[rbnvrw]

Hi all,

I recently bought a K1000 and now that my first roll came out quite nice, I'd like to buy some additional lenses to cover a wider focal length range.
And with my birthday coming up, I thought I'd make a wishlist!

So, I have had some doubts about which focal ranges I'd like to have and came up with this list:

• Fisheye: (~14mm) I really like the distortion effect and when I'm on holiday I like to shoot pictures of large buildings, so I figured a Fisheye would be necessary.
• Standard: (~50mm) For obvious reasons.
• Telelens/macro: (~100-300mm) For portraits, macro shots and close ups of far away details.

Based on this wishlist, I came up with the following lenses:

• Fisheye: SMC Pentax 17mm F4 Fish-Eye Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database orSMC Pentax 28mm F3.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database(but this is not really fisheye, more wide lens, right?)
• Standard: I already have this one, came with the K1000: SMC Pentax-M 50mm F2 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
• Telelens/macro: Either SMC Pentax 100mm F4 Macro Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database or SMC Pentax 200mm F4 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database, or a zoom lens: Takumar-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

But there are some dilemma's here: do I choose the 'real' fisheye 17 mm lens or do I go for the 28mm lens that has more positive reviews? Can anyone help me on this one, or are there maybe even more alternatives?
Then for the telelenses: the 100mm is really labeled as 'macro' lens, but would I be able to use the 200mm lens as a macro lens too? I think I'll use this lens most for macro photography and for capturing details of buildings. Therefore, I think I can make do with a prime lens. Would 100mm or 200mm be more practical?


I really hope someone can help me pick the right lenses and maybe point out some alternatives or make an argument why I should go for different focal lengths altogether
Thanks in advance!

[redcat]

I think the fisheye is fun at first, but after a few shots, you'll find the distortion effect a little too much (ex for buildings : lines become curves...) but the 28mm is not wide enough, maybe the DA 15mm f4 will be the better choice IMHO.
You already have a standard 50mm so it's finne, no need for another 50mm (unless you want AF)
The 100mm is a macro (close focus : 45cm), the 200mm is not a macro (close focus : 200cm, it's 2 meters away !!!!), for portrait either one should work, I'd go for the 100mm for portrait cause you can "see" you subject clearer hence focus more accurately (both lens are MF), at 200cm it's extremely difficult to get the focus right (ex: sharp eyes)

[rbnvrw]

Thanks for your input redcat. I guess the fisheye is a bit of a fun gadget, maybe I should first focus on getting a good wide angle lens.

the 28mm is not wide enough, maybe the DA 15mm f4 will be the better choice IMHO

Okay, but the 15mm is a bit above budget at 600 dollars, that would be a long term wish then. I'm a student, budget is around 250 per lens.

The 100mm is a macro (close focus : 45cm), the 200mm is not a macro (close focus : 200cm, it's 2 meters away !!!!)

Oh, that explains a lot. I guess I should go for the 100mm then, because 2m away is a bit too much.
Thanks again for your help!

Do you also have a suggestion for a wide angle that better fits my budget?

[redcat]

if I could choose, a used samyang (rokinon) 14mm f2.8 is a good choice for wide angle :
Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Lens Reviews - Samyang Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

But, i don't think buy all 3 lens at once is needed, I'd recommend playing with the 50mm for a while, it's great for portrait (full body, half body, even head & shoulders, f2 will produce lovely bokeh), it can also be a landscape lens, you don't need to have everything in your photo, choose one interest point and shoot it in the context. With this "limitation" you'll strengthen your composition skill, pay more attention at interesting details and lighting. That's gonna improve your photography faster.
Some photos I shot with a manual 50 mm like yours : here (my other photos are in my signature ^^)
An interesting article to read : The Perfect Zebra Photo in 3 Easy Steps. Review - A Story | PentaxForums.com Reviews (it's not about zebra !! read the entire article, it's short & it helps )

I suggest reading some good books : https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/173-general-photography/277712-must-read-...phy-books.html ("Stunning Digital photography" is a very very good book to start with, avoid the buying gear part though )

Last but not least, happy birthday ))) welcome to the world of photography

---

Last edited by redcat; 05-19-2015 at 07:31 AM.

[reeftool]

Not a bad wishlist although it would be realistic to only expect maybe one of those lenses if your family members are like mine. I'm a big fisheye fan and the first purchase I made after my initial kit of the 18-55 and Sigma 70-300 (the DA 55-300 didn't exist back then) was the DA 10-17. It's still one of my most used lenses. The old 17/4 should make a fine companion to your K1000. I would recommend the M135/3.5 be added to your wish list. It's a very compact lens, has excellent IQ and can be found for under $50.

