Lens for K5

ron2352 · 10-04-2011, 11:36 PM

I was told for starting out with a new K5. For the type of photography I do. The 60mm-250mm is a good choice for telephoto and the 16mm-50mm would be good for wide angle. I am pretty much sold on the 16mm- 50mm. But would the 60mm-250mm be a good lens for wild life and photographing top fuel dragsters and funny cars? With an occasional air show? Also planning a trip to Costa Rica and the Phillippines. So will be doing a lot of parrots and wild life there. Plus going to tour Corrigador and other places in the P.I. If this sounds basic Iam still a novice.

hcc · 10-04-2011, 11:50 PM

The DA*60-250mm is a good professional grade lens. There is an alternative with the DA55-300mm, altough a kit lens, which it is well-liked by Pentaxians.

For birds and cars, both lenses will work well in daylight with the DA* lens beng WR. In low light, you will a lens with larger aperture (eg f2.8). An option could be the DA*200m f2.8. An excellent lens with WR (as all DA*), a superb IQ, and a large aperture. But not as flexible as the zoom lenses.

If you intend to shoot in rainy conditions, I woudl go for the DA* lenses to have a complete WR package with your K-5.

Food for thoughts...

excanonfd · 10-04-2011, 11:55 PM

For photographing dragsters and funny cars, I would think you would use 16-50 more than you would use 60-250. Shooting wildlife, if the critters that you shoot are the largish, furry kind, 60-250 should suffice but if the critters are smallish, feathered kind, no lens is long enough.

I am sure these lenses you've chosen are great lenses optically, but having been burnt with SDM failure, I wouldn't buy another Pentax lens with SDM motor ever again, but ymmv.

Thanks,

beales1986 · 10-05-2011, 12:11 AM

Would the DA**60-250mm f/4 be better or the 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM be beter?

sterretje · 10-05-2011, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by beales1986

Would the DA**60-250mm f/4 be better or the 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM be beter?

Are you hijacking the thread? Better for what and better from which perspective?

suncrimson · 10-05-2011, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by beales1986

Would the DA**60-250mm f/4 be better or the 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM be beter?

If you do wildlife in Africa safari I think the 50-500 is better, at lease keep you safe

For parrot or some kind of bird, the 60-250 is better imo

suncrimson · 10-05-2011, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by ron2352

I was told for starting out with a new K5. For the type of photography I do. The 60mm-250mm is a good choice for telephoto and the 16mm-50mm would be good for wide angle. I am pretty much sold on the 16mm- 50mm. But would the 60mm-250mm be a good lens for wild life and photographing top fuel dragsters and funny cars? With an occasional air show? Also planning a trip to Costa Rica and the Phillippines. So will be doing a lot of parrots and wild life there. Plus going to tour Corrigador and other places in the P.I. If this sounds basic Iam still a novice.

K5 + 16-50 + 60-250
You will have the best zoom set that Pentax can offer now.

The 60-250's Image quality is no problem, the only problem is the focal length, is it long enough? or you can except cropping?

beales1986 · 10-05-2011, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

Are you hijacking the thread? Better for what and better from which perspective?

nope, I just opened another door, I think that the 50-500 would be a better option than the 60-250, and is there some unwritten rule that says I can't reply with a good Question? that perhaps nobody thought about?

beales1986 · 10-05-2011, 11:01 AM

Sorry, and Better as in, Parrots are normally Very high up, and difficult to spot, I think the extra 250mm on the 500 would help allot, I travel often to the Amazonian Rain forest in Brazil, My wife is from there and I like to take pictures of the Wildlife there. The foliage is so dense that it is extremely difficult to spot a parrot unless you are using a long range lens. I have rented both the 60-250 and the 50-500 and I prefer the 50-500 for its versatility, especially at the long end. as well as with the combination with the 16-50 and the 50-500(FF) you still only missing about 10mm of length in between because of the FF Multiplier but that is no different than the 10mm you will loose between the end of the 16-50, and the beginning of the 60-250. and for 200$ more I think it definitively worth for the extra 250mm of focul length. especially because that the sigma 50-500 is a super quality lens.

