Lineup of future lenses

Venom3300 · 12-06-2014, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by henne

I would consider the older K/M versions of the 400mm as well. They will cost you less than the A, and you will not miss the A position much, as such a long tele lens is used rather wide open anyhow. One can even use the Av mode of the body, maybe applying some exposure compensation on stopping down. This is my experience from using the SMC M 5.6/400.

If you are shooting these older long telephotos wide open, you are going to get some softness and CA. They need to be shot on a tripod and stopped down to f8-11 in most cases.

The tokina 400 4.5 AT-X AF is a great lens for the money.

**csa** · 12-06-2014, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Outis

I have actually lived very happily without a 50mm in my lineup! I just can't think of what I'd use that focal length for. The 50mm would generally be too narrow for landscapes, so it would end up being a portrait lens, but I already have the 77 for that. I wouldn't mind picking up an old one just to play around with it, but there's no particular hole it would fill for me.

A very good point! However, as another member pointed out; a fast one would be excellent for low light situations.

Outis · 12-06-2014, 02:48 PM

True, but I got very far with my 31mm f/1.8. Depending on what you like to take pictures of, you might do better with a fast normal lens (in the 30 to 40mm range).

DSims · 12-06-2014, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by csa

Uh, out of my price range!

A *300 will be in your price range someday, when you realize what it can do for you.

**csa** · 12-06-2014, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by DSims

A *300 will be in your price range someday, when you realize what it can do for you.

Not if I plan on continuing eating, and having heat.

A hobby can't replace these essentials.

DSims · 12-06-2014, 05:29 PM

I suppose this was in another discussion I missed, but if your body is anything since (and including) the K10D or K200D, you need a couple of lenses first.

For example, my K200D with the FA135 on it is the best IQ I can get with about $600 worth of equipment (I know what you're thinking ... how about the iPhone? ).

I consider the DFA 100 WR macro the best overall macro you can get, and I have one. But unless you're really into macro, save your money and get one of the many different-branded variants (AF or MF) of the Cosina 100/3.5 macro.

After all, if you can afford a $500 body and $600 lens, you can afford a $1000 lens, or two or three lenses worth about $1000-1200 combined. I didn't upgrade my K-x until I'd spent at least 5-7 times the price of the body on lenses (and I bought the body when it was newly released for around $650). When I finally upgraded to a K-5 it was anti-climatic, because it hardly improved my IQ (all the IQ improvements were already coming from the lenses when on the K-x).

FantasticMrFox · 12-06-2014, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by csa

When I decide to turn loose of the zooms; then I would consider some prime lenses. For now, I simply cannot afford to completely revamp & fill my lineup with top lenses. I guess I should have titled this thread as "near future" lineup.

Well, then add as affordable, but really good primes:

DA 50 f/1.8
DA 35 f/2.4

**csa** · 12-06-2014, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by DSims

I suppose this was in another discussion I missed, but if your body is anything since (and including) the K10D or K200D, you need a couple of lenses first.

For example, my K200D with the FA135 on it is the best IQ I can get with about $600 worth of equipment (I know what you're thinking ... how about the iPhone? ).

I consider the DFA 100 WR macro the best overall macro you can get, and I have one. But unless you're really into macro, save your money and get one of the many different-branded variants (AF or MF) of the Cosina 100/3.5 macro.

After all, if you can afford a $500 body and $600 lens, you can afford a $1000 lens, or two or three lenses worth about $1000-1200 combined. I didn't upgrade my K-x until I'd spent at least 5-7 times the price of the body on lenses (and I bought the body when it was newly released for around $650). When I finally upgraded to a K-5 it was anti-climatic, because it hardly improved my IQ (all the IQ improvements were already coming from the lenses when on the K-x).

Yes, I only have the K10D presently.

Update!! My spending is done for several months now, as I just committed to buying a Tokina 400mm!!! I'm a happy camper!

I think my next lens will be the DFA WR 100 Macro, as I do a lot of macro shooting.
The new body will now wait.

