Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-29-2011, 02:41 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
what I have found is that my vacation travel is usually "city bound" where I take advantage of the luxury of having 2 bodies and using the 10-20 on one and the 28-75 on the other.

I know I sometimes miss out on not having a 135 capability for some archetecture details, but it is not too bad.

When I get more into the wild life mode, the 10-20 comes off, and my sigma 70-200F2.8 goes on, either with or without tele converter.

I find the 70-200 too big for cities, so if I know there is no wildlive it actually does stay home, not just locked in the hotel room.

I sometimes take my K135/2.5 if I want a lighter option for medium tele, or I takle a samyang 85/1.4 and pentax 1.7x AF TC and do random street portraits etc... but the two main travel lenses are the 10-20 and 28-75.

your idea of the 18-135 is not without merrit, but you will still at some point probably want an ultra wide option too. It is just a question of priorities. I have noted also the 18-135 and given it some thought.

11-29-2011, 06:41 PM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 206
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
what I have found is that my vacation travel is usually "city bound" where I take advantage of the luxury of having 2 bodies and using the 10-20 on one and the 28-75 on the other.

I know I sometimes miss out on not having a 135 capability for some archetecture details, but it is not too bad.

When I get more into the wild life mode, the 10-20 comes off, and my sigma 70-200F2.8 goes on, either with or without tele converter.

I find the 70-200 too big for cities, so if I know there is no wildlive it actually does stay home, not just locked in the hotel room.

I sometimes take my K135/2.5 if I want a lighter option for medium tele, or I takle a samyang 85/1.4 and pentax 1.7x AF TC and do random street portraits etc... but the two main travel lenses are the 10-20 and 28-75.

your idea of the 18-135 is not without merrit, but you will still at some point probably want an ultra wide option too. It is just a question of priorities. I have noted also the 18-135 and given it some thought.
You actually mentioned the problem for me, actually - travel for me is usually a mixture, I do a lot of things in the mountains in smaller areas, trying to capture both the in town as well as the nature/landscapes and some portrait shots in the same scenery. Another is beaches or lakes, usually in an area (sometimes town, sometimes full city overseas) worth getting shots of, mixed with the usual scenic shots and some desired closeups, which is where the 18-55 kills me (not long enough), but I'd really like in general to retain the WR and the 70-210 is going to be too long for some shots..as you said about cities above. For some of these places, I'd really prefer to not be swapping or sometimes even carrying multiple lenses, although the small kit of small primes/limiteds would be great in some cases. Were i doing more trips to for example, NYC...I could see your combo with the 28-75 being great and not too short.

I read Rio's post and of course the usual 'only use primes' posts. While I wish the 60-250 were instead a 30-175 or so (add a 1.4x Tc if have to and shoot wide open = one lens happiness for 'most' situations), the 18-135 should be an oK compromise at least on the travel/one lens/run out the door setup. I've seen most comments place it above the kit 18-55, and while I know I'll want longer in some cases, it would suit it's purpose of WR, decent images, and reasonable range for 'one lens travel' for how I've been shooting.

That 135 and a TC...I think I'll be following the 'cheap Rio path' on primes initially - get a MF older prime(s) in a few focal lengths for a few trips, without much $ invested, or fix the zoom at a specific focal length or 2/3 fixed focal lengths, and see how I get on with the fixed lengths. I'd 'unofficially' planned on checking out a 28mm and 135 if they popped up, but those should be 'testable' with the current/future lens.

Ultra-wide - I've read a lot of people saying that, I'm just not so far seeing too many times that I'm thinking, 'I need wider' vs 'I need longer'...with the 18-55 anyways, sometimes of course with the 70-210, not very often with the MF Tokina 28-70.
At what point does the Ultra-wide become 'fishy'? I'm wondering if this is an acquired taste, artistic thing, or just something I haven't yet played with to know "ok, now I 'need' one of those, too!" ???

The 70-200 f/2.8 + TC combo is sort of tempting vs the 60-250, although I'm thinking price-wise would come out not much cheaper with the going rates for Pz TCs..but would break it up into chunks of spending, each one reasonable enough.

Oh!! You have a Sigma 70-200! Any chance you can answer on the Sigma 'quick shift' behavior, or does that only apply to HSM Sigmas?

