Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-17-2013, 08:45 AM   #1
Veteran Member
PBandJ's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Washington DC metro area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 480
K-01: help me choose from these lens combos/ updated, bought Tam 17-50 2.8

EDIT: BOUGHT THE TAMRON 17-50 2.8

I'd like to cover the 16-100-ish range, with good sharp & fast lenses. All in the $400 ballpark. Looking for the best value and optic-combo. BUT I also don't want to start from scratch next year with buying more lenses- crazy huh? I'd like to have what I have cover my needs pretty well from the start. I don't need the extra range from 100-250; I would prefer better IQ, but if they're the same, why not have it

I am a hobbyist, and it would be a walkaround/travel lens and also for beginning street photography. I am really drawn to low light photos (using natural light), vs full sun landscape, flowers etc. I also don't want to be changing lenses all the time but I could because I think that there may be enough overlap to the choices I've outlined below where I would be able to keep a lens on for an outing.

I don't even own or want to own a camera bag or flash! :-0

Can it be done?? These are the combos I'm considering. Please give me your feedback.


Camera: K01 - non WR CAMERA


1) Tamron 18-250 (F3.5-6.3) about $400
2) Pentax 18-135 about $400
3) Tamron 28-75 (F2.8) with Kit lens 18-55, $400
4) Pentax 16-45 with Pentax 28-105 (4-5.6) $350
5) Pentax 16-45 with Pentax 28-70 (F4) $325
edit- adding option 6

6 ) Sigma HSM Macro 17-70mm F/2.8-4 DC $325

Other ideas?

THANK YOU ALL!


Last edited by PBandJ; 01-24-2013 at 11:39 AM.
01-17-2013, 08:48 AM   #2
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,398
I'm pretty happy with my Pentax 18-135. Besides, if you get a WR camera on down the line you can use it for a full WR combo!
01-17-2013, 09:04 AM   #3
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
If you don't need the 100-250 range then don't get it. You said you want low light, well that is f2.8. The lens on your list that has the best IQ and best aperture for low light is the Tamron 28-75. The superzooms are not very low light friendly and often have compromises in the optics (you can't have a lens that is great across the entire range for peanuts).
01-17-2013, 09:22 AM   #4
Veteran Member
PBandJ's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Washington DC metro area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 480
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
If you don't need the 100-250 range then don't get it. You said you want low light, well that is f2.8. The lens on your list that has the best IQ and best aperture for low light is the Tamron 28-75. The superzooms are not very low light friendly and often have compromises in the optics (you can't have a lens that is great across the entire range for peanuts).
Would you match the Tamron 28-75 with something other than the kit 18-55 to get the shorter end?

Thx

edit- adding option 6

6 ) Sigma HSM Macro 17-70mm F/2.8-4 DC $325


Last edited by PBandJ; 01-17-2013 at 09:56 AM.
01-17-2013, 10:32 AM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
Not sure how you're going to go without something resembling a bag or at least a fanny pack if you have multiple lenses.

But without multiple lenses you'll never reach your goal of "good sharp & fast lenses." Look for fixed aperture when buying a zoom.

Buy used to stay closer to budget. My suggestion is to get the Tamron or Sigma 17/18-50 f/2.8 plus the DA* 50-135. If the 50-135 is too big get the FA77 instead. Believe it or not it's about as flexible as the zoom because of its size, speed and other characteristics. A possible alternative is the DA70 plus the Cosina 100/3.5 macro (available with AF).

You should also pick up an A50/1.7 or similar lens. If you haven't used such a lens you have no idea just how much light a truly fast lens can "suck in" in low light.

EDIT: I misread part of your statement. You want $400 for the whole combo, not each lens. Can't be done unless you're willing to go w/ MF. You could come close with the AF 17/18-50/2.8 (or Tamron 28-75/2.8) and Cosina 100 combo.

Pentax 16-45 is also pretty good, and A or M 100/2.8 are fantastic, rendering and feeling almost like an FA77 but not quite as fast.


You need to spend your $400 on something members have suggested here, and then be prepared to make changes as you learn what you need and like.

Last edited by DSims; 01-17-2013 at 11:08 AM.
01-17-2013, 11:07 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
It's tough to cover the whole 18-100 and have fast aperture, unless you have $1k+- to spend and have AF. If you want to go with MF, like DSims mentioned, you can do it with some nice lenses. If I wanted low light, one lens, walk around, I'd probably go with the Tamron 28-75/2.8 or the Tamron/Pentax 28-105 (had one and its a very nice lens) - but its not that fast. Budget is the killer for all this with AF. You can do f4 or so for your budget but not really the whole range at f2.8 and stay AutoFocus.
01-17-2013, 11:40 AM   #7
Veteran Member
PBandJ's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Washington DC metro area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 480
Original Poster
(I was going to put everything in a *purse* or messenger bag, btw. )

THanks guys. I have to decide whether 16/17-50 or 28-75 is a better range for me. BUt it sounds like one of those with a fixed 2.8 is the way to go and then supplement with a fixed. I have to make a trip down to a store and check out the ranges in person.