DSims · 12-06-2014, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by csa

Update!! My spending is done for several months now, as I just committed to buying a Tokina 400mm!!! I'm a happy camper! I think my next lens will be the DFA WR 100 Macro, as I do a lot of macro shooting.
The new body will now wait.

That was a good move (spending it on the lens)! Congrats. Enjoy your lens! Don't sell your K10D as long as it's working OK for you, even if you upgrade. I still use my K200D occasionally, just to get the nice output from its 10MP CCD sensor.

The DFA 100 WR macro should give wonderful results on your K10D. It's just an excellent lens. And as I'm sure you already know, unlike many other ~100mm macros, it also does very well at normal, non-macro focal lengths.

FantasticMrFox · 12-06-2014, 06:31 PM

Under most circumstances I'd advise to get a better lens over a better body, but realising that you're shooting a K10D (released 8 years ago!) you might actually want to consider an upgrade. Currently the K5 II(s) is pretty much shelled out at ridiculously low prices and I'd go as far as to say that the advances in camera technology over the last 8 years (resolution, high-ISO, dynamic range, metering, autofocus etc.) easily rival the advantage you'd get from a new lens.

**csa** · 12-06-2014, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by DSims

That was a good move (spending it on the lens)! Congrats. Enjoy your lens! Don't sell your K10D as long as it's working OK for you, even if you upgrade. I still use my K200D occasionally, just to get the nice output from its 10MP CCD sensor.

The DFA 100 WR macro should give wonderful results on your K10D. It's just an excellent lens. And as I'm sure you already know, unlike many other ~100mm macros, it also does very well at normal, non-macro focal lengths.

Thank you, I'm pretty excited! No, I would not sell the K10D; I really love this camera; perhaps that's why the lens came before another body!

That's good to know about the 100 macro, also. That definitely will be my next lens!

**csa** · 12-06-2014, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by FantasticMrFox

Under most circumstances I'd advise to get a better lens over a better body, but realising that you're shooting a K10D (released 8 years ago!) you might actually want to consider an upgrade. Currently the K5 II(s) is pretty much shelled out at ridiculously low prices and I'd go as far as to say that the advances in camera technology over the last 8 years (resolution, high-ISO, dynamic range, metering, autofocus etc.) easily rival the advantage you'd get from a new lens.

I'm enjoying the K10D, and it will serve me very well until I can get an updated body. A lens like this Tokina in mint condition doesn't come around that often, so I feel very lucky to have the opportunity to get it.

**dadipentak** · 12-06-2014, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by csa

Also I hear that one cannot live without a 50mm in their lineup; so suggestions as to which one!

One absolutely can--it's the most boring FL ever!

Also, forget those 400mm lenses--get the DA*300/4. Don't worry about 'overlap' with the 55-300: the zoom is about the zoom--not about 300mm . Those 400's are ok but they can't touch the DA*300 (with or without a good TC)

That's what I say.

**csa** · 12-06-2014, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by dadipentak

One absolutely can--it's the most boring FL ever!

Also, forget those 400mm lenses--get the DA*300/4. Don't worry about 'overlap' with the 55-300: the zoom is about the zoom--not about 300mm . Those 400's are ok but they can't touch the DA*300 (with or without a good TC)

That's what I say.

I've already made a deal I can afford, on a 400!

**Des** · 12-06-2014, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by csa

I'm content with my current 55-300, but hadn't thought of a good 300mm, what's available? Keep in mind I cannot afford a $1,000+ lens!

FA*300 f4.5 - around $800 or so. (The F*300 is a little lighter, but more expensive - hard to find for less than $1000.)
Sigma 300mm f4 APO AF tele macro - about $400-500 (but rare as hen's teeth)