Lots to think about, but thinking is better than blind spending any day..thanks!
11-29-2011, 06:46 PM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 206
Original Poster
PS - ok, came across another member, wasser, who posted some DA15 shots, very nice:
Sharkfin Beach Sunset | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
I'm not convinced i can't do the same with 18mm though, at least for the shots I'm taking currently/mainly.
Note to self -spend far too much time in future weekend looking at 10-18mm range pics.
11-29-2011, 07:57 PM   #19
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by rtpguy Quote
You actually mentioned the problem for me, actually - travel for me is usually a mixture,
And that's why my travel shooting is dominated by the DA18-250 which (depending on locale) may do 70-90% of the work. No lens-swapping, no missing shots, etc. It's not WR but it ain't leaked yet. My current minimal travel kit: DA10-17, Tamron 10-24, DA18-250, FA50/1.4, Raynox DCR-250. That's my original K20D kit plus the Tamron and Raynox.

QuoteQuote:
Ultra-wide - I've read a lot of people saying that, I'm just not so far seeing too many times that I'm thinking, 'I need wider' vs 'I need longer'...with the 18-55 anyways...
At what point does the Ultra-wide become 'fishy'? I'm wondering if this is an acquired taste, artistic thing, or just something I haven't yet played with to know "ok, now I 'need' one of those, too!" ???
When I got an inheritance (thanks for dying, Mom!) and decided to move from an advanced P&S to a dSLR, I asked myself, "What do I want to do that I can't do with what I have?" The answers were ultrawide and ultralong and low-light. But basically ultrawide. At the time, the only affordable lens there from any maker for any camera was the DA10-17, the lens that drove me to Pentax. And I got the kit listed above: DA10-17, DA18-250, FA50/1.4.

Fisheyes (FEs) and rectilinear ultrawides (UWAs) can just work in spaces that other glass can't. FE images look distorted, though a full-circle FE shot is actually the most accurate projection of a 3D universe onto a 2D frame. UWAs always have stretch distortion. We don't mind that so much. Go figure. Just as a scientific theory doesn't get promoted to a law, so a UWA getting wider doesn't become FE. They project light differently, that's all. Different optics, different geometry.

An artsy or acquired taste? Maybe. But some images can't be shot with anything else. It depends on how-small spaces you crawl into, or what else you're trying to capture. Take a long full-sky shot with a full-circle or frame-filling FE, or with a UWA at shortest focal length. Otherwise with such wide FOVs it's best to aim at something close and let the background diminish.

For instance: I last used my Tamron 10-24 UWA a lot when I spent a month in Santa Fe NM. Staggering around side streets off the Plaza, I shot around 20-24mm for 'scapes of the narrow streets, 15-17mm for from-the-hip crowd shots, and 10mm in shops where I'd shoot a decorative item 5cm from the lens while the rest of the room stayed sharp but small. Feels like near-infinite DOF.

I use the DA10-17 in culverts, silos, caves, tunnels; on deserts and plains; in tight spaces and corners and at line intersections where I can exploit angles. FEs aren't usually for everyday shooting. They're very specialized tools. Fun, too!

11-29-2011, 09:54 PM   #20
Oog
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 86
You seem to like all kinds of photography, so I would suggest this:
in FF: 24 f/2.8, 28-70 f/4, 70-210 f/4, with a nifty fifty in f/2 or faster for low light.
so in APS-C, you almost already have that covered with DA18-55, A70-210, and A50 f/1.7 (though for equivalent to this A50 in APS-C you technically need a 35mm lens, like the DA35 f/2.0, or for more $$ the FA31 Limited)
My question to you is, what is wrong with your current kit? Not enough tele (200+)? Lenses not fast enough? Wanting for all AF or current production lenses? Need weather-resistance?

Cheapest option: stay with your DA18-55 and A70-210
Relatively cheap AF option: your 18-55 kit lens + DA50-200 or DA55-300 if you want more telephoto.
Upgraded AF option: dump your 18-55 and get either DA18-55 WR + above choice of tele-zooms
More expensive AF option: DA16-45/DA17-70 + above choice of tele-zooms or DA*60-250 which gives you constant f/4 throughout

For prime kits, it partly depends on whether your priority is new and AF or older and MF....or a combination of both. Just to note, I learned with a Pentax K1000 + M50 f/2 lens, the classic student kit 8)

Last edited by Oog; 11-29-2011 at 10:03 PM.
11-29-2011, 11:00 PM   #21
Site Supporter
rvannatta's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Apiary, Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,171
QuoteOriginally posted by rtpguy Quote
PS - ok, came across another member, wasser, who posted some DA15 shots, very nice:
Sharkfin Beach Sunset | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
I'm not convinced i can't do the same with 18mm though, at least for the shots I'm taking currently/mainly.
Note to self -spend far too much time in future weekend looking at 10-18mm range pics.
What I don't see in your 'stuff' is a macro lens. You are missing something ifyou don't slow up and stop and look at the flowers from 6 inches away.

there is a lot of beauty there even ifyou don't stop long enough to smell them


A 100mm macro or a 50 for that matter makes is a good choice, and you can use them for regular work as well. Since you have a 50mm prime, I'm inclined to suggest you have a 100mm macro.....

