Next 2 lenses

jbuck92 · 11-11-2012, 05:58 PM

So I'm sure this topic has been beat to death before, but I was wondering if anyone had some user-based advice between a few different lenses I'm considering.

I've still been toying with the thought of getting a DA 40 or 70 limited (and probably will at some point), but for the money I realized that I could get a good AF fast 50 and also upgrade my 18-55 kit lens to the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 variants. Which of these lenses would y'all recommend?

FA 50/1.4 vs. FA 50/1.7 vs DA 50/1.8 (From the pictures I've looked at, I think I like the bokeh of the FA 1.4 the most, 1.7 second and DA 1.8 3rd)

Tamron 17-50/2.8 vs Sigma 17-50/2.8

I've been in the need of a fast lens for low-light. I do a lot of pictures of dimly lit seminars/concerts for work and a constant 2.8 would really help. I've read the reviews comparing them but still am not sure. I'm leaning towards the FA 50/1.4 and the Tamron 17-50. Any one else concur or have another suggestion?

causey · 11-11-2012, 06:35 PM

The FA 50/1.4 and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 are excellent choices. People complain about the sharpness of FA 50/1.4 wide open, but if you use a hood (rubber hoods can be found on ebay for a couple of $) makes a huge difference. With a hood, the lens becomes respectably sharp at f1.4. The Tamron is cheaper and lighter than the Sigma, and sharp--the trick is to find a copy that doesn't BF or FF.

jbuck92 · 11-11-2012, 06:40 PM

What would it cost to have a copy that does BF or FF serviced? And how common is it?

SpecialK · 11-11-2012, 06:49 PM

If you are getting a 17-50, I would not get a 50 as it is a duplication of FL with no real benefits. The high ISO performance with the K5 is pretty good, so you can bump the ISO and probably get better result wide open with the Tamron.

If you want to go the prime route, the 40 and 70 are nice small ones. You could complete them with the 15 and 21 though if you really like wide angle I would perhaps substitute the 12-24 for those two.

jbuck92 · 11-11-2012, 06:53 PM

I have a K-r. Wish I had a K-5! I wanted to grab a 50 to have the wide aperture for portrait work. The 40 and 70 would be great to have and I'll likely add the 70 as a Christmas present to myself.

lukulele · 11-11-2012, 09:05 PM

I have used a 1.7 50 F with both K-7 and K-5 and love it for dimly lit school auditorium presentations. Ymmv but handheld with K-5 is fine and tripod is terrific. Colors and sharpness are exemplary. Prices are usually +- $175-$225.

jbuck92 · 11-11-2012, 09:43 PM

What made you get the 1.7 over the 1.4?

VisualDarkness · 11-11-2012, 10:49 PM

I would choose the 70/2.4 over the 50/1.4 as a compliment to a standard zoom. The DA70 is truly a wonderful small lens with fantastic rendering and would't overlap with the zoom.

jbuck92 · 11-11-2012, 10:52 PM

Would a2.4 vs 1.4 give me adequate light in a dimly lit setting? Concerts, indoor lectures, etc.

lytrytyr · 11-11-2012, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by jbuck92

Would a2.4 vs 1.4 give me adequate light in a dimly lit setting? Concerts, indoor lectures, etc.

I use a DA 70 on a K-x as a compact setup, and it really works well in low light.
The DA 70 focuses very fast under those conditions,
and it's sharper wide open than the FA 50/1.4 stopped down to f/2.8.

axl · 11-12-2012, 12:56 AM

If you want 50 I'll cast another vote for F/FA50/1.7.
I used to have F50 and it was fantastic lens. Very sharp wide open, very fast AF, great colour and contrast. My only niggle was hexagonal highlights in out of focus areas. But one can get used to it. I did have several copies of FA50/1.4 too personaly I was happy with it but if you don't want/need f1.4 I'd rather shoot f1.7 version wide open than FA50/1.4 stopped down. But tha's just me

kswong_00 · 11-12-2012, 05:04 AM

have you ever considered tamron 28-75? it has a constant f2.8 and good for low light and portrait work too.

Schmidlapper · 11-12-2012, 05:24 AM

The DA70 is a great portrait lens, in my opinion it is a true gem. I think you imply the price of a DA70 is about your price range to spend. For that amount you could get the DAL35 and a new DA50mm or FA50, then later you could add the 70 and/or 15, leaving you well covered from 15 to 70. I have the Tam 17-50 and it is good, but not better than the DA Prime lenses.

VisualDarkness · 11-12-2012, 06:27 AM

Where did my post go? I put in pics made with the DA70 but I can't see it anymore.

Edit: I posted in the wrong thread, hehe.

The DA70/2.4 works fine for me in low light. Note that several pics are stopped down to get enough depth of field, there limits with shooting wide-open with fast lenses.

Not low light, almost no light. That pub was dark.

The other band had a bit better lighting at least.

Another concert, first with a person in light and the other one with almost only back lighting.

jbuck92 · 11-12-2012, 07:18 AM

Well I planned on getting the Tamron 17-50 as a Christmas/birthday present. I could get the other lens with whatever money I get as a gift + a bit of my own. Due to front/back focussing issues with the 17-50, would it worth it to buy one new and then I have it covered under warranty incase it does present one of those issues? Are there any known issues with the DA 70?

