Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-13-2008, 10:37 PM   #1
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
Am I crazy?

I have the DA 16-45 and the Tamron 28-75. I really, really like them both, and they certainly rate highly from almost every Pentax user who owns them. But I'm looking to downsize my travel kit, and I'm thinking of selling both to get the DA* 16-50. That will give me the focal length of the 16-45, which I use the most, and the 2.8 of the 28-75, which I go to in low light. Then, I'll get the DA 70 to fill out the same range. What do you folks think?

Todd

02-13-2008, 10:49 PM   #2
and
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,471
sounds sensible eanough to me... I recently sold off a bunch of lenses in order to reduce my kit as well. it just gets too heavy to drag around in the end.
02-14-2008, 12:16 AM   #3
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
Wait til summer for the DA* 17-70? Just a thought...
02-14-2008, 01:55 AM   #4
Senior Member
benplaut's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 268
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
Wait til summer for the DA* 17-70? Just a thought...
well... it's not f2.8.

02-14-2008, 03:12 AM   #5
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
Sell the Tamron??? If you really need to reduce weight, well I guess that plan makes sense. For me, I'm thinking the other way, just add a fast wider zoom. The 28-75 has just been a great workhorse and I could't imagine it out of the bag.
02-14-2008, 03:41 AM   #6
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
It is always good to have choices. Having a couple of zooms do not hurt. Tamron 28-75 is a light and useful zoom to keep
02-14-2008, 04:01 AM   #7
Veteran Member
heatherslightbox's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,595
Actually, I'm looking to get a better quality shorter end zoom in the next month or so and the 28-75 is definitely on my short list. I think it would be nice paired with a 21 or some other short wider prime. If I went that route, my travel kit would look like this:

21/3.2
28-75/2.8
43/1.9
70-210/4-5.6

I don't know if I would use anything much wider than a 28 that often, so there would really be no need to get a wider zoom; the 28-75 dovetails nicely with the 70-210.

On the other hand, I do currently have a 28-70 (listed in my sig) that's not quite as fast as the Tamron, but is still pretty decent, so I could go ahead and get the 21 and wait on the Tamron. If nothing else, I do have my birthday in July and I usually get at least $200 in cash from that.

Heather
02-14-2008, 05:47 AM   #8
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
In a word, Yes

QuoteOriginally posted by gnaztee Quote
I have the DA 16-45 and the Tamron 28-75. I really, really like them both, and they certainly rate highly from almost every Pentax user who owns them. But I'm looking to downsize my travel kit, and I'm thinking of selling both to get the DA* 16-50. That will give me the focal length of the 16-45, which I use the most, and the 2.8 of the 28-75, which I go to in low light. Then, I'll get the DA 70 to fill out the same range. What do you folks think?

Todd
Todd

I think selling the tamron 28-75 is the wrong move.

if yoou want to stay with 2 lenses and cover the wide end, why not look at the 12-24 as opposed to the 16-50.

This gives you more flexibility than you have at present. You still have the 28-75 for a fast low light situation. and you eliminate the large overlap you have presently in your collection.

The other option, since you won't get much for the kit lens any way is to just get the 12-24, and keep the kit lens. I know it does nothing to kighten your load, but it would be the lens to leave behind when travelling, you won't have a problem with the gap from 24-28 any way, but the kit lens is good for parties etc.

02-14-2008, 08:15 AM   #9
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
Original Poster
So it's unanimous...

...I AM crazy. Dang it, you're supposed to confirm my brilliant ideas! Oh well, back to the unending analysis of my shooting habits and needs. And I thank you for your ideas.

Just to add some food for thought...I've found that the 16-45 (or 16-50) range is what I like for walking around. On two recent trips (one to cities, one to Joshua Tree NP) I had the 16-45 on the lens 90% of the time. I worry with the 12-24 and 28-75 that I'll constantly be switching to get the 16-50 range.

As far as the DA 17-70, if it's as good as the 16-45 it would be VERY tempting, but then I still need at least a 2.8 lens somewhere for lower light. I just thought the DA* would cover both needs. Maybe the 17-70, 12-24 and a low-light prime.

Is there a name for this? It's not LBA as much as LNO (Lens need overanalysis) . The more comments the better, I need all the help I can get!

Thanks again,
Todd

Last edited by gnaztee; 02-14-2008 at 08:17 AM. Reason: explanation
02-14-2008, 08:32 AM   #10
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 269
QuoteOriginally posted by gnaztee Quote
I have the DA 16-45 and the Tamron 28-75. I really, really like them both, and they certainly rate highly from almost every Pentax user who owns them. But I'm looking to downsize my travel kit, and I'm thinking of selling both to get the DA* 16-50. That will give me the focal length of the 16-45, which I use the most, and the 2.8 of the 28-75, which I go to in low light. Then, I'll get the DA 70 to fill out the same range. What do you folks think?

