What is your "Walking Around Lens?"

O-ring · 07-02-2011, 06:20 PM

Addendum: Used to be the legendary Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 on K2000 and K-x but somehow on my copy of K5 it produces "bland" images. If you have K5, make sure you try it before bying. Tamron 10-24mm is extremely good on K5, the images are brighter than with SMC Pentax lenses, need -2/3 units compensation

arimage · 07-03-2011, 07:05 AM

This question is targeted to the "seasoned photographers"

I am interested in the Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG IF Macro Aspherical.
About Me:
*Pentax K-7
*I like to shoot macro to long distance wild life

Could someone tell me the pros/cons of this lens?
and
What would be a comparable/more suitable (if so) lens is out there that I should consider.

Thanks a BUNCH!
~angie

gp1806 · 07-03-2011, 07:29 AM

I like the DA 21 or the DA 40 for a small kit, but I use the DA 18-250 too. Depends on how I feel at the time.

normhead · 07-03-2011, 07:33 AM - **1 Like**

If you spend a lot of time in nature, you have two very different issues. Wildlife, requiring long focal lengths, and landscapes, requiring the best glass you can get your hands on. There simply isn't one lens for the job. I wish there was.

If you're like me and a lot of the time you are out in not so special light.. a kit lens or 18-135 is fine.. but the 18-135 is heavy...

For times when the light is special and there is a lot going on...those lenses are not good enough.

What is your "Walking Around Lens?"

For walking around where? Long lenses get real heavy if you're walking a long way.. my DA21 probably gets the nod as the only lens I'd carry around for a day.. and on my K-x not my K20D..but really, walking around all day.. I just take my Optio W90, I put it in the thigh pocket of my pants..most of the time I don't know it's there. But it's there when I want it.

eddie1960 · 07-03-2011, 07:36 AM

Used to be my sigma 24-70 2.8
Lately i have a walk around kiy
Da14
M 28 3.5
M50 1.7
M100 2.8

Though the 14 stays home a lot

The 28 is the best for street shots wher i tend to shoot 5.6-8 anyway
The 50 comes out when the sun goes down and i need the speed or for portraits

M42 walkaround is my lentar 21 and a 55 1.8 Usually on film

arimage · 07-03-2011, 07:50 AM

Normhead, I don't really have what I call a walk around lens. I have been carrying my 18-55mm kit lens along with a 80-200mm. I would prefer one with more range. I am so random LOL I will want to take a photo of my children, turn and capture a macro shot of a spider then aim for a bird in a tree.

arimage · 07-03-2011, 08:08 AM

I have heard about lenses being "piggy-backed". How does that work? and what are the pros/cons of doing that verses carrying separate lenses?

JeffJS · 07-03-2011, 08:53 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by arimage

Normhead, I don't really have what I call a walk around lens. I have been carrying my 18-55mm kit lens along with a 80-200mm. I would prefer one with more range. I am so random LOL I will want to take a photo of my children, turn and capture a macro shot of a spider then aim for a bird in a tree.

Originally posted by arimage

I have heard about lenses being "piggy-backed". How does that work? and what are the pros/cons of doing that verses carrying separate lenses?

Lenses like the Sigma you show are a crapshoot. They tend to be good at some things and poor at others. For instance, most lenses that will do Close Focusing (many call it macro but it isn't really) will get you a decent spider shot. Where these lenses usually fail, in my experience, is at or near the extreme ends. Even your 18-55 kit lens has its sweet spot which on mine was around 24mm. If it's range you want and depending on your budget, you may want to look into the DA 55-300 (200 has never been enough for me either). If you want arms like Popeye and have the cash to spend, the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) which is about a 6 pound lens. Couple either one of those with a nice 16(ish) to 50 and you'll be good to go for most things. The bigma is probably a bit extreme. If budget is a concern, the Tamron Di LD 70-300 is a decent lens for most things. It too has its issues but nothing that cannot be overcome with a little added work.

