Need Lens Advice Please

Rmpjr7 · 03-21-2008, 12:04 PM

Hi all!

I am new to Pentax and have a K100D, along with the 18-55 kit lens, and the 43 LTD.

I shoot mostly landscapes and "walking around" type shots. I am getting a Sigma 105MM Macro as I have strong interests in macro.

My question is what would you recommend, based on my shooting "likes",
between the 21mm, 50mm macro, 70mm ltd or 77mm LTD, for my next lens?

Thank you all for your advice.

Bob

**pentagor** · 03-21-2008, 12:28 PM

If you don't mind changing lenses, then I would say go for 21. I would also consider Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-24. For landscapes, I think you have to go as wide as possible.
If you are not in the possition to change the lens very often, then try Pentax 16-45, Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 28-75.
But that's just me.

superfuzzy · 03-21-2008, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Rmpjr7

...what would you recommend, based on my shooting "likes",
between the 21mm, 50mm macro, 70mm ltd or 77mm LTD, for my next lens?

Thank you all for your advice.

Bob

21mm. 50mm isn't the ideal focal length for walking around. With 21mm you can always get closer, or crop. With 50mm you may not be able to step back far enough to get the entire shot in the frame. There are other options of course.

simonkit · 03-21-2008, 12:37 PM

When shooting landscapes I'd say that 85% of my shots are in the 17 - 25mm range so based on your list I'd say the 21mm would be most useful.

simon

k100d · 03-21-2008, 01:47 PM

21 is a great lens, very portable and good IQ

nostatic · 03-21-2008, 03:31 PM

depends on how much you like to change lenses. For city shooting, 21mm would be a good one. The kit zoom is ok, but I am constantly (and pleasantly) surprised at how good the 16-45 zoom is. One thing about "walking around" is that sometimes you can't move quite enough to get the shot. I usually try to avoid zooms but they can be damn handy. And if you're trying to capture an "event" then I think they are essential.

Primes to me are more for controlled situations or "art" if you have a particular look that you're trying to achieve. I also find that they can push me to try things I wouldn't otherwise do with framing. It is easy to fall into "the usual" shot, and if you've got a zoom you just twist and snap. Plenty of brilliant photos have been done with mixed focal length lenses, especially city shots.

Your 43ltd should be an excellent lens for "walking around" with a little more creative eye. I actually have done walkarounds with my 77mm and like the way it pushes and pulls my eye. I am thinking of getting a 21mm for street shooting because I'm used to working a p&s at the wide (28mm equivalent) end. And I'm getting at 35ltd macro just because. I love macro too but am not thrilled with the current Pentax offerings...the ltd hopefully will change that.

713alan · 03-21-2008, 05:22 PM

The 21 would give you a better picture at 21mm focal length than the kit lens but would not help for the rest of your focal length range.

The 16-45 or *16-50 will give you better pictures across the full range of your kit lens plus wider, down to 16mm, pictures. The improvement may not be as good at 21mm than the 21 lens but the improvement across the zoom range plus the wider 16mm end for landscapes make either of these zooms a better choice for your type shooting. Wait until later to get the 21.

The above advice assumes you are keeping the kit lens with the 21. If you are dumping the kit lens and going strictly with primes then your 21, 43, 105 would be a nice start.

nostatic · 03-21-2008, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by 713alan

The 21 would give you a better picture at 21mm focal length than the kit lens but would not help for the rest of your focal length range.

The 16-45 or *16-50 will give you better pictures across the full range of your kit lens plus wider, down to 16mm, pictures. The improvement may not be as good at 21mm than the 21 lens but the improvement across the zoom range plus the wider 16mm end for landscapes make either of these zooms a better choice for your type shooting. Wait until later to get the 21.

The above advice assumes you are keeping the kit lens with the 21. If you are dumping the kit lens and going strictly with primes then your 21, 43, 105 would be a nice start.

Agree with all of this, and realize that the difference between 16 and 18 can be significant. imho either the 16-45 or 16-50* (assuming you can roll the dice and get a good one) is a serious step up from the kit lens. Not that the kit lens is so bad, but you can see a difference.

For primes, I think that you need either the 70 or 77. To me this length (around 105mm effective) is the total sweet spot for portraits and close-up candids. The 105 macro is indeed a good portrait lens but for me I have to get too far away from the subject and I lose intimacy. At 45mm, I have to get too close. But that really depends on the shooter and the subjects. For some people being far away at 135mm is the only way I can get them.

My advice is to do an experiment with your zoom. Set it at about 21mm and go out and shoot stuff that you'd normally shoot. But DO NOT touch the zoom. See what you get and how it works for you. Then do the same thing but set at 50mm. Then the same thing with the 43ltd on the camera.

I can't recall about the kit lens, but the 16-45 allows you to work very close to the lens and while not a macro, you can get macro-esque shots depending on your subject.