11-11-2012, 05:58 PM	#1
jbuck92 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 381	Next 2 lenses So I'm sure this topic has been beat to death before, but I was wondering if anyone had some user-based advice between a few different lenses I'm considering. I've still been toying with the thought of getting a DA 40 or 70 limited (and probably will at some point), but for the money I realized that I could get a good AF fast 50 and also upgrade my 18-55 kit lens to the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 variants. Which of these lenses would y'all recommend? FA 50/1.4 vs. FA 50/1.7 vs DA 50/1.8 (From the pictures I've looked at, I think I like the bokeh of the FA 1.4 the most, 1.7 second and DA 1.8 3rd) Tamron 17-50/2.8 vs Sigma 17-50/2.8 I've been in the need of a fast lens for low-light. I do a lot of pictures of dimly lit seminars/concerts for work and a constant 2.8 would really help. I've read the reviews comparing them but still am not sure. I'm leaning towards the FA 50/1.4 and the Tamron 17-50. Any one else concur or have another suggestion?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What lenses next (K5iis)	gooseta	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	11-08-2012 02:00 PM
In Detroit next week - what auto museums and 2 lenses?	interested_observer	Photographic Technique	15	06-14-2012 08:44 AM
New Q/K lenses to be unveiled next week?	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	132	04-30-2012 10:58 AM
The next lenses are needed...	Taurus-Berlin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	03-09-2012 12:35 AM
The next K-Mount lenses to come out this year... ?	beholder3	Photographic Industry and Professionals	55	01-31-2012 02:21 PM

11-11-2012, 06:35 PM	#2
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	The FA 50/1.4 and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 are excellent choices. People complain about the sharpness of FA 50/1.4 wide open, but if you use a hood (rubber hoods can be found on ebay for a couple of $) makes a huge difference. With a hood, the lens becomes respectably sharp at f1.4. The Tamron is cheaper and lighter than the Sigma, and sharp--the trick is to find a copy that doesn't BF or FF.

11-11-2012, 06:40 PM	#3
jbuck92 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 381 Original Poster	What would it cost to have a copy that does BF or FF serviced? And how common is it?

11-11-2012, 06:49 PM	#4
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	If you are getting a 17-50, I would not get a 50 as it is a duplication of FL with no real benefits. The high ISO performance with the K5 is pretty good, so you can bump the ISO and probably get better result wide open with the Tamron. If you want to go the prime route, the 40 and 70 are nice small ones. You could complete them with the 15 and 21 though if you really like wide angle I would perhaps substitute the 12-24 for those two.

11-11-2012, 06:53 PM	#5
jbuck92 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 381 Original Poster	I have a K-r. Wish I had a K-5! I wanted to grab a 50 to have the wide aperture for portrait work. The 40 and 70 would be great to have and I'll likely add the 70 as a Christmas present to myself.

11-11-2012, 09:05 PM	#6
lukulele Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Blue Ridge Escarpment, North Carolina, US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,850	I have used a 1.7 50 F with both K-7 and K-5 and love it for dimly lit school auditorium presentations. Ymmv but handheld with K-5 is fine and tripod is terrific. Colors and sharpness are exemplary. Prices are usually +- $175-$225.

11-11-2012, 09:43 PM	#7
jbuck92 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 381 Original Poster	What made you get the 1.7 over the 1.4?

11-11-2012, 10:49 PM	#8
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	I would choose the 70/2.4 over the 50/1.4 as a compliment to a standard zoom. The DA70 is truly a wonderful small lens with fantastic rendering and would't overlap with the zoom.

11-11-2012, 10:52 PM	#9
jbuck92 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 381 Original Poster	Would a2.4 vs 1.4 give me adequate light in a dimly lit setting? Concerts, indoor lectures, etc.

11-11-2012, 11:58 PM	#10
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by jbuck92 Would a2.4 vs 1.4 give me adequate light in a dimly lit setting? Concerts, indoor lectures, etc. I use a DA 70 on a K-x as a compact setup, and it really works well in low light. The DA 70 focuses very fast under those conditions, and it's sharper wide open than the FA 50/1.4 stopped down to f/2.8.

11-12-2012, 12:56 AM	#11
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	If you want 50 I'll cast another vote for F/FA50/1.7. I used to have F50 and it was fantastic lens. Very sharp wide open, very fast AF, great colour and contrast. My only niggle was hexagonal highlights in out of focus areas. But one can get used to it. I did have several copies of FA50/1.4 too personaly I was happy with it but if you don't want/need f1.4 I'd rather shoot f1.7 version wide open than FA50/1.4 stopped down. But tha's just me

11-12-2012, 05:04 AM	#12
kswong_00 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 63	have you ever considered tamron 28-75? it has a constant f2.8 and good for low light and portrait work too.

11-12-2012, 05:24 AM	#13
Schmidlapper Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery Posts: 534	The DA70 is a great portrait lens, in my opinion it is a true gem. I think you imply the price of a DA70 is about your price range to spend. For that amount you could get the DAL35 and a new DA50mm or FA50, then later you could add the 70 and/or 15, leaving you well covered from 15 to 70. I have the Tam 17-50 and it is good, but not better than the DA Prime lenses.

11-12-2012, 06:27 AM	#14
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Where did my post go? I put in pics made with the DA70 but I can't see it anymore. Edit: I posted in the wrong thread, hehe. The DA70/2.4 works fine for me in low light. Note that several pics are stopped down to get enough depth of field, there limits with shooting wide-open with fast lenses. Not low light, almost no light. That pub was dark. The other band had a bit better lighting at least. Another concert, first with a person in light and the other one with almost only back lighting.

11-12-2012, 07:18 AM	#15
jbuck92 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 381 Original Poster	Well I planned on getting the Tamron 17-50 as a Christmas/birthday present. I could get the other lens with whatever money I get as a gift + a bit of my own. Due to front/back focussing issues with the 17-50, would it worth it to buy one new and then I have it covered under warranty incase it does present one of those issues? Are there any known issues with the DA 70?