12-06-2014, 05:37 PM	#23
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Originally posted by DSims I suppose this was in another discussion I missed, but if your body is anything since (and including) the K10D or K200D, you need a couple of lenses first. For example, my K200D with the FA135 on it is the best IQ I can get with about $600 worth of equipment (I know what you're thinking ... how about the iPhone? ). I consider the DFA 100 WR macro the best overall macro you can get, and I have one. But unless you're really into macro, save your money and get one of the many different-branded variants (AF or MF) of the Cosina 100/3.5 macro. After all, if you can afford a $500 body and $600 lens, you can afford a $1000 lens, or two or three lenses worth about $1000-1200 combined. I didn't upgrade my K-x until I'd spent at least 5-7 times the price of the body on lenses (and I bought the body when it was newly released for around $650). When I finally upgraded to a K-5 it was anti-climatic, because it hardly improved my IQ (all the IQ improvements were already coming from the lenses when on the K-x). Yes, I only have the K10D presently. Update!! My spending is done for several months now, as I just committed to buying a Tokina 400mm!!! I'm a happy camper! I think my next lens will be the DFA WR 100 Macro, as I do a lot of macro shooting. The new body will now wait. Last edited by csa; 12-06-2014 at 05:47 PM.

12-06-2014, 09:54 PM	#29
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Originally posted by dadipentak One absolutely can--it's the most boring FL *ever! Also, forget those 400mm lenses--get the DA300/4. Don't worry about 'overlap' with the 55-300: the zoom is about the zoom--not about 300mm . Those 400's are ok but they can't touch the DA300 (with or without a good TC) That's what I say. I've already made a deal I can afford, on a 400! Last edited by csa; 12-06-2014 at 10:02 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thinking about cleaning out some of my lineup.	VoiceOfReason	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	06-25-2014 02:03 PM
Ricoh Imaging Enhances K-Mount Lens Lineup with Debut of Rear Converter Autofocus Fun	Adam	Homepage & Official Pentax News	5	02-06-2014 09:22 PM
Ricoh patent: 28mm equiv. lenses - Future of GRD and GXR?	JPT	Pentax News and Rumors	2	07-07-2012 08:04 PM
The Future of Sigma and Tamron Lenses for Pentax	Sol Invictus	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	04-19-2012 02:24 PM
The future of lenses?	YJD	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	09-04-2008 02:26 PM

12-06-2014, 02:43 PM	#16
Venom3300 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 714	Originally posted by henne I would consider the older K/M versions of the 400mm as well. They will cost you less than the A, and you will not miss the A position much, as such a long tele lens is used rather wide open anyhow. One can even use the Av mode of the body, maybe applying some exposure compensation on stopping down. This is my experience from using the SMC M 5.6/400. If you are shooting these older long telephotos wide open, you are going to get some softness and CA. They need to be shot on a tripod and stopped down to f8-11 in most cases. The tokina 400 4.5 AT-X AF is a great lens for the money.

12-06-2014, 02:44 PM	#17
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Originally posted by Outis I have actually lived very happily without a 50mm in my lineup! I just can't think of what I'd use that focal length for. The 50mm would generally be too narrow for landscapes, so it would end up being a portrait lens, but I already have the 77 for that. I wouldn't mind picking up an old one just to play around with it, but there's no particular hole it would fill for me. A very good point! However, as another member pointed out; a fast one would be excellent for low light situations.

12-06-2014, 02:48 PM	#18
Outis Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Cambridge, MA Posts: 935	True, but I got very far with my 31mm f/1.8. Depending on what you like to take pictures of, you might do better with a fast normal lens (in the 30 to 40mm range).

12-06-2014, 05:09 PM	#19
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by csa Uh, out of my price range! A *300 will be in your price range someday, when you realize what it can do for you.

12-06-2014, 05:26 PM	#20
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Originally posted by DSims A *300 will be in your price range someday, when you realize what it can do for you. Not if I plan on continuing eating, and having heat. A hobby can't replace these essentials.

12-06-2014, 05:29 PM	#21
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	I suppose this was in another discussion I missed, but if your body is anything since (and including) the K10D or K200D, you need a couple of lenses first. For example, my K200D with the FA135 on it is the best IQ I can get with about $600 worth of equipment (I know what you're thinking ... how about the iPhone? ). I consider the DFA 100 WR macro the best overall macro you can get, and I have one. But unless you're really into macro, save your money and get one of the many different-branded variants (AF or MF) of the Cosina 100/3.5 macro. After all, if you can afford a $500 body and $600 lens, you can afford a $1000 lens, or two or three lenses worth about $1000-1200 combined. I didn't upgrade my K-x until I'd spent at least 5-7 times the price of the body on lenses (and I bought the body when it was newly released for around $650). When I finally upgraded to a K-5 it was anti-climatic, because it hardly improved my IQ (all the IQ improvements were already coming from the lenses when on the K-x).