I have LBA real bad, but over the years I bought and tried a lot of non brand lenses and ultimately didn't like any of them, but I take most of my photos with
the 16-50 SDM. with the Macro being what I use next most.

I'm a great fan of fast glass. I don't take that many photos wide open, but it sure helps getting the focus under control. the the focus right where you want it and then stop down 4or 5 f stops for the take, and what ever the problem is with the picture, it won't be 'out of focus'.
11-29-2011, 11:28 PM   #22
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by rvannatta Quote
What I don't see in your 'stuff' is a macro lens. You are missing something ifyou don't slow up and stop and look at the flowers from 6 inches away.
Yes, macro capability is must-have for many of us. Some say that macro shooters are the happiest toggers. Before (or along with) drooling over dedicated macro lenses, take a look here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-b...lose-work.html

And also look for some of Yeatzee's brilliant macro work here, all done with very cheap components: a reversed EL-Nikkor 50/2.8 enlarger lens, a cheap bellows, a flash, and great talent. OP has an A50/1.7 -- to take that into macro territory, all that's needed are a couple cheap used A-type TCs, probably under US$20 each, with the glass removed. Each are probably about 25mm thick; behind the A50, they take it to 1:1 magnification. They could also go behind OP's A70-210/4 for less magnification but more working room. Being A-type, they'd retain aperture automation and PTTL flash control.
11-30-2011, 05:44 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by rtpguy Quote
You actually mentioned the problem for me, actually - travel for me is usually a mixture, I do a lot of things in the mountains in smaller areas, trying to capture both the in town as well as the nature/landscapes and some portrait shots in the same scenery. Another is beaches or lakes, usually in an area (sometimes town, sometimes full city overseas) worth getting shots of, mixed with the usual scenic shots and some desired closeups, which is where the 18-55 kills me (not long enough), but I'd really like in general to retain the WR and the 70-210 is going to be too long for some shots..as you said about cities above.
that's where the ability to leave paret of the kit behind when not needed is good,
QuoteQuote:
For some of these places, I'd really prefer to not be swapping or sometimes even carrying multiple lenses, although the small kit of small primes/limiteds would be great in some cases. Were i doing more trips to for example, NYC...I could see your combo with the 28-75 being great and not too short.
in NYC, i take nothing longer than 85mm and usually take only the 10-20 and 28-75, european cities are the same, you are usually faced with a substantial cathedrial, and a very small street that you can back up across to fit it all in, sometimes even 10mm isn't wide enough, and then there are the interiors...
QuoteQuote:

I read Rio's post and of course the usual 'only use primes' posts. While I wish the 60-250 were instead a 30-175 or so (add a 1.4x Tc if have to and shoot wide open = one lens happiness for 'most' situations), the 18-135 should be an oK compromise at least on the travel/one lens/run out the door setup.
it does have some real appeal in that area, and speed is not as much of an issue with a K5
QuoteQuote:
I've seen most comments place it above the kit 18-55, and while I know I'll want longer in some cases, it would suit it's purpose of WR, decent images, and reasonable range for 'one lens travel' for how I've been shooting.
WR for outdoors is a possible issue, but none of my lenses are at present, i am careful with external protection in bad weather, and rely on that more than WR. I have seen too many posts where teh WR has failed, or bot been up to the challenge of continual bad weather shooting, for me WR is insurance if the primary protection fails, i don't rely on WR by itself
QuoteQuote:
That 135 and a TC...I think I'll be following the 'cheap Rio path' on primes initially - get a MF older prime(s) in a few focal lengths for a few trips, without much $ invested, or fix the zoom at a specific focal length or 2/3 fixed focal lengths, and see how I get on with the fixed lengths. I'd 'unofficially' planned on checking out a 28mm and 135 if they popped up, but those should be 'testable' with the current/future lens.
note a good 135 is not necessairly cheap. just go out and try and find a K135/2.5 cheap. but for a compact 135, if you want to have on in the bag, go for the M135/3.5 relatively cheap, good IQ and small compared to the K135/2.5
QuoteQuote:

Ultra-wide - I've read a lot of people saying that, I'm just not so far seeing too many times that I'm thinking, 'I need wider' vs 'I need longer'...with the 18-55 anyways, sometimes of course with the 70-210, not very often with the MF Tokina 28-70.
that will be a function of how much you do, specifically in cities. when I travel in cities, the 10-20 is about 60% of my shots, and about 60% of those are at 10mm your shooting may differ but i find the 10mm very useful, you could take another option, and get a 8mm fisheye, I have the samyang, and it is quite good, for those really wide shots, and not too hard to de-fish
QuoteQuote:
At what point does the Ultra-wide become 'fishy'? I'm wondering if this is an acquired taste, artistic thing, or just something I haven't yet played with to know "ok, now I 'need' one of those, too!" ???
this has been explained, the sigma 10-20 has very good barrel distortion correction, so it does not appear fishey, it just has the linear distortion any wide angle has. a FE has its uses, but you need to consider carefully the photo to get good results, due to te distortion.
QuoteQuote:

The 70-200 f/2.8 + TC combo is sort of tempting vs the 60-250, although I'm thinking price-wise would come out not much cheaper with the going rates for Pz TCs..but would break it up into chunks of spending, each one reasonable enough.
my 70-200 is now quite old (8 yrs) and is a screw drive type, it is very sharp both at the long end and wide open, but very heavy too, at a constant F2.8 it is also not cheap, even as a used lens it demands about $700 and is a real wild life go to, but has stayed behind at home, on trips to Prague, Budapest, Vienna, Paris, NYC etc... in the past few years. Just no wild life...
QuoteQuote:
Oh!! You have a Sigma 70-200! Any chance you can answer on the Sigma 'quick shift' behavior, or does that only apply to HSM Sigmas?
as noted above mine is the APO 70-200F2.8 EX (non DG non macro) and does not have the quick shift feature. As newer sigmas came out, they were tempting except that all of them had poorer performance wide open and at 200mm, which is where I really use mine a lot, so I stayed with the old one, and am glad I did. I hear the new HSM II version is also quite good, but there is no HSM teleconverter for the sigmas, so again, it is not in my planning at the moment.
QuoteQuote:

Lots to think about, but thinking is better than blind spending any day..thanks!
better thinking than spending

11-30-2011, 07:41 AM   #24
jac
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada
Posts: 2,363
I don't pretend to know much, nor can I solve your dilemma. Nor am I promoting the Tamron line but there are some interesting thoughts in this blog.
Nature and Photography | This website is for those who love both photography and nature.
11-30-2011, 09:35 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,073
Personally I like your option c) Tamron 28-75 the best if you like a somewhat heavy zoom around your neck. But it would depend on how often you would use your telephoto zoom. I rarely use anything beyond 50mm. Typically I use my 24/28/50 MF lenses or my new DA40 for everything. But I could see the 28-75 being very useful if I did more casual event photography. there are a lot of times that you only have a few seconds to get a shot and need to zoom in/out fast to make it happen. And also upgrade to the 55-300 zoom. You might discover that it's good enough for your telephoto needs.

You could then add a wide angle zoom or the DA15 and start a nice prime collection. There are also a lot of great MF primes that you can add to your 50/1.7.

Your filter collection will be a mess unless you use square filters. they will work for everything. I DISLIKE step up rings but I travel with a very minimal kit. But there aren't many filters worth buying anymore. A POL and a 3 stop ND is pretty much it unless you want a 10 stop ND or a square grad ND. I currently have a 3 filter kit at 49mm (3ND, 10ND and CIRPOL) and 2 at 52mm (2ND and LINPOL). If/When I start adding good zooms I will probably get a square filter kit (3ND, POL and Grad ND).

And watch out for the LBA of $50-100 great MF lenses. But getting an M50/100 f4 1:2 macro is a relatively cheap way to enter the macro world.
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!
future, k-mount, lens, lenses, mf, pentax, pentax lens, range, sdm, shots, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My lens strategy (not a which one to buy thread) jerryleejr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 09-21-2011 01:08 AM
Looking at the current lens lineup, ISO seems to be Pentax strategy. Reportage Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 10-05-2010 02:28 PM
Pentax strategy danielausparis Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 05-01-2010 05:51 AM
Need help on lens strategy land65 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 06-01-2008 06:25 PM
Another lens buying strategy thread. Sprags Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 02-06-2008 07:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:49 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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