Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-06-2011, 06:37 AM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 208
From my experience in small rooms, something wider than 28mm is required on APS-C. Options include:
o kit lens 18-55mm Mk II (inexpensive): the wide range is as much as you are likely to "need" indoors, and from 20-24mm the kit is fairly sharp, reasonably fast and virtually distortion-free;
o older 24-70 or 24-75mm zooms (inexpensive): this would allow you a similar shooting style to what you currently have with your 28-70 but adding the 24mm FOV, which in my experience is an excellent perspective for small indoor spaces;
o 24mm prime (probably Sigma): autofocus Sigma 24mm lenses are available new (f1.8) or used (f2.8); manual focus lenses are also available used from various brands, with a new Samyang f1.4 available soon. These lenses vary in quality but all share the favorable 24mm indoor point of view;
o Pentax 15mm or 21mm prime (approx $500): available new or used, these are small and excellent lenses though not as fast as the 24mm options (they are f4 and f3.2 respectively). I love my 15, but if I planned on mostly indoor shooting I would probably choose the 21 for more flattering portraiture;
o wide-angle zoom (approx. $500): a Pentax 12-24mm or a Tamron 10-24mm is also worth considering in your situation: for slightly more money you would gain access to the 24mm FOV, and the 18-21mm FOV, and the 15mm FOV, and . . . at least the first couple of those are valuable for your indoor scenes.
My final words would be to consider what other photographic needs or desires you have and what your preferences are in terms of prime vs. zoom, big vs. small, fast vs. slower etc. -- these other considerations may weigh in on what would make the most effective addition to your kit. And in your situation, I would definitely want to add something!

11-06-2011, 07:16 AM   #17
jac
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada
Posts: 2,363
DA 16-45mm. Sure, we're trapped in a time-warp. It's too slow, not 1.4 or even 2.8. That was a distinction critical to film days. You are unlikely to print larger than 8x10 for the new addition so bump up the ISO a stop or two and you are effectively at those f-stops again. The 16-45 is a great lens and can be found used at reasonable price points.
11-06-2011, 07:26 AM   #18
Veteran Member
maxfield_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,215
There is definitely a "need" for ultra wide angles on APS-C cameras if there's a need for anything. A simple 70-200 give you the FoV of a 300mm lens on a 35mm body, but a 28-75 only lets you go as wide as 42mm; that's "normal" range.

I bought the Sigma 8-16 and it's a very neat lens, razor sharp too for an ultra wide. It gives me a 12mm equivalence at the wide end which is plenty, but I find that I don't use it that wide most of the time. 10mm would have been enough (there's also a bug in the K-mount's ability to report focal lengths below that) and with some of the 10-24s you can add a UV filter for protection or a ND filter. CPLs sadly don't work well at such wide focal lengths, it looks like your sky has a mohawk.
11-06-2011, 07:27 AM   #19
Site Supporter
Nick Siebers's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,152
QuoteOriginally posted by jac Quote
DA 16-45mm. Sure, we're trapped in a time-warp. It's too slow, not 1.4 or even 2.8. That was a distinction critical to film days. You are unlikely to print larger than 8x10 for the new addition so bump up the ISO a stop or two and you are effectively at those f-stops again. The 16-45 is a great lens and can be found used at reasonable price points.
This was my thought, too. The 18-55 would be noticeably weaker than the OP's other excellent lenses, while from what I have heard the 16-45 comes a lot closer.

I would sell the K110, too, although that is just me. The value of a DSLR just keeps going down as new models come, and it makes more sense to have that money invested in glass. Unless you are a pro, for what do you need a back-up body? I just sold my "back-up", and it uncluttered my camera desk quite a bit. I have a little p&s for things I really have to document, should the big camera go down.

I generally find 28mm plenty wide for pictures of kids, but I do like to have up to 24mm at least for scenery pictures.