[pathdoc]

I saw this

I recently bought a K1000

And I went back and read again...

I recently bought a K1000 and now that my first roll came out quite nice

...and realised it wasn't a typo. If I'm reading this at all right, the OP has a FULL-FRAME FILM CAMERA and can't even use all the features of a K-A mount lens, so why are some people here talking in terms of digital photography, DA-type lenses and autofocus? In book terms, he needs photography guides that are not less than 20 years old, and preferably older.


To the OP:

I would forego the fisheye in the first instance; it's too specialised. A good starter kit is a 28mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.8 or thereabouts (which you've already got), and either a fast (e.g. f/2.8) 135mm prime or a good-quality zoom in roughly the 70-200mm range (give or take 10mm at either end). I recently acquired (and have taken a few pictures with) the K-A version of the 50mm f/2.0, and it turns out some damn good results. You could perhaps consider investing in a faster 50mm in the long run if you really needed the extra stop or so, but once you get faster than f/1.4, things get very expensive very quickly for any lens still in good condition. Also, focus becomes critical as depth of field is razor-thin at close distances, and even small objects can be partially out of focus.

If you want a true macro lens, add it later. Some zooms and a few prime lenses offer close-focus capability without the magnification, or you could start reading up about extension tubes, reversing rings and/or bellows.

An authentic Pentax M42-to-K-mount adapter (no longer manufactured, but e-bay has them) would also not go astray, as this can really broaden your options in terms of acquiring suitable older lenses. Among other things, the later generations of these oldies offer a manual mode with forced stop-down built into the lens. Very handy if you need to know what your depth of field is going to be, because the K-1000 has no stop-down lever AFAIK. Also, the optics on some of these are of near-legendary quality.

[redcat]

the OP has a FULL-FRAME FILM CAMERA and can't even use all the features of a K-A mount lens

oh yeah !!! I read it as K100D =))))

A film camera then... samyang lens is still a full frame and compatible with film camera, so it's fine ^^
The article I suggest is not gear specific, so it's fine too ^^
The book part has to be replaced with another book : "The art of photograph", it's full of film camera and technique

[ChristianRock]

Here's my suggestions.

The Zenitar 16mm f2 will be more useful, I think, and cheaper than the Pentax 17mm f4. There's one on Ebay now for 224.95 shipped, but sometimes you can find them for under 200 (it is a bit rare though, they don't show up more than about once a month, I think).

For telephoto, the 135mm suggestion is alright, but you will probably get more use out of a good 70-210mm zoom. The Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/2.8-4 is very useful as a portrait and telephoto lens (70 2.8 is great for portraits). It will cost you from 100 to 200 dollars depending on condition.
The Pentax-A 70-210mm f4 is also very good, it is what I have. I like it for portraits but wish I had that f2.8 at 70mm sometimes. On the positive side, it's cheaper (average 50-80 dollars for one) and in my opinion and of others it is a great lens optically (100% recommendation in our Reviews section).

Both these lenses are full frame and have aperture rings, so they can easily be used with the K1000.

[sterretje]

My first and only film camera was a Minolta X700; it came with a 50/1.7. I soon added a 28/2.8 and later a 70-210/4.

In 20 years using film I've only once had a need for something wider.

So I would first build a standard kit like above before looking at more specialist lenses like a fisheye. Maybe a 24, 35 and 70-210.

[Dipsoid]

For the standard lens, I'd recommend the Helios 44m-2, I have an older 8-bladed aperture one and can't recommend that enough if you have a m42-k adapter. I have a Pentax-A 50 f/1.4 as well as a bunch of miscellaneous 50mms including a few Ricoh f/2s, and honestly I find that I prefer the Helios to the Pentax on many occasions, though both are exquisite lenses. I've never used the m-50mm f/2, but from the reviews I've read it's nothing to write home about, the 1.7 seems to be much better and close in quality to the 1.4s. I would highly recommend getting a real Pentax adapter due to the many stories I've seen about third party ones. I bought mine from B&H, they have new old stock though the prices are inflated. I would be leery of ebayers selling official adapters. I also scored an Asahi-branded one attached to an old Vivitar for twenty bucks on Goodwill's web store, so keep a lookout for deals like that. With the benefit of the m42 adapter you get access to numerous screw-mount 135s, and especially desirable are the ones with 10+ aperture blades which produce nice creamy bokeh. I have some no-name brand preset 135 f/2.8 with something like 14 or 15 aperture blades, and while it is fairly soft even at f/8, it's the most perfect portrait length on digital sensors and produces beautiful background separation, and is a very useful length on film.

[Jyrkira]

F 17-28 fisheye zoom

[tvdtvdtvd]

I didn't see a budget specified, so I'll assume on the cheap.

