[marc121]

Hello everyone, I bought a brand new K-50 that was bundled with the usual 18-55mm lens just two months ago. I am now looking to add a new lens or two to my arsenal. The problem is that I can't settle to which lens I really want and foremost, really need for my style of photography. I am more of a travel / landscape photograph I guess but I know I will do potraits (already have two weddings that asked me to take pictures as an amateur) from time to time. My girlfriend will borrow my camera and she really enjoys macrophotography and has thus agreed to pay half of a lens if it is telephoto/macro.


So I have spotted a Sigma 70-300 APO which is 1:2 macro (fine for her) but apparently very slow to focus and if I want to go back to Africa to get some shots that won't really do it. There is the Pentax 50-300mm WR which is apparently not a bad lens but then again it isn't really macro. Lately I was told of a Raynox macro add-on, do you think that might be the solution?


I am also looking for a prime lens but really don't know which between the Pentax 50mm 1.8f or the Pentax 35mm 2.4f to choose. A prime lens would serve me well on travel as it is light and fast in low light. Is 35mm (52mm on my APS-C) any good for potraits? I figure I could use this lens as a street lens on travel and use it as well for potraits (like weddings)?


So you see for yourself that I am very confuse on which way to go and I am obviously looking at a rather low budget (sigma 70-300 APO I can get for around 220$USD and either prime lens for 200$)


Do you have any suggestions of lens I could get, add-on like the raynax, which prime lens should I choose or will it even be useful?




Thank you so much!




A confused new amateur at photography

[Adam]

I would go for a DA L 55-300mm, used - better than the Sigma and probably around the same price. Also, the 50mm is the way to go if you want to do portraits.

[calculator01]

What I would recommend is...

The DA 35 2.4. It is more versatile than the 50 and a joy to use. While 35 is not the usual focal length for portraiture, it works. I actually prefer my 43 or 31 for portraits (as opposed to the 77) as it allows me to get closer. The 35 takes lovely, vibrant photos and will give you a low light option.

I would recommend the HD DA 55-300 WR over the Sigma. Reason being it is WR, produces better results, and is just an awesome lens. NO, you don't have the "macro" option, but it is still a third of the way there.

Save a little bit of money and save for a manual focus macro lens. Chances are, while doing macro, she would be using MF anyways. There are lots of good, old MF macro lens out there that won't break the bank. Plus extension tubes and reversal rings are very inexpensive.

[luftfluss]

What kind of macro photography is your g/f interested in? The minimum focus distance for the macro mode in the Sigma (and also the Tamron 70-300 macro) is about 1 meter. The long minimum focus distance is good for some kinds of macro - large bugs like butterflies, dragonflies, spiders - but poor for other kinds of macro, like a close-up of the engagement ring you'll eventually get her.

All of the cheap 300mm lenses are slow to focus, and frequently have problems focusing in less than good light. Over the years, I've owned 4 copies of the Tamron 70-300, 2 copies of the Pentax 55-300, and 1 copy of the Sigma 70-300. All of them are fairly mediocre in terms of sharpness, and each one has it's own image quality quirk, but the quality of your pictures will be more dependent on your ability than anything else. Plenty of folks have done very successful wildlife shooting with these lenses.

The Raynox DCR-150 macro adapter works a treat with long lenses, providing better than 1:1 magnification. You lose AF, though, and you need to get within inches of your subject. On the used market, you can often get a Cosina/Vivitar/Promaster 100/3.5 Macro for under $100. Sharp lenses, but manual focus, although I was able to pick up an AF version of the Promaster 100/3.5 for cheap.

[Kayaker-J]

The manual focus Tamron SP Adaptall-2 90mm/2.5 macro would be impossible to beat (or equal?) at around $100-110 used, give or take a little. You can't really outgrow this one. The interchangeable mount means finding one to work with a Pentax is so much easier; and a big advantage of this one is that a rare front floating element design makes it strong at all focus distances. That isn't always the case with macro lenses.

A very versatile alternative with decent close-up/macro if your ability to manual focus hand held is pretty strong is the Tamron 35-80mm/2.8-3.5 Adaptall-2 zoom. Its somewhat hidden special benefits are: 1. TWO performance sweet spots at either end of its range -- 35-40mm and 70-80mm, which is very, very unusual for a lens you can get this affordably -- and it steps up to complement your kit lens in performance right where you need it ($65-85 for a clean one, but watch out for rough mechanicals on some of these)... and 2. Either the MATCHED 01F 2x flat field teleconverter (circa $25) which is said to actually improve macro performance near the edges of the frame (NOT the usual) and get you to 1:1.25 (!); plus it's general purpose, as well... or the 140F 1.4x TC (about double in $$ and much harder to find), which will give you somewhat better results in general service.

I'd also recommend acquiring a manual focus 50-55mm, f.1.7 to f.2.0 lens if you don't get an AF DA50mm: Pentax lenses (and Ricoh, Sears, Chinon, et.al., alternatives) will cost only about $12 to $60 used, so why not? Arguably, either the SMC-'K' 55mm/1.8 or the SMC-A 50mm/1.7 are the top choices here. Others can give you AF options at 35mm "normal" and in alternative zoom lenses.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Not a lot to add, but you should really try to achieve your goals one lens at a time. So, if you/gf are serious about macro, a long zoom lens isn't a real good solution even if it has a macro setting. The Raynox is not a great solution, either. Probably extension tubes with a prime lens would be better than those alternatives - assuming you are willing to learn how to manual focus, and master the stop down process (not much to that).