11-06-2011, 07:31 AM   #20
Pentaxian
paulh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: DFW Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,883
In your situation, to stay within budget and keep the peace with the wife, I'd pick up a used 18-55 kit lens for $35-$50. Later on if budget allows, look for something nicer. I agree with Lowell on keeping a 2nd body as backup - you just never know when you'll need it.
11-06-2011, 08:15 AM   #21
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,290
Like many have said, the Pentax "kit" lens 18-55mm is actually a pretty decent optic, and definitely cheap & wide enough for your needs. You could dump the 110D to fund it (and maybe something else?), and when you tell the "family comptroller" that you're *selling* gear, she'll be much more hospitable.

Oh, and from my own "new baby" experience, that 105mm macro is going to get a work out as a portrait lens, even in a small house. Babies are great for this from about 1-9 months - limited mobility, amazing new expressions, and lovely skin and eyes. Once they get going on two legs, the fast glass and high-ISO will be the only way to keep up!
11-06-2011, 08:17 AM   #22
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
I say - DAL 18-55 for a cost effective solution to give you the width you are missing, and consider an external flash if you dont have one.
External flash in a smaller house offers great bounce flash opportunities.
11-06-2011, 08:35 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,636
You might also keep your eye(s) open for a Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4. It would be a good compliment to your 28-75mm, giving you a wide angle of 17mm and f/2.8 for indoor lighting, and still giving you the flexibility of a zoom. And it's supposed to be a pretty sharp lens.

11-06-2011, 08:43 AM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 120
Review your kit; are all those lenses untouchables? Could one or two be sold to fund your wide angle?

Ask yourself what it is you want to take pictures of and build your kit around that; unless money is not a problem, you will need to focus your kit around that.

For example, I am wondering about that Tamron 70-200mm -- can that be sold to fund the wide angle; if you really need the focal length from 100-200mm, perhaps a cheaper alternative such as a DA 55-300 or a manual focus lens will substitute and the remaining funds go towards your wide angle?

Just an idea..
11-06-2011, 08:56 AM   #25
Veteran Member
Northern Soul's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The North of England
Photos: Albums
Posts: 491
If cash is tight for lenses now, and you have a baby coming, you might be in for a shock.

I used an 18-55 kit lens, as many others have suggested. Some of my favourite shots of my tiny baby were taken with a 25 year old Chinon 50mm f1.7, which I borrowed off my dad, but I guess are not much on eBay. Fully manual, but the narrow depth of field was nice, and not having to use flash was also good at sleep time.

You don't mention having a flash - I'd get one. In fact, being a budget conscious father of a two year old (who has had her picture taken so often that she alternates between refusing to look at me when I have it, and going to get the camera so I will take her photo, depending on mood!) I would get:

18-55 kit lens - $40?
A flash, and some sort of bounce attachment and a reflector (although I used the removal fabric mirror thing from her play mat as a reflector; cost nothing)

And then I'd use the 50mm f1.4 all the time anyway

Have fun!
11-06-2011, 08:57 AM   #26
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,636
I wouldn't recommend getting rid of that 70-200mm. Once your kid escapes that crib and starts playing outside and going to preschool and participating in little performances that's a lens you'll definitely want.
11-06-2011, 09:07 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Northern Soul's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The North of England
Photos: Albums
Posts: 491
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
I wouldn't recommend getting rid of that 70-200mm. Once your kid escapes that crib and starts playing outside and going to preschool and participating in little performances that's a lens you'll definitely want.
That's true. 200mm covers almost perfectly the distance you can let a two year old run before you start to wonder if she's coming back or just going to carry on It's also long enough for her to forget that you're shooting her.

I know it's unpopular with some people on here, but do you have a separate means of shooting video? We had a little video camera when our baby was "just new" as she calls it, and although the quality is pretty ropey, a little bit of video here and there gives something photos cannot. I have pictures of her in her first bath that are crystal clear, and tell you how small she was and so on - but a photo would not have recorded so well the fact that when we stripped her off she cried and cried until the moment she got in the water, when she almost instantly stopped wriggling and crying and seemed absolutely happy.