**wtlwdwgn** · 03-21-2008, 08:22 PM

If your landscape preference is for the wide 'cinemascope' view, then 21mm isn't nearly wide enough either. That said, you can shoot landscape with any lens depending on the subject. I would look through the gallery for landscapes that are similar to the ones you would like to shoot and see what lenses are used for those images. I use all of my lenses to shoot landscapes. It just depends on the camera to subject distance and angle of view for my composition. Good luck with your choice.

Rmpjr7 · 03-22-2008, 07:15 AM

Thanks to all for your very good advice and suggestions!

I am deciding now between the 21mm and the 16-45 zoom. My original intention was to go with primes as I build my kit, but so many good comments about the 16-45 being very good have me thinking I should get that for not only quality pics, but for it's wider view and versatility, and sell my 18-55 kit lens.

Bob

creampuff · 03-22-2008, 08:09 AM

Bob, in terms of versatility, the DA 16-45 definitely has the edge over the DA 21 even though it is a much bigger lens in terms of size. I have often been tempted to replace my DA 16-45 but it has proven itself time and again. Moreover it is a lot cheaper than the DA* 16-50 with an optical performance that can match.

**Canada_Rockies** · 03-22-2008, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

Bob, in terms of versatility, the DA 16-45 definitely has the edge over the DA 21 even though it is a much bigger lens in terms of size. I have often been tempted to replace my DA 16-45 but it has proven itself time and again. Moreover it is a lot cheaper than the DA* 16-50 with an optical performance that can match.

Agreed. I have the 16-50 rather than the 16-45 for two reasons. First is that it is weatherproof. Second is the extra 5 mm at the long end. Did I mention it is weatherproof? That's important here where the saying is "If you don't like the weather, wait 5 minutes."

nostatic · 03-22-2008, 10:31 AM

it never rains in California...

I would pick up a 16-50 in a heartbeat if I knew it was going to outperformy 16-45. But odd seem 50-50 at best. My 50-135 is dn contrast and sharp for a zoom. But the 16-45 is just a out perfect wrt size and balance. But ymmv

03-21-2008, 12:04 PM	#1
Rmpjr7 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Nebraska Posts: 242	Need Lens Advice Please Hi all! I am new to Pentax and have a K100D, along with the 18-55 kit lens, and the 43 LTD. I shoot mostly landscapes and "walking around" type shots. I am getting a Sigma 105MM Macro as I have strong interests in macro. My question is what would you recommend, based on my shooting "likes", between the 21mm, 50mm macro, 70mm ltd or 77mm LTD, for my next lens? Thank you all for your advice. Bob

03-21-2008, 03:31 PM	#6
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	depends on how much you like to change lenses. For city shooting, 21mm would be a good one. The kit zoom is ok, but I am constantly (and pleasantly) surprised at how good the 16-45 zoom is. One thing about "walking around" is that sometimes you can't move quite enough to get the shot. I usually try to avoid zooms but they can be damn handy. And if you're trying to capture an "event" then I think they are essential. Primes to me are more for controlled situations or "art" if you have a particular look that you're trying to achieve. I also find that they can push me to try things I wouldn't otherwise do with framing. It is easy to fall into "the usual" shot, and if you've got a zoom you just twist and snap. Plenty of brilliant photos have been done with mixed focal length lenses, especially city shots. Your 43ltd should be an excellent lens for "walking around" with a little more creative eye. I actually have done walkarounds with my 77mm and like the way it pushes and pulls my eye. I am thinking of getting a 21mm for street shooting because I'm used to working a p&s at the wide (28mm equivalent) end. And I'm getting at 35ltd macro just because. I love macro too but am not thrilled with the current Pentax offerings...the ltd hopefully will change that. Last edited by nostatic; 03-21-2008 at 03:37 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens advice	SebastianP	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	10-20-2010 10:44 AM
Advice for lens please	fekish	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	09-12-2010 08:44 AM
lens advice	bsod	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	19	06-05-2009 09:08 AM
Lens advice	benjaminmichael	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	05-20-2009 08:56 PM
Need advice on a lens	robcap13	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	11	03-04-2009 06:33 AM

03-21-2008, 12:28 PM	#2
pentagor Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia Posts: 495	If you don't mind changing lenses, then I would say go for 21. I would also consider Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-24. For landscapes, I think you have to go as wide as possible. If you are not in the possition to change the lens very often, then try Pentax 16-45, Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 28-75. But that's just me.

03-21-2008, 12:30 PM	#3
superfuzzy Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: NJ, USA (close to NYC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 278	Originally posted by Rmpjr7 ...what would you recommend, based on my shooting "likes", between the 21mm, 50mm macro, 70mm ltd or 77mm LTD, for my next lens? Thank you all for your advice. Bob 21mm. 50mm isn't the ideal focal length for walking around. With 21mm you can always get closer, or crop. With 50mm you may not be able to step back far enough to get the entire shot in the frame. There are other options of course.