If budget is a concern, don't look past some of the better used options. Even if you buy one that doesn't work out for you, most if not all of the cost can be recaptured when you sell it.

As for portrait lenses, personally I find the longer lenses a better option than what the 50mm yields (sorry to disagree with Adam - who generally is right on target). If you can find an A-series 35-105 f/3.5, those render very well in portrait shooting - and tend to be a good value when you see them on the used market.

[Kayaker-J]

@ScooterMaxi Jim... Oh, I think apart from a little downside in maybe having to crop a bit now and then, the 50mm makes for a suitable short, fast portrait length lens on APS-C with -- far and away -- unmatchable economy. Pros are cropping m4/3 portrait shots for clients regularly these days -- it's mostly about perspective and capturing some spontaneity -- so why would marc121 be at any great disadvantage?

BTW, I just bought a Kymco 500 Ri with 7,400 miles on it -- THAT sort of Scooter Maxi? I haven't ridden for 43 years... Back in the saddle!

[Sorver]

I have the sigma 70-300 macro bought second hand and the pentax 55-300 WR I love both lens but the pentax 55-300WR barely leaves my K-50 just because the size is more convenient to carry. This was taken with my Pentax
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3902/14552713097_02fc84419d_b_d.jpg

so with a extension tube I guess you could get some great macros.
I have the pentax 55mm 1.8 which has done some lovely portrait shots for me but I seem to go back to my Sigma 28mm 2.8 manual also second hand for a ridiculous low price.
I think whatever you have you will make good use of it and find a way but my choice out of the zoom is the pentax and don't underestimate your 18-55 it is a pretty awesome lens too

[Trudger1272]

you can often get a Cosina/Vivitar/Promaster 100/3.5 Macro for under $100. Sharp lenses, but manual focus, although I was able to pick up an AF version of the Promaster 100/3.5 for cheap.

I have the Vivitar AF version of this lens he is talking about, along with the adapter which makes it 1:1 and no longer use it, now that I have the FA 100 2.8. If you are in the states and want it, I'll send it to you. That way you could focus on your lens selection without needing to include the Macro option. "Notice: I said send, not sale." A gift to get you started.

[Sorver]

I have the Vivitar AF version of this lens he is talking about, along with the adapter which makes it 1:1 and no longer use it, now that I have the FA 100 2.8. If you are in the states and want it, I'll send it to you. That way you could focus on your lens selection without needing to include the Macro option. "Notice: I said send, not sale." A gift to get you started.

What a sweetie you are I hope the good is returned in tenfold👍

[Trudger1272]

What a sweetie you are I hope the good is returned in tenfold👍

Thank you!

[Des]

On the macro issue, there are plenty of cheap options without getting a dedicated macro lens:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/177-macro-photography/262296-macro-any-means-possible.html

Many people have got good results using close focus filters or a diopter on a good zoom lens like the 55-300, or extension tubes/lens reversal on a good cheap prime like the Pentax A50 f1.7 or one of the 85mm lenses. The prime would also serve as a portrait lens.

Edit: I see that the OP has just been offered a great solution for free. Well done Trudger1272 - what a trooper!

The 55-300 is a very good lens. It is outstanding value and hard to beat as a companion for your kit lens. Close focus lenses or a Raynox overcome the limitation of its long minimum focus distance (1.4m) and give you unbeatable versatility and good IQ on a budget.

As for the primes, I have both of the plastic fantastics (DA 35mm f2.4 and DA 50mm f1.8). Both light weight, great value, very sharp, but I use the 35 a lot more. It's a good companion for the 55-300 as a two-lens walkaround kit. And something no-one mentions: the 35 is excellent for video.

I agee with Calculator01 that the 35 works for portraits too. Here's a sample from the DA 35 (with K-30).

[Trudger1272]

Here are some test shots I took back when I first got it, so you see it's pretty decent. I originally bought it just to see if I liked macro enough to justify the FA 100.

[Des]

Wow, what a gift! Photozone calls it "cream in a yoghurt cup": Cosina AF 100mm f/3.5 macro (Pentax) - Review / Lab Test Report

[Kayaker-J]

Thank you!

Thank you, sir! That young fellow should jump on your thoughtful offer pronto. My faith in humanity restored... until I next witness some TV "coverage" of 'Today in Congress'...

I might now suggest marc121 consider with more direct attention the 35mm/2.4, or something else more versatile and less visually conspicuous than the zoom in the range where most of the really appealing photos get captured. I think that the 18-55mm will suffice at its faster wide end for awhile.

I'm not personally a big fan of the 35mm (52mm equivalent) "normal" lens -- there's no right or wrong here -- so I might suggest giving a try to the DA40mm XS version to gain a little extra "focus" with respect to perspective -- a "long normal", then. Or, my first preference in an affordable, highly versatile manual focus walkaround prime (if that's O.K.), a 24mm (SMC-A for ease of use and fast handling... maybe a touch price-y); or a less costly 28mm (SMC-A f.2.8 again... the SMC-'K' f.3.5 for best IQ; or the SMC-M for economy in well-built, compact form). It would be worth keeping a watch active for the auto-focus FA28mm/2.8 at a comfortably below $200 auction bid price, as these wins do occur. That would really work for marc121, I think, and he'd be set for 95% of the shots he might find necessary after shooting awhile and gaining experience... low light conditions excepted, perhaps.