Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-01-2016, 10:13 AM - 1 Like   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,182
Let me help. I own the DA* 60-250, the DA* 50-135, I've previously owned the FA* 80-200, I routinely borrow my Dad's DA* 200, I own the DA 55-300, and the DFA 100 WR etc.

I'm still a little unclear what you want to do with the lens. The DA* 60-250 is glorious, but the full stop missing between it and the 70-200 may be a big deal for indoor shooting. The reality is that the SDM on the DA* 60-250 is also slower than some people like for sports. I would not try using the DFA 100 WR for any action shooting. the fact that there is no focus limiter makes shooting a bit of a nightmare when auto focus misses and assumes it needs to do a full rack from close to infinity. The F 100 Macro I have with a focus limiter is better in this respect. The DFA is a great lens but slow slow slow when it misses the target which happens from time to time. Quickshift helps but not enough to make it a quick subject acquisition lens. I love the range of the DA* 60-250, and would suggest that it works well for outdoor sports even though a bit slow to focus (Soccer for example is a good sport for this lens). I love the flowers and the bugs I shoot with the DFA. The 55-300 is a lightweight marvel - but far far too slow for indoor use by most people's noise standards. The lens is a little slow focusing as well mainly due to the long range and the close focus ability of the lens which isn't bad.

What does this mean? It means I haven't told you what to buy but I have told you a bit more about each lens - buy or don't buy based on what you want the lens to do and how it fits into your plans.

02-01-2016, 10:59 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
wtlwdwgn's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Billings, MT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,793
If you can shoot with manual focus the A 70-210 f/4 Macro is a very sharp lens and are a great bargain.
02-01-2016, 11:36 AM - 1 Like   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I would not try using the DFA 100 WR for any action shooting. the fact that there is no focus limiter makes shooting a bit of a nightmare when auto focus misses and assumes it needs to do a full rack from close to infinity. ... The DFA is a great lens but slow slow slow when it misses the target which happens from time to time. Quickshift helps but not enough to make it a quick subject acquisition lens.
This, so, so much. I have shot moving objects with it (trucks in a parade), but they were moving slowly and they practically filled the viewfinder, so there was no possibility of the AF module missing the edge and whipping the focus point off into infinity (or MFD, more to the point, from which there is far more angular displacement for the AF module to rotate back to "on target"). That being said, if you want it primarily for small things that creep and slither (its design niche), it's not a terrible choice to have available as a fast short tele prime. I hear it's also not that good as a portrait lens, despite being an almost ideal focal length, because it will ruthlessly expose any flaws in the subject's complexion. About the only bright spot about its use as a tele lens is that it's a D-FA lens, so it's automatically full frame compatible if you ever go down that road.
02-01-2016, 11:49 AM - 1 Like   #19
Master of the obvious
Loyal Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lowlands of Norway
Posts: 18,309
My 55-300 does a wonderful job in good light - I wouldn't use it indoors. Doesn't sound like a lens for you if that's what you want it for.

The DFA100 is a brilliant lens, absolutely stunning for anything that doesn't move. Good also in low light situations - but sooooooooo slow to focus (although not quite as bad with the K-3). Definitely not for any kind of action.

I guess I would be torn between the Tamron and the 60-250, probably leaning towards the Tamron for indoor use. I have tried none of them, though.

02-01-2016, 02:07 PM   #20
Forum Member
wowarning's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 60
Original Poster
Great info. Thanks everyone. I was thinking the macro would also serve as a good general purpose telephoto prime, but uber slow focusing makes it less appealing - for the moment anyway, lol. It appears to be down to the two tele zooms. I'm leaning toward the faster and less expensive Tamron. Anything I'm missing regarding why the Pentax might be a better way to go?
02-01-2016, 03:38 PM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,182
QuoteOriginally posted by wowarning Quote
Great info. Thanks everyone. I was thinking the macro would also serve as a good general purpose telephoto prime, but uber slow focusing makes it less appealing - for the moment anyway, lol. It appears to be down to the two tele zooms. I'm leaning toward the faster and less expensive Tamron. Anything I'm missing regarding why the Pentax might be a better way to go?
Do you shoot jpg or raw? If jpg you give up in body corrections for a few things. You give up the "Pentax color" that DA lenses seem to have. You give up a bit of range, the Pentax is shorter on the short end and longer on the long end but due to focus breathing on the 60-250 you may not notice the length difference except on distant objects. You gain a stop of light, and maybe focus speed. IQ? I don't know the Tamron enough to know. The DA* 60-250 is stunningly sharp by most accounts (including mine).

And let me be clear the DFA isn't totally slow - you can use quickshift to help it along and there are people who have mastered that they say. It's just frustrating when it misses. It is like your PDAF focusing turned into CDAF for a while. Also shooting portraits with a revealing lens is ok - just add a little blur. It's easier to hide sharpness than produce it from nothing.
02-01-2016, 03:57 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,472
Going by current B&H prices, the tamron is $770 while the DA*60-250 is $840.

For me, more reach at both ends, weather sealing, and being a 1st party premium lens is worth $70 and 1 stop.