RonHendriks1966 · 10-05-2011, 11:08 AM

Well the DA*60-250 is an excellent lens, so I can recommand it. No idea wheater it is long enough for your choices, but for some sports it is sufficient as long as your place to walk or stand is good enough.

RioRico · 10-05-2011, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by beales1986

as well as with the combination with the 16-50 and the 50-500(FF) you still only missing about 10mm of length in between because of the FF Multiplier but that is no different than the 10mm you will loose between the end of the 16-50, and the beginning of the 60-250.

There is no "FF Multiplier". A lens keeps its focal length no matter what camera it sits on. A smaller frame (film or digital) merely sees less of the projected image. When I first put a 400mm lens onto a 35mm half-frame (135/HF) Olympus Pen-FT, whose frame is about the same size as an APS-C sensor, I thought, OH BOY! IT'S LIKE A 600MM LENS! But it wasn't. It was just a 400mm lens with the image edges cut off.

On any camera, there is a 10mm gap between 16-50 and 60-whatever lenses. I happen to hate that gap. Even if the twin-lens set were 16-50 and 50-500, I would still hate the pair. That is because I shoot a lot around 50mm, and swapping lenses there is a pain. I have an 18-55 and 60-300 pair that I don't use together, just for that reason. A cheap solution is to add a F35-70 to fill-in that very useful focal-length range.

sterretje · 10-05-2011, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by beales1986

nope, I just opened another door, I think that the 50-500 would be a better option than the 60-250, and is there some unwritten rule that says I can't reply with a good Question? that perhaps nobody thought about?

Fair enough. As it was combined with a question, I suspected thread hijacking.

Originally posted by beales1986

Sorry, and Better as in, Parrots are normally Very high up, and difficult to spot, I think the extra 250mm on the 500 would help allot, I travel often to the Amazonian Rain forest in Brazil, My wife is from there and I like to take pictures of the Wildlife there. The foliage is so dense that it is extremely difficult to spot a parrot unless you are using a long range lens. I have rented both the 60-250 and the 50-500 and I prefer the 50-500 for its versatility, especially at the long end. as well as with the combination with the 16-50 and the 50-500(FF) you still only missing about 10mm of length in between because of the FF Multiplier but that is no different than the 10mm you will loose between the end of the 16-50, and the beginning of the 60-250. and for 200$ more I think it definitively worth for the extra 250mm of focul length. especially because that the sigma 50-500 is a super quality lens.

True; 500mm gives a lot more range. I can't judge the quality as I don't have either.

By the way, I think that the gap between 50 and 60 is only psychological (no offense intended to anybody). When I was shooting film, I did not feel that there was a gap between 28 (wide angle prime) and 50 (standard prime) and between 50 (standard prime) and 70 (beginning of telezoom).

rvannatta · 10-05-2011, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by ron2352

I was told for starting out with a new K5. For the type of photography I do. The 60mm-250mm is a good choice for telephoto and the 16mm-50mm would be good for wide angle. I am pretty much sold on the 16mm- 50mm. But would the 60mm-250mm be a good lens for wild life and photographing top fuel dragsters and funny cars? With an occasional air show? Also planning a trip to Costa Rica and the Phillippines. So will be doing a lot of parrots and wild life there. Plus going to tour Corrigador and other places in the P.I. If this sounds basic Iam still a novice.

I've owned the 16-50 since they first came out. It's my walking around lense
and has much to be said in favor of it. It took some getting use to, but
I wouldn't be without it.

Except for Macro, and long shots, it's what I use even though I have a box
of other lenses.

On the long side, life is full of compromises. Your choice is a good one in the abstract, but nothing is perfect. If the lighting is bad, a real fast prime
is to be preferred. If it's real small and a long ways off, long lenses are never too long unless the lighting is bad, and then maybe speed is more important
than focal length.

You gotta pick your medicine go wih it, but your choice is reasonable. I own
the 60-250 --- and its good from a quality standpoint.