WIDE - get a 28mm. It is such a fantastic focal length on 35mm full frame. And they're plentiful and cheap.
Definitely keep your eyes open for a K series 28/3.5 per your wish list but don't be afraid to give others a try
as well, especially if they're not expensive. I have an Auto Sears 28/2.8 in M42 mount that I particularly like
and it cost less than $20.

NORMAL - Nothing terribly wrong with your SMC M 50/2, but definitely grab a SMC M 50/1.7 when you have
a chance. Noticeably sharper than the f/2 and quite affordable.

TELE/LONG - No reason to not get a good 135mm. Like the 28mm, they're cheap and abundant, both Pentax
branded and third-party. You can easily find a SMC M 135/3.5 for $20-$40. Really fantastic lens. K and
M Series 200/4 are also abundant and reasonably priced.

MACRO - Can't go wrong with either a 50/4 or 100/4 Macro.

ZOOM - You're call. I don't care for 'em, especially not the heavy and slow zooms that are typical of K & M series.

[ChristianRock]

If he says he likes the Fisheye effect, why discourage him from getting a Fisheye lens?

I think people push their personal preferences a bit too much sometimes, rather than just helping people get what they want.

I do agree on upgrading the 50/2 to a 50/1.7 or 50/1.4 at some point. They're cheap and there's a quality difference, so no reason not to get a faster 50.

I didn't see a budget specified

Post #3, 250 per lens...

[Na Horuk]

For the fisheye, I would suggest a modern Samyang 8mm (also sold as Rokinon, Bower, and other brand names, but the same optics and features), as it will be the highest image quality with good distortion. Used they come in at great prices. Zenitar 16mm is another fisheye, it is a little specific, not as sharp, but some people get great photos with it. I think this lens can be found in m42 mount as well as Kmount. The Pentax 10-17mm is another good fisheye choice, with the added benefit of a comfortable zoom range, which doesn't look very fishy at 17mm. Also, it is fully automatic.

About 50mm, if you don't mind lack of AF, I would recommend the Pentax A 50mm f1.7, or the M 50mm f1.7 (this one is a little more manual than the A, but costs a little less. Optically they are fairly similar). The 50mm f1.7 lenses are very sharp and not too expensive. Better than the f2.0. But! The DA 50mm f1.8 is the same optical lineage, with modern lens coatings and full automation. It can be found for really low prices these days and it might make more sense to get the DA. Unless you prefer the feel of older, manual lenses, which is perfectly fine.

Macro.. macro just means really short minimum focus distance. 200mm non-macro lens might give you the same max magnification as a non-macro 50mm. Modern macro lenses allow you 1:1 magnifications. This is what you need to check to see if a given lens allows you better macro than another lens - their magnification at minimum focus distance. Zoom lenses and older macro lenses generally don't come close to 1:2, much less true 1:1. This is why for macro we usually recommend things like DFA 100mm, Tamron 90mm, or Sigma 105mm. These are all optically really great, but the Tamron is most affordable. Some older macro lenses need extension tubes to reach real 1:1 macro. But as a rule, all macro prime lenses are fairly good, with a few exceptions. Even the old Pentax 50mm f4 macro lens is pretty sharp, with nice rendering, even though it is not 1:1 macro
That being said, maybe you don't need 1:1 or even 1:2 magnification. And any lens can be used as a macro lens, if you use extension tubes or bellows, but this gets complicated. It takes skill and work. There are some thread about doing macro on the cheap, so feel free to look for them. ("macro by any means" or something like that is the title of one good thread, but there are others). So, yes, a good 200mm can be used as macro, if you have the other tools. So can a good 50mm. A lot of people enjoy using the 50mm f1.7 along with extension tubes or reversed lenses for extreme macro. But a native macro prime is much easier to use

[ChristianRock]

For the fisheye, I would suggest a modern Samyang 8mm (also sold as Rokinon, Bower, and other brand names, but the same optics and features), as it will be the highest image quality with good distortion. Used they come in at great prices. Zenitar 16mm is another fisheye, it is a little specific, not as sharp, but some people get great photos with it. I think this lens can be found in m42 mount as well as Kmount. The Pentax 10-17mm is another good fisheye choice, with the added benefit of a comfortable zoom range, which doesn't look very fishy at 17mm. Also, it is fully automatic.

About 50mm, if you don't mind lack of AF, I would recommend the Pentax A 50mm f1.7, or the M 50mm f1.7 (this one is a little more manual than the A, but costs a little less. Optically they are fairly similar).

Samyang 8mm won't work on the K1000.... neither will the 10-17...

I'm sure with the K1000 he won't mind lack of AF...