Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-05-2011, 11:37 PM   #16
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by sany Quote
Will buying a tammy 28-75mm make my 35mm f2.4 a duplicate? or still 35mm need to exist. Similarly will there be still a requirement for an 85mm f1.4 vivitar asper my original plan?

thanks
if you'll get the 28-75, the DAL35 will become obsolete, unless if you need something small for travel purposes. but if the size of the 28-75 is not an issue for you, then you might as well get rid of the DAL35. the 75mm focal length will do just as much as the 85mm focal length. the only major difference is if you need something faster or renders a really shallow DOF. I wouldn't necessarily recommend an 85/1.4 unless you are really into shallow DOF portraits or looking for an specific lens rendering. lastly, I would advice you to get a Pentax DA55-300 if you're looking for a mid-long zoom. best bang for your buck.

06-06-2011, 03:48 AM   #17
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
A cost effective zoom for the Pentax is the DA (L) 55-300mm. It has a good combination of image quality, size, features, weight, and cost.

The DA(L) 55-300mm combined with a Raynox DCR 150 close-up lens covers a huge range of hand-held photo possibilities from high magnification macros to distant wildlife.

The L version of the 55-300 lacks quick shift (ie. instant manual focus ability) - while a nice feature it is not essential.

I also carry the Tamron 28-75; if I could only have one of them it would be the 55-300 plus Raynox.

The high speed capability of your k-x eases the requirement for fast lenses a bit so the 35 & 85 are less essential to your kit except for shallow Depth of Field.

Last edited by newarts; 06-06-2011 at 03:53 AM.
06-06-2011, 08:55 AM   #18
Veteran Member
raymeedc's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 951
Another vote for the 55-300 DAL. I just recently picked one up to replace an upscale DA version (almost twice the price for exactly the same IQ) that I had regrettably traded for another lens a couple of years ago. Definitely one of the very best lens bargains out there (picked mine up new for $199, plus the obligatory $8 Chinese knockoff hood).
06-06-2011, 01:35 PM   #19
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,696
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
if you'll get the 28-75, the DAL35 will become obsolete, unless if you need something small for travel purposes.
Yeah, this is basically true. Even still, I've opted for both because they'll be used for different purposes. DA 35 for a compact point & shoot and video lens on the K-x for a lightweight kit, and the Tamron 28-75 as the events photography workhorse. They then aren't so obsolete, unless you don't care about the size & weight of the 28-75 - it can become cumbersome for my wife to have it around her neck for an extended time, so I can justify the DA 35 by saying that I'm caring for her welfare.

Also if my kids wanted to try their hand at taking photos, they can do so with the 35 with no problems.

06-06-2011, 02:59 PM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 149
After hearing all the positivity, I've ordered a 55-300mm DA. I'll have it on thursday.
06-06-2011, 04:14 PM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ramseybuckeye's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Elida, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,680
QuoteOriginally posted by napawino Quote
After hearing all the positivity, I've ordered a 55-300mm DA. I'll have it on thursday.
You'll love it. And the quickshift feature may not be for everyone, I can focus faster with it and then use AF. The AF is a little noisy, so that quickshift helps when you need to be quiet.
06-06-2011, 04:44 PM   #22
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
I have the FA50/1.4 and an incoming DA35/2.4 but also have a Quantaray 28-90 Macro lens. Each does something different. The nicest part about the 28-90 is that it does Macro and cost me around $30. I have several M lenses but am finding that with my eyesight these days AF is more important........

I think the decision really boils down to what you want out of a lens or lenses and how much (isn't that always a factor?) you want to spend.
06-06-2011, 08:30 PM   #23
Veteran Member
sany's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Dubai, UAE
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 428
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
....
I think the decision really boils down to what you want out of a lens or lenses and how much (isn't that always a factor?) you want to spend.
This is exactly why I wanted either keep one of them from the point of spending and dont want one to be a dead investment. I can atleast use the same money with some additional saving to go into a better option.
I am seeing mixed opinions, Some 35mm fans tend to keep both this and the 28-75 and some say 35mm will fair marginally than the 28-75 and some are 100% confident that keeping both will make 35mm redundant. So really, I guess I have to decide whether i can keep that investment dead (still use the 35mm when needed-we will start to know how it performs in certain department over the other from personal experience only) and go for a new almoost double the money spent on 35mm and acquire 28-75mm.

If I individually see the 28-75 lens review people are also mentioning it is not so great in low light and in particular if you see the lens review database, the last review says 'don't be carried away by the f2.8 number' so i am still going to wait and decide as my head is spinning still and will wait for it to stop.

06-06-2011, 08:50 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Even if it's only f/3.2 or whatever, that's still a heck of a lot better than f/5.6.
06-06-2011, 09:22 PM   #25
Veteran Member
sany's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Dubai, UAE
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 428
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Depends if at some point you decide you don't like the size of the 28-75. If I had that, there wouldn't be room in my bag for much else, and yet I can carry five primes comfortably.
Marc, on a different note even 90mm and 100mm primes are almost as big as 28-75!!
06-06-2011, 09:34 PM   #26
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,696
You'll have to expect that, sany.
Macros are different by design - the DA 35 macro is uniquely small, though.
Zooms are also rarely smaller than non-macro primes. The smallest zoom you'll find thesedays is the 18-55 - even that isn't small compared to the DA ltds for example.
06-07-2011, 08:33 AM   #27
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by sany Quote
Marc, on a different note even 90mm and 100mm primes are almost as big as 28-75!!
My Vivitar-Komine 90/2.8 macro is indeed huge.
My SuperTak 105/2.8 is much much smaller.
My Enna Tele-Sandmar 100/4.5 is tiny, half the size of a SuperTak 55/1.8.
I haven't fingered any 90-100mm AF primes, but many MFL's are smaller.
06-07-2011, 08:52 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by sany Quote
Marc, on a different note even 90mm and 100mm primes are almost as big as 28-75!!
Depends on the prime, I guess. My M100, M120, and M135 primes are all considerably smaller than the 28-75 - and only half the weight.
06-08-2011, 07:59 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Ikarus's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 471
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
Good cheap fast zooms don't exist, period. Especially not A-type or AF. Especially not over 50mm. At least, I haven't found any, and I've searched extensively.

* My cheapest good fairly-fast zooms are both M42, so no auto-aperture. (Sears-Tokina 55-135/3.5; Vivitar-Kiron Series 1 70-210/3.5.)
The Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm 1:2.8-4.0 (version 3 by Komine) can be had in A-mount. I lucked out getting mine for well under 100$ and like it a lot.
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!
aperture, indoors, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, performance, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
reproductions with 645D what macro lens in mid range gkb Pentax Medium Format 21 06-04-2011 06:35 PM
Budget mid range zoom ~ 28-105mm tim_kayak Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 03-20-2011 03:08 PM
Pentax 18-135 Lens Focus through Zoom Range nstocke Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 02-06-2011 10:47 AM
Rambling mid-range zoom comments pacerr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 10-17-2010 08:25 PM
Suggestions for a Wide Range Zoom Lens Needed Tamia Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 08-17-2010 05:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 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