03-21-2008, 12:37 PM	#4
simonkit Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: North Wales, UK Posts: 645	When shooting landscapes I'd say that 85% of my shots are in the 17 - 25mm range so based on your list I'd say the 21mm would be most useful. simon

03-21-2008, 01:47 PM	#5
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	21 is a great lens, very portable and good IQ

03-21-2008, 05:22 PM	#7
713alan Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Houston Posts: 46	The 21 would give you a better picture at 21mm focal length than the kit lens but would not help for the rest of your focal length range. The 16-45 or *16-50 will give you better pictures across the full range of your kit lens plus wider, down to 16mm, pictures. The improvement may not be as good at 21mm than the 21 lens but the improvement across the zoom range plus the wider 16mm end for landscapes make either of these zooms a better choice for your type shooting. Wait until later to get the 21. The above advice assumes you are keeping the kit lens with the 21. If you are dumping the kit lens and going strictly with primes then your 21, 43, 105 would be a nice start.

03-21-2008, 05:49 PM	#8
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by 713alan The 21 would give you a better picture at 21mm focal length than the kit lens but would not help for the rest of your focal length range. The 16-45 or 16-50 will give you better pictures across the full range of your kit lens plus wider, down to 16mm, pictures. The improvement may not be as good at 21mm than the 21 lens but the improvement across the zoom range plus the wider 16mm end for landscapes make either of these zooms a better choice for your type shooting. Wait until later to get the 21. The above advice assumes you are keeping the kit lens with the 21. If you are dumping the kit lens and going strictly with primes then your 21, 43, 105 would be a nice start. Agree with all of this, and realize that the difference between 16 and 18 can be significant. imho either the 16-45 or 16-50 (assuming you can roll the dice and get a good one) is a serious step up from the kit lens. Not that the kit lens is so bad, but you can see a difference. For primes, I think that you need either the 70 or 77. To me this length (around 105mm effective) is the total sweet spot for portraits and close-up candids. The 105 macro is indeed a good portrait lens but for me I have to get too far away from the subject and I lose intimacy. At 45mm, I have to get too close. But that really depends on the shooter and the subjects. For some people being far away at 135mm is the only way I can get them. My advice is to do an experiment with your zoom. Set it at about 21mm and go out and shoot stuff that you'd normally shoot. But DO NOT touch the zoom. See what you get and how it works for you. Then do the same thing but set at 50mm. Then the same thing with the 43ltd on the camera. I can't recall about the kit lens, but the 16-45 allows you to work very close to the lens and while not a macro, you can get macro-esque shots depending on your subject.

03-21-2008, 08:22 PM	#9
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,845	If your landscape preference is for the wide 'cinemascope' view, then 21mm isn't nearly wide enough either. That said, you can shoot landscape with any lens depending on the subject. I would look through the gallery for landscapes that are similar to the ones you would like to shoot and see what lenses are used for those images. I use all of my lenses to shoot landscapes. It just depends on the camera to subject distance and angle of view for my composition. Good luck with your choice.

03-22-2008, 07:15 AM	#10
Rmpjr7 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Nebraska Posts: 242 Original Poster	Thanks to all for your very good advice and suggestions! I am deciding now between the 21mm and the 16-45 zoom. My original intention was to go with primes as I build my kit, but so many good comments about the 16-45 being very good have me thinking I should get that for not only quality pics, but for it's wider view and versatility, and sell my 18-55 kit lens. Bob

03-22-2008, 08:09 AM	#11
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Bob, in terms of versatility, the DA 16-45 definitely has the edge over the DA 21 even though it is a much bigger lens in terms of size. I have often been tempted to replace my DA 16-45 but it has proven itself time and again. Moreover it is a lot cheaper than the DA* 16-50 with an optical performance that can match.

03-22-2008, 10:15 AM	#12
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by creampuff Bob, in terms of versatility, the DA 16-45 definitely has the edge over the DA 21 even though it is a much bigger lens in terms of size. I have often been tempted to replace my DA 16-45 but it has proven itself time and again. Moreover it is a lot cheaper than the DA* 16-50 with an optical performance that can match. Agreed. I have the 16-50 rather than the 16-45 for two reasons. First is that it is weatherproof. Second is the extra 5 mm at the long end. Did I mention it is weatherproof? That's important here where the saying is "If you don't like the weather, wait 5 minutes."

03-22-2008, 10:31 AM	#13
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	it never rains in California... I would pick up a 16-50 in a heartbeat if I knew it was going to outperformy 16-45. But odd seem 50-50 at best. My 50-135 is dn contrast and sharp for a zoom. But the 16-45 is just a out perfect wrt size and balance. But ymmv