Docrwm--There were 3 versions of the 28-105. Which did you have/think was good?
01-17-2013, 12:00 PM   #8
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by PBandJ Quote
(I was going to put everything in a *purse* or messenger bag, btw. )

THanks guys. I have to decide whether 16/17-50 or 28-75 is a better range for me. BUt it sounds like one of those with a fixed 2.8 is the way to go and then supplement with a fixed. I have to make a trip down to a store and check out the ranges in person.

Docrwm--There were 3 versions of the 28-105. Which did you have/think was good?
It was the same lens as the SMC Pentax-FA 28-105mm F4-5.6 [IF], which was designed by Tamron.

01-17-2013, 12:06 PM   #9
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,398
QuoteOriginally posted by PBandJ Quote
(I was going to put everything in a *purse* or messenger bag, btw. )

THanks guys. I have to decide whether 16/17-50 or 28-75 is a better range for me. BUt it sounds like one of those with a fixed 2.8 is the way to go and then supplement with a fixed. I have to make a trip down to a store and check out the ranges in person.
I can vouch for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I use it alot.
01-17-2013, 12:10 PM   #10
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
I can vouch for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I use it alot.
Both those 2.8s seem to have lots of fans. I've debated getting either the 17-50 or 28-70 but decided to go with the Limiteds instead.
01-17-2013, 01:05 PM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,326
QuoteOriginally posted by PBandJ Quote
I'd like to cover the 16-100-ish range, with good sharp & fast lenses. All in the $400 ballpark. Looking for the best value and optic-combo.
.....

Can it be done?? These are the combos I'm considering. Please give me your feedback.


Camera: K01 - non WR CAMERA
In the film days 3 lenses was thought to be enough: Wide angle; standard; and telephoto. Further zooming was done with the feet. As you can see, the kit adds roughly one-half the focal length of a lens to achieve the next step at the short end and double the FL at the long end.

W, S, T
24,35, 85
24, 50, 100
28, 50, 100
35, 50, 100

Omitting the 16mm, you could certainly acquire K or M manual focus versions of any three of these lenses for right at $400 in the marketplace - many of them are actually available right now. Focus peaking on the K-01 is good enough that these will work quite well. Ev +/- shows up well on the LCD after you use the Green Button and you can see the Compensation as you apply it.

K24/2.8 = $165 (hardest to find)
K28/3.5 = $135
K35/3.5 = $135
K50/1.4 = $120
K105/2.8 = $165
M100/2.8 = $135

The 85mm won't fit in your budget.

The 28/35 shared hood is about $40. The 50 hood is about $30. The K100 hood is aboutm $40 and the M100 about $20.

I [presently have each of the lenses listed and they're all quite sharp and contrasty - some exceptionally so. Check the lens review in the database - most are rated above 9.

An 85mm portrait lens will not make your budget.
01-17-2013, 01:29 PM   #12
Veteran Member
PBandJ's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Washington DC metro area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 480
Original Poster
I think I'm going to go with the 17-50 or 28-75 /2.8 from Tamron- leaning towards the 17-50 ($425 new, having trouble finding used)
The one thing holding me back is that Sigma is releasing a new 17-70 F2.8-4 very shortly for $500


edit
Thanks again- I posted for these in the WANTED section--Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 17-70/2.8 no OS

Last edited by PBandJ; 01-17-2013 at 01:42 PM.
01-17-2013, 02:45 PM   #13
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,676
Be careful with that Tamron 17-50, make sure you get a good copy. I've never heard of a lens with more AF issues.
01-17-2013, 03:10 PM   #14
Veteran Member
PBandJ's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Washington DC metro area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 480
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Be careful with that Tamron 17-50, make sure you get a good copy. I've never heard of a lens with more AF issues.
Thanks for the heads up... as soon as I make a decision, I have to start again!
01-17-2013, 05:12 PM   #15
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area)
Posts: 1,491
Because the K-01 uses on-sensor contrast detection for autofocus, it really shouldn't be bothered by the kind of focal-length-dependent misfocusing that the Tamron 17-50 seems to be famous for.

I don't have either the K-01 (yet -- waiting for mine to come!) or that lens, so I can't say for sure. But I believe others have reported good AF performance from the Tamron on the K-01.
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!
camera, combos, k-mount, lens, lenses, light, pentax, pentax lens, range, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help me choose which lens CalebWM Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 01-02-2013 07:30 PM
New Here Please help choose my first Lense for K-01 SonDa5 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 12-17-2012 10:58 PM
K-01 B&H Some combos In Stock 03/06 monochrome Pentax K-01 14 03-07-2012 09:16 AM
K-5 OR K-r + Ltd Lens? Help me choose Deimos Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 10-14-2011 03:25 PM
Help me choose my Pentax lens selection Mr_Canuck Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 04-14-2011 11:01 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:29 PM. | 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