Piggybacking, you may be referring to using a second lens reverse mounted onto the front of another lens. You can purchase a ring that has two threads, like a filter except there is no glass and it has two male threads. You can then mount a second lens on to the front of your main lens, reversed. For the same pain in the butt that's going to turn into on the fly (take a macro of the spider then turn around for a kiddie shot), you can also buy a reversing k mount adapter. This will screw on to the front of your lens and can stay there. When you want to go Macro, simply flip the lens around and take your photo. This will only work with lenses that have an aperture ring however (as I suspect your 80-200 has). There are 1000s of ways to do macro photography but if you want to get your feet wet with it, that's the least expensive option.

RioRico · 07-03-2011, 09:25 AM

If I gargle for LENS OR LENSES PIGGYBACK OR PIGGY-BACK the hits are abouit 1) contact lenses and eyeballs and 2) the astro-photography technique of mounting camera+lens onto telescope. I don't think either is what is meant here.

Facing one lens to another for macro work is called STACKING or REVERSE STACKING. This can be done with a cheap male-male thread reversal ring, or just with gaffers tape. Magnification is the ratio of focal lengths of the on-camera lens (PRIMARY) to the reverse-stacked lens (SECONDARY). Thus reversing a 35mm secondary on a 105mm primary gives 105/35= 3x magnification. The primary aperture should be wide-open to avoid vignetting; the secondary should have an aperture ring, to control exposure.

A similar but simpler technique is REVERSAL or FLIPPING: just put a cheap mount-reversal ring onto the lens. Use it straight for general shooting; flip it to the reversed position for close-up work. Magnification comes from extension, not reversal; if the flipped lens has a shallow front inset, magnification will be low. So cheap macro tubes can be added to the reversal ring. These also function as a lens hood, eh? Anyway, flipping provides close sharp images.

With either type of reversal, working distance is REAL close, like ~45mm / 2in for primes. Reversed zooms will have variable working distance and magnification. My lousy A35-80 at 35mm gets 2x magnification at ~5cm working distance; at 80mm it reaches 0.5x at ~15cm, or will focus past infinity. And it is much sharper reversed!

Just for walking around, it's hard to beat a DA18-250 paired (as desired) with a Raynox DCR-250. Near or far, you've got it covered.

Lloydy · 07-03-2011, 03:42 PM

When I go walkabout, which is just about everyday now that I'm retired, I make sure I've got an old Vivitar Series1 24-48 f3.8 with me, it's just wonderful.

atupdate · 07-03-2011, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Facing one lens to another for macro work is called STACKING or REVERSE STACKING.

At B&H they are called Macro Couplers
General Brand 49mm TO 52mm Macro Coupler (Male to Male) AM4952

Here is a cheaper source and they are called Macro Reverse Ring
MASSA Male 49mm-52mm Macro Reverse Ring Reversing - DinoDirect.com

Tim

jane7l · 07-03-2011, 04:04 PM

used to be tamron 17-50. now is 31 ltd, but i always carry 15/31/77 ltd trio

lkjr · 07-04-2011, 07:27 AM

I have a K-X (my first DLSR) and 18-55, 55-300, Tam 28-75, and FA77. My "walk around lens" (WAL) has always been the 55-300. I almost never use the 18-55. When I was in Italy a few months ago i used the 55-300 -- 75%, 28-75 -- 10%, and my Lumix LX3 -- 15% for all the wide angle shots (it was easier to whip this little baby out than to change lenses).

I thought I would love the 28-75 when I got it and tried to use it as my WAL but always missed the long end. With the 55-300 I can get angled shots of architecture in a town street, candids of people [cause I'm far away], close ups of flowers or portraits with great bokeh, etc.

(Recently I spent the whole day with the 77 at a workshop meeting at a large dairy research complex. Most of the shots I took were of people and boy did I get some great shots! The place was enormous so I was even able to get group shots of 10-15 people listening to a live demo.)

I am sure that people "see" the world differently and this is what draws them to certain lens as their favorite WAL as well as the "conditions" and types of scenes they want to capture. It would be interesting to design some kind of study on this.
-----
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lkung/

normhead · 07-04-2011, 09:49 AM - **1 Like**

arimage

For macro, I have a Tamron 90 2.8 macro. Fairly light wieght, nice walkaround lens and good value for the money. Many times we are out with the 21 Ltd, FA 50 1.7 and Tamron 90 macro. That plus the DA 10-17 and DA*60-250 and all I need is a Tamron 200-500 in a Pentax mount.... and everything is covered... but I'd never walk around with all that stuff.

