Wisdom of Major kit change

sterretje · 11-16-2011, 10:29 PM

Just found https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/64295-pentax-high-...post-here.html . This thread started in 2009 and shows that you actually don't need a K5 for good photos at high ISO

Laurentiu Cristofor · 11-16-2011, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

But I should add that for Al, this was just a suggestion, as it doesn't really fit his priority of getting faster zooms.

Darn, just realized I was replying to the OP. Please change third person to second person when reading this.

chickenandavocado · 11-17-2011, 12:13 AM

my view:
tamron 17-50 (cheaper than sigma + good optics, make sure u get a good copy / warranty)
tamron 70-200 (cheaper than sigma + good optics, make sure u get a good copy / warranty)
fa31 (would never let this one go); or switch for a sigma 30 1.4
K-5

i would be happy with the above kit, i have a lot of limiteds but if i was to keep one for usefulness in terms of lowlight / FL it would be the fa31. very versatile FL + excellent optics. if strapped for cash, i would swap the FA31 for sigma 30 1.4 ("normal"ish view on APS-C)

pentup · 11-17-2011, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by al_undy

Is the K5 that much better for low light?

Oh yes yes, yes yes yes.

So much better, that you'll run into low-light focusing problems long before high-ISO noise will start bothering you, probably.

pentup · 11-17-2011, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by al_undy

Size/weight of the 2.8 zooms is a concern. Am I really going to go my daughter's Christmas concert and pull out a monster lens for a few shots to record the moment? Seems like overkill and I have always been a bit suspect of the folks who do. Anyway, current thinking is to start with selling the FA21 to help float the purchase of the k5 and go from there.

I'm much less well informed than others here, but:
I think you should keep your 21mm, get a Tamron 28-70 (or is it 75?) f2.8, maybe sell the DA 70, and keep the 55-300 that you have. Maybe a fast 50 as well.
Versatile, light, compact, economical set right there.

regor · 11-17-2011, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by al_undy

All,
... The upgrade to the capabilities of the K5 is obvious, particularly for the high iso. Al

If it were me, I'd keep the K7, get rid of the 55-300, keep the other lenses, and buy the Sigma fast zoom. IMO the upgrade capability of the K5 is far from being obvious as with proper PP in a dedicated NR Software (such as Neat Image), you'd be hard pressed to see a difference with the K5.

al_undy · 11-18-2011, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by regor

If it were me, I'd keep the K7, get rid of the 55-300, keep the other lenses, and buy the Sigma fast zoom. IMO the upgrade capability of the K5 is far from being obvious as with proper PP in a dedicated NR Software (such as Neat Image), you'd be hard pressed to see a difference with the K5.

Roger,
Thanks for the input. The K5 price is way down but is still not cheap so hanging on to the K7 is somewhat attractive. Your opinion regarding high iso on the K-7 seems contrary to others expressed here and general sentiment on this subject elsewhere. Can you post a before and after example that demonstrates this? Also, while I am not afraid to PP and I shoot 95% RAW, dealing with noise is one more step that I would rather not have to do.
Al

al_undy · 11-18-2011, 06:39 AM

All,
It is interesting to see all of the support for the Tamron products. Most are driven by value (good optics for the price.) Again, lower price while maintaining very good optics is a strong argument for the brand. However, having had examples of both Tamron (pentax da 18-250) and Sigma (70mm EX Macro), I am drawn to the Sigma because of the excellent build quality, image quality, and HSM. Of course, I need to decide if these are worth an extra $200 or so.

The 21 is a lens that I have never felt strongly about, so it is definitely out at this point. The 43 is also likely out.

Thanks to all for your opinions on this matter. You have been most helpful.
Al

dgaies · 11-18-2011, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by al_undy

I am drawn to the Sigma because of the excellent build quality, image quality, and HSM

FYI, the Sigma 70/macro doesn't have HSM focusing.

sterretje · 11-18-2011, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

FYI, the Sigma 70/macro doesn't have HSM focusing.

I guess al_undy is talking about the 70-200, not the 70

al_undy · 11-18-2011, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

FYI, the Sigma 70/macro doesn't have HSM focusing.

Thanks, I know that. I owned it. I was referring to the 17-50 f2.8 EX which does have HSM.

al_undy · 11-18-2011, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

I guess al_undy is talking about the 70-200, not the 70

Yes, that too.

dgaies · 11-18-2011, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

I guess al_undy is talking about the 70-200, not the 70

Originally posted by al_undy

Thanks, I know that. I owned it. I was referring to the 17-50 f2.8 EX which does have HSM.