Todd
I think your idea is perfectly reasonable, IF you get a good copy of the DA* 16-50mm.

Ted
02-14-2008, 08:35 AM   #11
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Tbear Quote
I think your idea is perfectly reasonable, IF you get a good copy of the DA* 16-50mm.
Yes, that's the X-factor.

Todd
02-14-2008, 09:07 AM   #12
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 195
Haven't checked the weight nor sizes, but seems to me a 16-50 and 70 will weigh more than a 28-75 and say a 21.

Realizing the 21 isn't going to be 2.8, but maybe hold out to see if the tamron 10-24 is worth while could be an option also.
02-14-2008, 09:31 AM   #13
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by gnaztee Quote
...I AM crazy. Dang it, you're supposed to confirm my brilliant ideas! Oh well, back to the unending analysis of my shooting habits and needs. And I thank you for your ideas.

Just to add some food for thought...I've found that the 16-45 (or 16-50) range is what I like for walking around. On two recent trips (one to cities, one to Joshua Tree NP) I had the 16-45 on the lens 90% of the time. I worry with the 12-24 and 28-75 that I'll constantly be switching to get the 16-50 range.

As far as the DA 17-70, if it's as good as the 16-45 it would be VERY tempting, but then I still need at least a 2.8 lens somewhere for lower light. I just thought the DA* would cover both needs. Maybe the 17-70, 12-24 and a low-light prime.

Is there a name for this? It's not LBA as much as LNO (Lens need overanalysis) . The more comments the better, I need all the help I can get!

Thanks again,
Todd
you should do some analysis of your shots, while I understand you may have had the 16-45 on the camera 90% of the time, what focal lengths did you use?

I use exposure plot to analyze the focal lenghts I shoot at. It is useful in determining your shooting preferences. what if you find that your shots are either at 16 or 45mm with very little in between. This would tend to make me think you might really want an ultra wide.

Also, I generally find that when you are "out and about" that your shooting style narrows down quite a bit. for example, make oa tour of a castle, you would probably be at the wide end all the time, and make much more use of a 10-20 over that 3-4 hour period, so you are really not changing lenses between shots. also, make the tour with one lens, then if there are points where you want to go back and try something different, then mount the other lens. Why not. Of course, and this defeats the purpose of your intent to reduce weight, you could get a second body
02-14-2008, 09:36 AM   #14
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
Original Poster
You're right on that

But my only concern with that route is how much different the FOV is with the shorter focal lengths compared to more moderate. For example, 16/20 is a BIG difference in FOV, where 28/30 isn't so much. So that 21mm is on a FOV island out there with nothing else near it (less flexibility). Stupid metaphor aside, I want the flexibility at the wider angles, but not so much the more normal to telephoto.

I don't know if I have the patience to wait for the Tamron 10-24, but if it's as good as the 12-24 it's darn tempting.

Todd
02-14-2008, 09:44 AM   #15
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
Original Poster
I can't handle the truth...

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
you should do some analysis of your shots, while I understand you may have had the 16-45 on the camera 90% of the time, what focal lengths did you use?

I use exposure plot to analyze the focal lenghts I shoot at. It is useful in determining your shooting preferences. what if you find that your shots are either at 16 or 45mm with very little in between. This would tend to make me think you might really want an ultra wide.
I did that, and the truth I'm trying to avoid is that I come in at prime focal lengths for Pentax lenses (the expensive ones)

I'm at 16 often (which would suggest the DA 14 or upcoming DA 15 Ltd)

I'm at 20 often (so, DA 21)

I'm at 30 often (don't even want to think about the FA 31 or DA* 30)

and I'm at 45 (FA 43?)

I'm OVERWHELMINGLY at these lengths with the 16-45

With the 28-75, I'm always at 28 (suggesting I need wider), and near 70 (again with the DA Prime length).

Nothing against primes, but price and frequency of lens changes scare me away in the 14-50 range.


Todd
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!
da, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SR Went Crazy Engi_Nerd Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 06-09-2010 08:37 PM
Maybe I'm Not Crazy After All Sailor General Talk 7 04-02-2010 07:02 AM
I'm going crazy!!! mchud Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 11-30-2008 04:38 AM
Am I crazy? :) kinsale Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 08-21-2008 12:01 PM
How many of us are this crazy? straightshooter Photographic Technique 55 06-26-2008 06:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 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