The thing is, when we look at our pictures, you can see where the 18-55 was taken off the camera and one of the other ones went on. The DA18-55 does have a sweet spot as mentioned, so maybe if I just welded it to that spot I'd like it more. I just find it inconsistent. Where as there is nothing inconsistent about the 21, the 50, or the 90 macro. You're going to get an image you're happy with if you get your framing , exposure and focus right.

**luftfluss** · 07-04-2011, 10:20 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by arimage

This question is targeted to the "seasoned photographers"

I am interested in the Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG IF Macro Aspherical.
About Me:
*Pentax K-7
*I like to shoot macro to long distance wild life

Could someone tell me the pros/cons of this lens?
and
What would be a comparable/more suitable (if so) lens is out there that I should consider.

Thanks a BUNCH!
~angie

As the saying goes, "it is what it is". Likely:

- slow AF
- soft wide open, significant distortion @ 28mm
- soft @ 300mm
- best range will probably be somewhere around 50-200mm
- will have significant CA and/or PF
- will produce sharper images stopped down
- pseudo-macro capability will be fun!

If you hate changing lenses and want to shoot a large variety of subjects, either this or an 18-250mm is what you'd get.

07-03-2011, 07:05 AM	#77
arimage Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Friendsville, TN Posts: 13	This question is targeted to the "seasoned photographers" I am interested in the Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG IF Macro Aspherical. About Me: Pentax K-7 I like to shoot macro to long distance wild life Could someone tell me the pros/cons of this lens? and What would be a comparable/more suitable (if so) lens is out there that I should consider. Thanks a BUNCH! ~angie Last edited by arimage; 07-03-2011 at 07:15 AM.

07-03-2011, 07:50 AM	#81
arimage Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Friendsville, TN Posts: 13	Normhead, I don't really have what I call a walk around lens. I have been carrying my 18-55mm kit lens along with a 80-200mm. I would prefer one with more range. I am so random LOL I will want to take a photo of my children, turn and capture a macro shot of a spider then aim for a bird in a tree. Last edited by arimage; 07-03-2011 at 08:05 AM.

07-03-2011, 08:53 AM - 1 Like	#83
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by arimage Normhead, I don't really have what I call a walk around lens. I have been carrying my 18-55mm kit lens along with a 80-200mm. I would prefer one with more range. I am so random LOL I will want to take a photo of my children, turn and capture a macro shot of a spider then aim for a bird in a tree. Originally posted by arimage I have heard about lenses being "piggy-backed". How does that work? and what are the pros/cons of doing that verses carrying separate lenses? Lenses like the Sigma you show are a crapshoot. They tend to be good at some things and poor at others. For instance, most lenses that will do Close Focusing (many call it macro but it isn't really) will get you a decent spider shot. Where these lenses usually fail, in my experience, is at or near the extreme ends. Even your 18-55 kit lens has its sweet spot which on mine was around 24mm. If it's range you want and depending on your budget, you may want to look into the DA 55-300 (200 has never been enough for me either). If you want arms like Popeye and have the cash to spend, the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) which is about a 6 pound lens. Couple either one of those with a nice 16(ish) to 50 and you'll be good to go for most things. The bigma is probably a bit extreme. If budget is a concern, the Tamron Di LD 70-300 is a decent lens for most things. It too has its issues but nothing that cannot be overcome with a little added work. Piggybacking, you may be referring to using a second lens reverse mounted onto the front of another lens. You can purchase a ring that has two threads, like a filter except there is no glass and it has two male threads. You can then mount a second lens on to the front of your main lens, reversed. For the same pain in the butt that's going to turn into on the fly (take a macro of the spider then turn around for a kiddie shot), you can also buy a reversing k mount adapter. This will screw on to the front of your lens and can stay there. When you want to go Macro, simply flip the lens around and take your photo. This will only work with lenses that have an aperture ring however (as I suspect your 80-200 has). There are 1000s of ways to do macro photography but if you want to get your feet wet with it, that's the least expensive option. Last edited by JeffJS; 07-03-2011 at 08:59 AM.