10-04-2011, 11:36 PM	#1
ron2352 New Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 6	Lens for K5 I was told for starting out with a new K5. For the type of photography I do. The 60mm-250mm is a good choice for telephoto and the 16mm-50mm would be good for wide angle. I am pretty much sold on the 16mm- 50mm. But would the 60mm-250mm be a good lens for wild life and photographing top fuel dragsters and funny cars? With an occasional air show? Also planning a trip to Costa Rica and the Phillippines. So will be doing a lot of parrots and wild life there. Plus going to tour Corrigador and other places in the P.I. If this sounds basic Iam still a novice.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Keep K-x buy premium lens, get K-r and get good lens, get the K-7 w/ lens or K-5?	crossover37	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	02-06-2011 10:38 PM

10-04-2011, 11:50 PM	#2
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,004	The DA60-250mm is a good professional grade lens. There is an alternative with the DA55-300mm, altough a kit lens, which it is well-liked by Pentaxians. For birds and cars, both lenses will work well in daylight with the DA lens beng WR. In low light, you will a lens with larger aperture (eg f2.8). An option could be the DA200m f2.8. An excellent lens with WR (as all DA), a superb IQ, and a large aperture. But not as flexible as the zoom lenses. If you intend to shoot in rainy conditions, I woudl go for the DA* lenses to have a complete WR package with your K-5. Food for thoughts...

10-04-2011, 11:55 PM	#3
excanonfd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 1,421	For photographing dragsters and funny cars, I would think you would use 16-50 more than you would use 60-250. Shooting wildlife, if the critters that you shoot are the largish, furry kind, 60-250 should suffice but if the critters are smallish, feathered kind, no lens is long enough. I am sure these lenses you've chosen are great lenses optically, but having been burnt with SDM failure, I wouldn't buy another Pentax lens with SDM motor ever again, but ymmv. Thanks,

10-05-2011, 12:11 AM	#4
beales1986 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Victoria B.C. Photos: Albums Posts: 59	Would the DA**60-250mm f/4 be better or the 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM be beter?

10-05-2011, 01:04 AM	#5
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by beales1986 Would the DA**60-250mm f/4 be better or the 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM be beter? Are you hijacking the thread? Better for what and better from which perspective?

10-05-2011, 01:19 AM	#6
suncrimson Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Beijing Photos: Albums Posts: 52	Originally posted by beales1986 Would the DA**60-250mm f/4 be better or the 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM be beter? If you do wildlife in Africa safari I think the 50-500 is better, at lease keep you safe For parrot or some kind of bird, the 60-250 is better imo

10-05-2011, 01:24 AM	#7
suncrimson Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Beijing Photos: Albums Posts: 52	Originally posted by ron2352 I was told for starting out with a new K5. For the type of photography I do. The 60mm-250mm is a good choice for telephoto and the 16mm-50mm would be good for wide angle. I am pretty much sold on the 16mm- 50mm. But would the 60mm-250mm be a good lens for wild life and photographing top fuel dragsters and funny cars? With an occasional air show? Also planning a trip to Costa Rica and the Phillippines. So will be doing a lot of parrots and wild life there. Plus going to tour Corrigador and other places in the P.I. If this sounds basic Iam still a novice. K5 + 16-50 + 60-250 You will have the best zoom set that Pentax can offer now. The 60-250's Image quality is no problem, the only problem is the focal length, is it long enough? or you can except cropping?

10-05-2011, 10:51 AM	#8
beales1986 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Victoria B.C. Photos: Albums Posts: 59	Originally posted by sterretje Are you hijacking the thread? Better for what and better from which perspective? nope, I just opened another door, I think that the 50-500 would be a better option than the 60-250, and is there some unwritten rule that says I can't reply with a good Question? that perhaps nobody thought about?

10-05-2011, 11:01 AM	#9
beales1986 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Victoria B.C. Photos: Albums Posts: 59	Sorry, and Better as in, Parrots are normally Very high up, and difficult to spot, I think the extra 250mm on the 500 would help allot, I travel often to the Amazonian Rain forest in Brazil, My wife is from there and I like to take pictures of the Wildlife there. The foliage is so dense that it is extremely difficult to spot a parrot unless you are using a long range lens. I have rented both the 60-250 and the 50-500 and I prefer the 50-500 for its versatility, especially at the long end. as well as with the combination with the 16-50 and the 50-500(FF) you still only missing about 10mm of length in between because of the FF Multiplier but that is no different than the 10mm you will loose between the end of the 16-50, and the beginning of the 60-250. and for 200$ more I think it definitively worth for the extra 250mm of focul length. especially because that the sigma 50-500 is a super quality lens.