Gotcha. From the previous post above I wasn't sure which Sigma you meant (and you had specifically mentioned the 70) in the line before) and I just didn't want you to be disappointed to find out later that it doesn't have HSM. I just picked up a Sigma 50/1.4 with HSM and it's excellent

al_undy · 11-18-2011, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

Gotcha. From the previous post above I wasn't sure which Sigma you meant (and you had specifically mentioned the 70) in the line before) and I just didn't want you to be disappointed to find out later that it doesn't have HSM. I just picked up a Sigma 50/1.4 with HSM and it's excellent

just reread my response. sorry to sound so short with you.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 11-18-2011, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by al_undy

However, having had examples of both Tamron (pentax da 18-250) and Sigma (70mm EX Macro), I am drawn to the Sigma because of the excellent build quality, image quality, and HSM.

Can't argue with HSM if that is a plus for you. But I don't think IQ is something separating Sigma from Tamron. Both know how to build lenses with excellent IQ. As far as build quality is concerned, the Tamrons are well built - they feel different than Sigmas, but I had no mechanical/functional problems with them. On the other hand, I had some issues with my Sigma 105 where I would mount it and the camera wouldn't recognize there is a lens mounted. I think it probably had some oil that got into the mount because I noticed that the A button had a tiny bit of oil around it. I kept cleaning the mount and after several times, I expect it exhausted the free running supply of oil, so I haven't had this issue anymore. Now that I think about it, I was lucky I was storing it with the mount down, otherwise who knows where that oil would have went. So I wouldn't say Sigma has better build quality than Tamron - they used to be known as SIGnificant MAlfunctions in the manual focus era and even today people complain about the varying quality across lens samples. That being said, they have stepped up their game significantly and produce many interesting lenses.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wisdom req'd to discern which flash would best suit K5	andrewdb	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	3	09-12-2011 09:38 PM
The wisdom of Glass-Steagall (1933)	jolepp	General Talk	6	06-22-2011 07:47 AM
Words of Wisdom?	Rupert	General Talk	74	01-28-2010 02:07 PM
Wisdom from the past for 2010	Phil1	General Talk	44	01-04-2010 08:43 PM
Wisdom from the Future for 2010	Ratmagiclady	General Talk	8	12-31-2009 11:06 PM

11-16-2011, 10:29 PM	#16
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Just found https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/64295-pentax-high-...post-here.html . This thread started in 2009 and shows that you actually don't need a K5 for good photos at high ISO

11-16-2011, 11:23 PM	#17
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor But I should add that for Al, this was just a suggestion, as it doesn't really fit his priority of getting faster zooms. Darn, just realized I was replying to the OP. Please change third person to second person when reading this.

11-17-2011, 12:13 AM	#18
chickenandavocado Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 327	my view: tamron 17-50 (cheaper than sigma + good optics, make sure u get a good copy / warranty) tamron 70-200 (cheaper than sigma + good optics, make sure u get a good copy / warranty) fa31 (would never let this one go); or switch for a sigma 30 1.4 K-5 i would be happy with the above kit, i have a lot of limiteds but if i was to keep one for usefulness in terms of lowlight / FL it would be the fa31. very versatile FL + excellent optics. if strapped for cash, i would swap the FA31 for sigma 30 1.4 ("normal"ish view on APS-C)

11-17-2011, 05:26 AM	#19
pentup Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Flushing NY Photos: Albums Posts: 413	Originally posted by al_undy Is the K5 that much better for low light? Oh yes yes, yes yes yes. So much better, that you'll run into low-light focusing problems long before high-ISO noise will start bothering you, probably.

11-17-2011, 05:31 AM	#20
pentup Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Flushing NY Photos: Albums Posts: 413	Originally posted by al_undy Size/weight of the 2.8 zooms is a concern. Am I really going to go my daughter's Christmas concert and pull out a monster lens for a few shots to record the moment? Seems like overkill and I have always been a bit suspect of the folks who do. Anyway, current thinking is to start with selling the FA21 to help float the purchase of the k5 and go from there. I'm much less well informed than others here, but: I think you should keep your 21mm, get a Tamron 28-70 (or is it 75?) f2.8, maybe sell the DA 70, and keep the 55-300 that you have. Maybe a fast 50 as well. Versatile, light, compact, economical set right there.

11-17-2011, 02:05 PM	#21
regor Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Victoria, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 356	Originally posted by al_undy All, ... The upgrade to the capabilities of the K5 is obvious, particularly for the high iso. Al If it were me, I'd keep the K7, get rid of the 55-300, keep the other lenses, and buy the Sigma fast zoom. IMO the upgrade capability of the K5 is far from being obvious as with proper PP in a dedicated NR Software (such as Neat Image), you'd be hard pressed to see a difference with the K5.