07-04-2011, 07:27 AM	#88
lkjr Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 60	I have a K-X (my first DLSR) and 18-55, 55-300, Tam 28-75, and FA77. My "walk around lens" (WAL) has always been the 55-300. I almost never use the 18-55. When I was in Italy a few months ago i used the 55-300 -- 75%, 28-75 -- 10%, and my Lumix LX3 -- 15% for all the wide angle shots (it was easier to whip this little baby out than to change lenses). I thought I would love the 28-75 when I got it and tried to use it as my WAL but always missed the long end. With the 55-300 I can get angled shots of architecture in a town street, candids of people [cause I'm far away], close ups of flowers or portraits with great bokeh, etc. (Recently I spent the whole day with the 77 at a workshop meeting at a large dairy research complex. Most of the shots I took were of people and boy did I get some great shots! The place was enormous so I was even able to get group shots of 10-15 people listening to a live demo.) I am sure that people "see" the world differently and this is what draws them to certain lens as their favorite WAL as well as the "conditions" and types of scenes they want to capture. It would be interesting to design some kind of study on this. ----- http://www.flickr.com/photos/lkung/ Last edited by lkjr; 07-04-2011 at 07:32 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do custom "artistic" or even "funny" lens caps evenexist?	lovemehate	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	02-10-2016 09:10 AM
Which Zoom Lens? "Tamron AF 18-250mm", "Pentax-DA 18-250mm" or "Sigma 18-250mm"	hoomanshb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	07-30-2010 09:50 AM
K-mount Experts: How to convert a "KAF2" lens to "KF"?	panoguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	07-08-2010 05:20 PM
Pentax "A" lens and "F" 1.7X converter on K10d	yyyzzz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	07-09-2009 05:04 AM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM

07-02-2011, 06:20 PM	#76
O-ring Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Cincinnati, OH Photos: Gallery Posts: 7	Addendum: Used to be the legendary Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 on K2000 and K-x but somehow on my copy of K5 it produces "bland" images. If you have K5, make sure you try it before bying. Tamron 10-24mm is extremely good on K5, the images are brighter than with SMC Pentax lenses, need -2/3 units compensation

07-03-2011, 07:29 AM	#78
gp1806 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Chicago suburbs Photos: Albums Posts: 848	I like the DA 21 or the DA 40 for a small kit, but I use the DA 18-250 too. Depends on how I feel at the time.

07-03-2011, 07:33 AM - 1 Like	#79
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	If you spend a lot of time in nature, you have two very different issues. Wildlife, requiring long focal lengths, and landscapes, requiring the best glass you can get your hands on. There simply isn't one lens for the job. I wish there was. If you're like me and a lot of the time you are out in not so special light.. a kit lens or 18-135 is fine.. but the 18-135 is heavy... For times when the light is special and there is a lot going on...those lenses are not good enough. What is your "Walking Around Lens?" For walking around where? Long lenses get real heavy if you're walking a long way.. my DA21 probably gets the nod as the only lens I'd carry around for a day.. and on my K-x not my K20D..but really, walking around all day.. I just take my Optio W90, I put it in the thigh pocket of my pants..most of the time I don't know it's there. But it's there when I want it.

07-03-2011, 07:36 AM	#80
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Used to be my sigma 24-70 2.8 Lately i have a walk around kiy Da14 M 28 3.5 M50 1.7 M100 2.8 Though the 14 stays home a lot The 28 is the best for street shots wher i tend to shoot 5.6-8 anyway The 50 comes out when the sun goes down and i need the speed or for portraits M42 walkaround is my lentar 21 and a 55 1.8 Usually on film

07-03-2011, 08:08 AM	#82
arimage Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Friendsville, TN Posts: 13	I have heard about lenses being "piggy-backed". How does that work? and what are the pros/cons of doing that verses carrying separate lenses?