10-05-2011, 11:08 AM	#10
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Well the DA*60-250 is an excellent lens, so I can recommand it. No idea wheater it is long enough for your choices, but for some sports it is sufficient as long as your place to walk or stand is good enough.

10-05-2011, 11:24 AM	#11
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by beales1986 as well as with the combination with the 16-50 and the 50-500(FF) you still only missing about 10mm of length in between because of the FF Multiplier but that is no different than the 10mm you will loose between the end of the 16-50, and the beginning of the 60-250. There is no "FF Multiplier". A lens keeps its focal length no matter what camera it sits on. A smaller frame (film or digital) merely sees less of the projected image. When I first put a 400mm lens onto a 35mm half-frame (135/HF) Olympus Pen-FT, whose frame is about the same size as an APS-C sensor, I thought, OH BOY! IT'S LIKE A 600MM LENS! But it wasn't. It was just a 400mm lens with the image edges cut off. On any camera, there is a 10mm gap between 16-50 and 60-whatever lenses. I happen to hate that gap. Even if the twin-lens set were 16-50 and 50-500, I would still hate the pair. That is because I shoot a lot around 50mm, and swapping lenses there is a pain. I have an 18-55 and 60-300 pair that I don't use together, just for that reason. A cheap solution is to add a F35-70 to fill-in that very useful focal-length range.

10-05-2011, 12:02 PM	#12
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by beales1986 nope, I just opened another door, I think that the 50-500 would be a better option than the 60-250, and is there some unwritten rule that says I can't reply with a good Question? that perhaps nobody thought about? Fair enough. As it was combined with a question, I suspected thread hijacking. Originally posted by beales1986 Sorry, and Better as in, Parrots are normally Very high up, and difficult to spot, I think the extra 250mm on the 500 would help allot, I travel often to the Amazonian Rain forest in Brazil, My wife is from there and I like to take pictures of the Wildlife there. The foliage is so dense that it is extremely difficult to spot a parrot unless you are using a long range lens. I have rented both the 60-250 and the 50-500 and I prefer the 50-500 for its versatility, especially at the long end. as well as with the combination with the 16-50 and the 50-500(FF) you still only missing about 10mm of length in between because of the FF Multiplier but that is no different than the 10mm you will loose between the end of the 16-50, and the beginning of the 60-250. and for 200$ more I think it definitively worth for the extra 250mm of focul length. especially because that the sigma 50-500 is a super quality lens. True; 500mm gives a lot more range. I can't judge the quality as I don't have either. By the way, I think that the gap between 50 and 60 is only psychological (no offense intended to anybody). When I was shooting film, I did not feel that there was a gap between 28 (wide angle prime) and 50 (standard prime) and between 50 (standard prime) and 70 (beginning of telezoom).

10-05-2011, 12:14 PM	#13
rvannatta Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Apiary, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,181	Originally posted by ron2352 I was told for starting out with a new K5. For the type of photography I do. The 60mm-250mm is a good choice for telephoto and the 16mm-50mm would be good for wide angle. I am pretty much sold on the 16mm- 50mm. But would the 60mm-250mm be a good lens for wild life and photographing top fuel dragsters and funny cars? With an occasional air show? Also planning a trip to Costa Rica and the Phillippines. So will be doing a lot of parrots and wild life there. Plus going to tour Corrigador and other places in the P.I. If this sounds basic Iam still a novice. I've owned the 16-50 since they first came out. It's my walking around lense and has much to be said in favor of it. It took some getting use to, but I wouldn't be without it. Except for Macro, and long shots, it's what I use even though I have a box of other lenses. On the long side, life is full of compromises. Your choice is a good one in the abstract, but nothing is perfect. If the lighting is bad, a real fast prime is to be preferred. If it's real small and a long ways off, long lenses are never too long unless the lighting is bad, and then maybe speed is more important than focal length. You gotta pick your medicine go wih it, but your choice is reasonable. I own the 60-250 --- and its good from a quality standpoint.