02-01-2016, 04:06 PM   #23
Forum Member
wowarning's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 60
Original Poster
I shoot raw. It seems like I need to make WB adjustments on 90% of the pictures coming out of the K5ii. I know well the Pentax color you're referring to. I was worried when I bought the Sigma 17-50 that it might be missed, but it takes such great pictures that I find that I actually don't find it lacking. It's a tough call for sure. I was reading about the focus breathing limiting the focal range at shorter distances. That is so bizarre. A comparison I found showed greater magnification from the Tamron at 200 than the Pentax at 250.
02-01-2016, 04:10 PM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,182
QuoteOriginally posted by wowarning Quote
I shoot raw. It seems like I need to make WB adjustments on 90% of the pictures coming out of the K5ii. I know well the Pentax color you're referring to. I was worried when I bought the Sigma 17-50 that it might be missed, but it takes such great pictures that I find that I actually don't find it lacking. It's a tough call for sure. I was reading about the focus breathing limiting the focal range at shorter distances. That is so bizarre. A comparison I found showed greater magnification from the Tamron at 200 than the Pentax at 250.
I would say the 60-250 mainly shows that lack of focal length under about 10 meters, so not great for stalking small birds - super for shooting soccer players on the wide field they use.
02-01-2016, 04:48 PM   #25
Veteran Member
kp0c's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 761
I don't own the tamron, but I did use one for an event that I borrowed from a friend. I too have a k5ii and the focussing was more than decent. However, make sure you get a copy that performs well at 200mm. I found the copy I tried a little soft at 200mm f 2.8, which is where I would want it to be the sharpest. To be fair, I didn't have time to calibrate it for my camera.
I also handled the 60-250mm and I don't think it offers any ergonomic advantage. I absolutely love it's rendering however and f4 is usually ok for stage performance where spotlights are usually abundent.

If I had to choose, I would buy the Tamron if my goal was indoor shooting and would definitely buy the Pentax for outdoor shooting like landscape and outdoor portraits.

For cheap macro, just buy a reverse ring or some manual extension tubes.

My two cents!
02-01-2016, 05:08 PM   #26
Unregistered User
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by wowarning Quote
Lmao, I should have known that every idea I had bouncing around my head would wind up being suggested. I keep leaning towards whatever the last person said. Yeah, I should finally add the 55-300. Yeah, the macro. Yeah, the 70-200.
Forget the lenses, send the money to me!
02-01-2016, 05:29 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
QuoteOriginally posted by kp0c Quote
For cheap macro, just buy a reverse ring or some manual extension tubes.
To do this successfully, you really need a lens with an aperture ring, and even then you are in manual stop down mode. I have shot a few macro shots with a DA lens (specifically the DA15) on a reversing ring, just to see what would happen, but holding the aperture open or part open while you take the shot, juggle the light, etc., is a pain in the backside. The alternative is to shoot everything at f/22 with an incredibly dark viewfinder and not being completely sure of your focus unless you have a hell of a lot of light on the subject.

FWIW this is what you get when you put the DA15 on a reversing ring...



The subject is a friction nut on a spanning wrench, about 10mm across, and the imperfection on the rim is barely visible with the naked eye. It can be done, and the results can be extremely impressive, but the limitations have to be admitted.
02-01-2016, 07:02 PM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Orting, WA
Posts: 252
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
. . . FWIW this is what you get when you put the DA15 on a reversing ring...
For a moment I thought you were trying to indicate that a reversing ring would damage the DA15 and you were showing us an example of the damage.
02-01-2016, 07:14 PM   #29
Veteran Member
kp0c's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 761
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
To do this successfully, you really need a lens with an aperture ring, and even then you are in manual stop down mode. I have shot a few macro shots with a DA lens (specifically the DA15) on a reversing ring, just to see what would happen, but holding the aperture open or part open while you take the shot, juggle the light, etc., is a pain in the backside. The alternative is to shoot everything at f/22 with an incredibly dark viewfinder and not being completely sure of your focus unless you have a hell of a lot of light on the subject.

FWIW this is what you get when you put the DA15 on a reversing ring...



The subject is a friction nut on a spanning wrench, about 10mm across, and the imperfection on the rim is barely visible with the naked eye. It can be done, and the results can be extremely impressive, but the limitations have to be admitted.

I agree that you need a lens with an aperture ring, but since the OP stated that he had a f50 1.7 and a f28 2.8, I thought he was well equipped to try some extension tube if we wanted macro beyond what the Tamron could provide. I do agree that a dedicated macro lens makes macro shooting usually a lot more enjoyable though.
02-02-2016, 04:45 AM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,381
QuoteOriginally posted by kp0c Quote
but since the OP stated that he had a f50 1.7 and a f28 2.8, I thought he was well equipped to try some extension tube...
Sorry; I overlooked that. My comments were made in the context of discussing DA-type lenses that don't have a ring. He should get some nice magnification out of the 28, then!
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!
angle, brain purchase, f2.8, front, k-mount, lens, macro, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
advice on lens purchase Tom777 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 13 06-18-2014 04:59 PM
People WWYD - Concerts Kameko Photo Critique 2 04-16-2014 01:33 AM
Is my *istDS wearing out? Lenses? Brain? studiojmm Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 11-24-2010 03:52 AM
Lens Purchase Advice krs Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 12-10-2008 09:25 PM
K10D purchase advice Kitanis Photographic Technique 4 10-27-2006 11:21 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:02 AM. | 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