If not I'd be tempted to spend some of your $350 on a cheap video camera - I think ours was only 150 and it shot 1080p - and we sold it for 75 on eBay when I got the k-7.

Or, sell both your bodies and get a k-7 with a kit lens - then you have weather (and splashy-bath) proofing, a wide angle, and the option to shoot video.
11-06-2011, 09:13 AM   #28
Site Supporter
loco's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,844
The DA 15 is one of my two favorite lenses I own, but it is not particularly good for indoors, due to its f/4 limitation. What about the Tamron 17-50/2.8? It's relatively fast and I have heard nothing but good things from people who own it. It will eventually be my kit lens replacement. I have seen used copies in the marketplace here going for as low as $325 on occasion.
11-06-2011, 03:37 PM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 143
Original Poster
Looking back I forgot to mention that I planned on using the lens for landscapes as well.

QuoteOriginally posted by ripit Quote
Why not try some test shots with the 28-75mm. .
I did this and kept finding myself wanting something a little shorter.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Resist the urge to buy an 'unnecessary' item you don't have the money required to buy it with. That's just a general suggestion.
Yea, thats probably the smart thing

QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
Why not sell the K110D? Assuming it's in good condition, it should bring $100 - $150. Add that to your budget of $300 - $350, and you would be within the range of lenses like the Sigma 10-20mm or Tamron 10-24mm.

With the K-x, I can't imagine much point in keeping the older body around.

And as far as the wife situation, I always tell her that the lenses are really for both of us, since I use them to make precious images of the children that will last a lifetime. And I usually follow that up with telling her that a lens is like "money in the bank", since you can always sell it for as much as you paid for it, and sometimes more if you got a really good deal. So if things get really tight those lenses can be converted back into cash. Theoretically at least. Personally, I would keep the lenses and use them to document our life living in a box under a bridge.
Wife actually uses the K110 now. So selling it would create an even worse situation.

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Have you considered the samyang 14mm F2.8?
Did. but I'd rather have AF for this one.

QuoteOriginally posted by Northern Soul Quote
If cash is tight for lenses now, and you have a baby coming, you might be in for a shock.

You don't mention having a flash - I'd get one.
Yea, I'm being pretty frugal with the kid coming up, this would be my last lens purchase for a long time, can't think of another lens I'd need.

I actually have 4 flashes, mainly manual settings only. Bounce them all over the place!






I'm actually selling some stuff to help fund the purchase plus forgot about a small bonus. And with the holidays coming up, I should have a comfortable spot in the budget for the lens.
11-08-2011, 04:00 AM   #30
Veteran Member
Northern Soul's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The North of England
Photos: Albums
Posts: 491
QuoteOriginally posted by jqjones Quote
Yea, I'm being pretty frugal with the kid coming up, this would be my last lens purchase for a long time, can't think of another lens I'd need.

I actually have 4 flashes, mainly manual settings only. Bounce them all over the place!
I'd see if I could stretch to a K-7 with a kit lens then. You may think you'll never use it now, like I did before our baby was born, but you'll be glad of having video of him/her one day. And when the baby is bigger, it won't be very careful about not splashing the puddles at your camera, or care too much about being in the rain, or always remember not to put his/her drink in daddy's bag without closing the lid first. The K-7 is pretty kid-proof - as is the K10d for that matter, although my toddler broke mine (pulled it off the sofa on to a hard floor while the memory card door was open in such a way that it broke the card reader circuit).
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!
budget, fund, house, k-mount, kit, ltd, macro, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which wide angle should I go with? iseeincolor Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 25 06-10-2011 06:10 PM
Wide Angle Suggestions phillipb Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 13 12-15-2009 09:28 AM
Misc Wide angle wllm Post Your Photos! 6 12-07-2009 09:57 AM
Affordable wide angle? Raptorman Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 38 12-06-2009 04:51 PM
Wide-angle lens for K-7 windflower Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 11-27-2009 03:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 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