12-06-2014, 05:32 PM	#22
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by csa When I decide to turn loose of the zooms; then I would consider some prime lenses. For now, I simply cannot afford to completely revamp & fill my lineup with top lenses. I guess I should have titled this thread as "near future" lineup. Well, then add as affordable, but really good primes: DA 50 f/1.8 DA 35 f/2.4

12-06-2014, 06:24 PM	#24
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by csa Update!! My spending is done for several months now, as I just committed to buying a Tokina 400mm!!! I'm a happy camper! I think my next lens will be the DFA WR 100 Macro, as I do a lot of macro shooting. The new body will now wait. That was a good move (spending it on the lens)! Congrats. Enjoy your lens! Don't sell your K10D as long as it's working OK for you, even if you upgrade. I still use my K200D occasionally, just to get the nice output from its 10MP CCD sensor. The DFA 100 WR macro should give wonderful results on your K10D. It's just an excellent lens. And as I'm sure you already know, unlike many other ~100mm macros, it also does very well at normal, non-macro focal lengths.

12-06-2014, 06:31 PM	#25
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Under most circumstances I'd advise to get a better lens over a better body, but realising that you're shooting a K10D (released 8 years ago!) you might actually want to consider an upgrade. Currently the K5 II(s) is pretty much shelled out at ridiculously low prices and I'd go as far as to say that the advances in camera technology over the last 8 years (resolution, high-ISO, dynamic range, metering, autofocus etc.) easily rival the advantage you'd get from a new lens.

12-06-2014, 06:55 PM	#26
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Originally posted by DSims That was a good move (spending it on the lens)! Congrats. Enjoy your lens! Don't sell your K10D as long as it's working OK for you, even if you upgrade. I still use my K200D occasionally, just to get the nice output from its 10MP CCD sensor. The DFA 100 WR macro should give wonderful results on your K10D. It's just an excellent lens. And as I'm sure you already know, unlike many other ~100mm macros, it also does very well at normal, non-macro focal lengths. Thank you, I'm pretty excited! No, I would not sell the K10D; I really love this camera; perhaps that's why the lens came before another body! That's good to know about the 100 macro, also. That definitely will be my next lens!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-06-2014, 06:58 PM	#27
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133 Original Poster	Originally posted by FantasticMrFox Under most circumstances I'd advise to get a better lens over a better body, but realising that you're shooting a K10D (released 8 years ago!) you might actually want to consider an upgrade. Currently the K5 II(s) is pretty much shelled out at ridiculously low prices and I'd go as far as to say that the advances in camera technology over the last 8 years (resolution, high-ISO, dynamic range, metering, autofocus etc.) easily rival the advantage you'd get from a new lens. I'm enjoying the K10D, and it will serve me very well until I can get an updated body. A lens like this Tokina in mint condition doesn't come around that often, so I feel very lucky to have the opportunity to get it.

12-06-2014, 08:50 PM	#28
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by csa Also I hear that one cannot live without a 50mm in their lineup; so suggestions as to which one! One absolutely can--it's the most boring FL *ever! Also, forget those 400mm lenses--get the DA300/4. Don't worry about 'overlap' with the 55-300: the zoom is about the zoom--not about 300mm . Those 400's are ok but they can't touch the DA*300 (with or without a good TC) That's what I say.

12-06-2014, 10:33 PM	#30
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,422	Originally posted by csa I'm content with my current 55-300, but hadn't thought of a good 300mm, what's available? Keep in mind I cannot afford a $1,000+ lens! FA300 f4.5 - around $800 or so. (The F300 is a little lighter, but more expensive - hard to find for less than $1000.) Sigma 300mm f4 APO AF tele macro - about $400-500 (but rare as hen's teeth)