07-03-2011, 09:25 AM	#84
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	If I gargle for LENS OR LENSES PIGGYBACK OR PIGGY-BACK the hits are abouit 1) contact lenses and eyeballs and 2) the astro-photography technique of mounting camera+lens onto telescope. I don't think either is what is meant here. Facing one lens to another for macro work is called STACKING or REVERSE STACKING. This can be done with a cheap male-male thread reversal ring, or just with gaffers tape. Magnification is the ratio of focal lengths of the on-camera lens (PRIMARY) to the reverse-stacked lens (SECONDARY). Thus reversing a 35mm secondary on a 105mm primary gives 105/35= 3x magnification. The primary aperture should be wide-open to avoid vignetting; the secondary should have an aperture ring, to control exposure. A similar but simpler technique is REVERSAL or FLIPPING: just put a cheap mount-reversal ring onto the lens. Use it straight for general shooting; flip it to the reversed position for close-up work. Magnification comes from extension, not reversal; if the flipped lens has a shallow front inset, magnification will be low. So cheap macro tubes can be added to the reversal ring. These also function as a lens hood, eh? Anyway, flipping provides close sharp images. With either type of reversal, working distance is REAL close, like ~45mm / 2in for primes. Reversed zooms will have variable working distance and magnification. My lousy A35-80 at 35mm gets 2x magnification at ~5cm working distance; at 80mm it reaches 0.5x at ~15cm, or will focus past infinity. And it is much sharper reversed! Just for walking around, it's hard to beat a DA18-250 paired (as desired) with a Raynox DCR-250. Near or far, you've got it covered.

07-03-2011, 03:42 PM	#85
Lloydy Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Shropshire, UK Posts: 1,114	When I go walkabout, which is just about everyday now that I'm retired, I make sure I've got an old Vivitar Series1 24-48 f3.8 with me, it's just wonderful.

07-03-2011, 04:02 PM	#86
atupdate Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dayton, OH Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,723	Originally posted by RioRico Facing one lens to another for macro work is called STACKING or REVERSE STACKING. At B&H they are called Macro Couplers General Brand 49mm TO 52mm Macro Coupler (Male to Male) AM4952 Here is a cheaper source and they are called Macro Reverse Ring MASSA Male 49mm-52mm Macro Reverse Ring Reversing - DinoDirect.com Tim

07-03-2011, 04:04 PM	#87
jane7l Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: slovenia Posts: 57	used to be tamron 17-50. now is 31 ltd, but i always carry 15/31/77 ltd trio

07-04-2011, 09:49 AM - 1 Like	#89
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	arimage For macro, I have a Tamron 90 2.8 macro. Fairly light wieght, nice walkaround lens and good value for the money. Many times we are out with the 21 Ltd, FA 50 1.7 and Tamron 90 macro. That plus the DA 10-17 and DA*60-250 and all I need is a Tamron 200-500 in a Pentax mount.... and everything is covered... but I'd never walk around with all that stuff. The thing is, when we look at our pictures, you can see where the 18-55 was taken off the camera and one of the other ones went on. The DA18-55 does have a sweet spot as mentioned, so maybe if I just welded it to that spot I'd like it more. I just find it inconsistent. Where as there is nothing inconsistent about the 21, the 50, or the 90 macro. You're going to get an image you're happy with if you get your framing , exposure and focus right.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-04-2011, 10:20 AM - 1 Like	#90
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Originally posted by arimage This question is targeted to the "seasoned photographers" I am interested in the Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG IF Macro Aspherical. About Me: Pentax K-7 I like to shoot macro to long distance wild life Could someone tell me the pros/cons of this lens? and What would be a comparable/more suitable (if so) lens is out there that I should consider. Thanks a BUNCH! ~angie As the saying goes, "it is what it is". Likely: - slow AF - soft wide open, significant distortion @ 28mm - soft @ 300mm - best range will probably be somewhere around 50-200mm - will have significant CA and/or PF - will produce sharper images stopped down - pseudo-macro capability will be fun! If you hate changing lenses and want to shoot a large variety of subjects, either this or an 18-250mm is what you'd get.