastic lens (and well utilized by the OP with those great shots )
06-07-2011, 08:27 PM   #55
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 593
I used to have a version of this lens back in my Canon days and it's FABULOUS. I annoyed more than a few "L" users with the idea you could come at least close to the quality of it's much more expensive Canon version at a much cheaper price. Reviews across the net back that up. And your photos here are absolutely fantastic! You've put the jewel to good use.
06-08-2011, 12:24 AM   #56
Senior Member
akanarya's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Çankırı, Turkey
Posts: 210
great photos Edgar,
i own a one also, but your shots are realy stunning.

what do you do for wide?
06-08-2011, 06:43 AM   #57
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,670
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by akanarya Quote
great photos Edgar,
i own a one also, but your shots are realy stunning.

what do you do for wide?
Thanks, I really enjoyed making them.

To be honest, I almost never shoot wide. I kept my 18-55mm kit lens and used that whenever I knew I would be shooting in tight quarters.

I only started learning photography a little more than two years ago when I bought my first DSLR, an Olympus e-510, so I'm still figuring things out. I thought that a wide angle was basically just for shooting landscapes or in enclosed spaces, and since I mostly shoot people I didn't think I would have much use for a wide angle. But now that I've seen how people on here use wide angles to get all kinds of unique shots, including portraits, I've changed my mind.

I recently picked up a Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 for next-to-nothing on Craigslist, and I took it with me for the first time on a recent family excursion to the library. The library was having a "slumber party" for stuffed animals, so the kids left their stuffed animals at the library overnight. I was really happy with some of the photos I got using a wide angle.

I used the 17mm to get a shot of my daughter's teddy bear laying in the sleeping bag while my 2-yoa daughter can be seen walking away in the background (in turquoise pajamas). Later, when we stopped at Steak & Shake, I used the 17mm to get a picture of her coloring on the kid's place mat.

I liked the effect that the wide angle gave, so I'm now shopping for an ultra-wide zoom. I'm probably going to go with the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6, but I haven't completely made up my mind yet.



06-09-2011, 12:10 AM   #58
Senior Member
akanarya's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Çankırı, Turkey
Posts: 210
you are right, wide can give more space and this leads to more depth in scene.
hence, all focals have their own impacts if learned properly.
now you opened my mind again for wide, thx.
may be you should also consider pentax 12-24. it looks better than sigma.
06-09-2011, 01:09 PM   #59
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,578
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
Edgar, since you are not clear about why I make certain points, I’ll try again. However, this time I’ll try a different route, so please do not take me as being curt--okay?

In a nutshell, you can not compare a wide-to-normal lens to a near-normal-to-short-telephoto lens and call that apples to apples--IT IS THAT SIMPLE!

Compromises go into wide angle design--compromises which affect performance in other areas, particularly vignetting. Let me give you a concrete example of why your illustration is not apples to apples. What are the vignetting numbers for the 28-75mm @ 17, 18, 19, 20 and so on MMs? There are none, because the 28-75mm is not apples to apples to 17-50mm--right? However, ironically for our discussion, there is a way to provide apples to apples for these 2 lenses because they each provide almost exactly the same focal range on their designed format--right? In other words, on their designed formats, each lens is a wide to normal lens--in other words, on their respective formats, the lenses are apples to apples. ta----daaaaaaaa.

Natural vignetting is unduly affected by wide angle lenses. Again, Natural vignetting is unduly affected by wide angle lenses. Conversely, Natural vignetting is not unduly affected by normal lenses. Is this helping?

If you want apples to apples, place each lens on their intended mounts and look at the vignetting numbers. The reason I did not provide vignetting numbers for the 28-75 on APS-c is because those numbers have no place in this discussion. Now, once again, the reason I got into this discussion is because you wrote something which is not accurate. Here it is again:



Am I more clear in this post? The vignette performance of the 17-50 is not a weakness; rather, it is an inherent result of designing a lens from wide to normal--. Also, and again, this is NOT, as you say, “typical for lenses designed for APS-C as opposed to lenses designed for full frame (such as the 28-75mm).” In fact, vignetting is much more typical of lenses designed for full frame. PERIOD!!!!!

Okay, sure, you have a purpose in this thread. You wish to explain the awesome nature of the 28-75. I too bought a 28-75mm Tamron, because I knew it was great value. I too wish to relay its awesome nature here in this thread--but I will not make unfounded claims for its performance---this is our point of departure. You started the thread, this does not license you to censor or dogmatize its content. Okay, I am finished--will not return to this thread now because I have done all time will allow me to do. Best of luck to you.
I have to disagree. When you shoot a 35mm compatible lens on APS-C, it doesn't matter the focal length, the vignetting gets better. The issue is not the focal length at all, it is just the simple reality that the vignetted areas get cropped out.

Pentax doesn't have any really wide angle lenses that are full frame compatible, but for example, the Nikon 14-24 has less vignetting on APS-C than on 35mm, as you would expect.
06-30-2011, 10:38 PM   #60
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Berkeley, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 81
Hi Edgar, wanted to let you know that after a year of thinking about it, I finally bought the 28-75! I went ahead and got it new with the warranty instead of used as I had originally planned. Hope it is not a lemon. Your children shots helped inspire me, and watching my kids grow so quick I finally realized that I cant wait for ever and I went for it! Will upload some photos when it comes.

Incidently Tameron just came out with a new lens 18-200 which is very compact. That really covers everything in one lens! When I saw that at the store it threw me off, but it is only goes to 3.5 f stop, and I want the 2.8 speed so I continued as planned.
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!
couple, ebay, f/2.8, images, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, photos, pictures, slr lens, tamron, tamron 28-75mm
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 not as fast (bright) as Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 on Pentax K-x, PICS Edgar_in_Indy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 38 01-10-2011 04:09 PM
Fun to take pics with a kit lens again (Beware lots of pics) dsport Post Your Photos! 16 11-19-2008 06:56 AM
Sigma 100-300 f/4 w/ Tamron MC7 TC test pics OrenMc Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 06-15-2008 10:14 PM
LBA Tamron 70-300 pics C&C welcome gokenin Post Your Photos! 4 01-25-2008 08:30 AM
Sample pics of Tamron 70-300 DI cruiserlan2000 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 03-23-2007 08:36 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:28 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