11-18-2011, 06:36 AM	#22
al_undy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: OH, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 77 Original Poster	Originally posted by regor If it were me, I'd keep the K7, get rid of the 55-300, keep the other lenses, and buy the Sigma fast zoom. IMO the upgrade capability of the K5 is far from being obvious as with proper PP in a dedicated NR Software (such as Neat Image), you'd be hard pressed to see a difference with the K5. Roger, Thanks for the input. The K5 price is way down but is still not cheap so hanging on to the K7 is somewhat attractive. Your opinion regarding high iso on the K-7 seems contrary to others expressed here and general sentiment on this subject elsewhere. Can you post a before and after example that demonstrates this? Also, while I am not afraid to PP and I shoot 95% RAW, dealing with noise is one more step that I would rather not have to do. Al

11-18-2011, 06:39 AM	#23
al_undy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: OH, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 77 Original Poster	All, It is interesting to see all of the support for the Tamron products. Most are driven by value (good optics for the price.) Again, lower price while maintaining very good optics is a strong argument for the brand. However, having had examples of both Tamron (pentax da 18-250) and Sigma (70mm EX Macro), I am drawn to the Sigma because of the excellent build quality, image quality, and HSM. Of course, I need to decide if these are worth an extra $200 or so. The 21 is a lens that I have never felt strongly about, so it is definitely out at this point. The 43 is also likely out. Thanks to all for your opinions on this matter. You have been most helpful. Al

11-18-2011, 07:28 AM	#24
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by al_undy I am drawn to the Sigma because of the excellent build quality, image quality, and HSM FYI, the Sigma 70/macro doesn't have HSM focusing.

11-18-2011, 08:01 AM	#25
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by dgaies FYI, the Sigma 70/macro doesn't have HSM focusing. I guess al_undy is talking about the 70-200, not the 70

11-18-2011, 08:17 AM	#26
al_undy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: OH, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 77 Original Poster	Originally posted by dgaies FYI, the Sigma 70/macro doesn't have HSM focusing. Thanks, I know that. I owned it. I was referring to the 17-50 f2.8 EX which does have HSM.

11-18-2011, 08:19 AM	#27
al_undy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: OH, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 77 Original Poster	Originally posted by sterretje I guess al_undy is talking about the 70-200, not the 70 Yes, that too.

11-18-2011, 08:20 AM	#28
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by sterretje I guess al_undy is talking about the 70-200, not the 70 Originally posted by al_undy Thanks, I know that. I owned it. I was referring to the 17-50 f2.8 EX which does have HSM. Gotcha. From the previous post above I wasn't sure which Sigma you meant (and you had specifically mentioned the 70) in the line before) and I just didn't want you to be disappointed to find out later that it doesn't have HSM. I just picked up a Sigma 50/1.4 with HSM and it's excellent

11-18-2011, 01:09 PM	#29
al_undy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: OH, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 77 Original Poster	Originally posted by dgaies Gotcha. From the previous post above I wasn't sure which Sigma you meant (and you had specifically mentioned the 70) in the line before) and I just didn't want you to be disappointed to find out later that it doesn't have HSM. I just picked up a Sigma 50/1.4 with HSM and it's excellent just reread my response. sorry to sound so short with you.

11-18-2011, 01:55 PM	#30
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by al_undy However, having had examples of both Tamron (pentax da 18-250) and Sigma (70mm EX Macro), I am drawn to the Sigma because of the excellent build quality, image quality, and HSM. Can't argue with HSM if that is a plus for you. But I don't think IQ is something separating Sigma from Tamron. Both know how to build lenses with excellent IQ. As far as build quality is concerned, the Tamrons are well built - they feel different than Sigmas, but I had no mechanical/functional problems with them. On the other hand, I had some issues with my Sigma 105 where I would mount it and the camera wouldn't recognize there is a lens mounted. I think it probably had some oil that got into the mount because I noticed that the A button had a tiny bit of oil around it. I kept cleaning the mount and after several times, I expect it exhausted the free running supply of oil, so I haven't had this issue anymore. Now that I think about it, I was lucky I was storing it with the mount down, otherwise who knows where that oil would have went. So I wouldn't say Sigma has better build quality than Tamron - they used to be known as SIGnificant MAlfunctions in the manual focus era and even today people complain about the varying quality across lens samples. That being said, they have stepped up their game significantly and produce many interesting lenses.