I took the plunge...Pentax DA 18-250mm

TYOsborn · 07-16-2008, 06:07 PM

Hello,

I'm a newbie to DSLR. I purchased a Pentax K200D as well as a Pentax DA 18-250mm. My hope was to get a great zoom lens. I'm not all that impressed with the zoom on this lens (Pentax DA 18-250mm). It also appears to make things look farther away than with the naked eye. Is there a better lens that I should have purchased for it's zoom capabilities? I'm mainly interested in wildlife and shots of the grandkids playing soccer. As a side note, what is the advantage to shooting RAW over JPEG? Thanks so much for your help in advance...

Alfisti · 07-16-2008, 06:59 PM

This is the second best post ever, the best was the guy complaining the view through the viewfinder was small with the 12-24 .... of course it is it's an ultra wide lens.

What I THINK you're saying is that 250 is still too short for you yes? If this is the case then really, try the Tamron 70-300 ($150), Pentax 55-300 ($350) or the Sigma 50-500 ($1,000) and 100-300 f/4 ($1,200).

RAW allows you to process the image, so if you change the colour and sharpness a little you do not "damage" the photo the way you would a jpeg.

Venturi · 07-16-2008, 11:41 PM

Hello Ty, welcome to the forums.
When you say it makes things appear farther away do you mean what you see through the view finder or in the captured photograph?

For the former, you may just want a magnifying eyepiece. Amazon.com: Pentax O-ME53 Magnifying Eye Piece for all Pentax DSLR Bodies: Electronics Lots of folks use them, myself included.

For the latter, I'm going to take a shot in the dark and make an assumption that SLR cameras with interchangeable lenses are still pretty greek to you. If I'm wrong please accept my apologies and skip the following.

You may not have realized that the DA 18-250 lens has a zoom lock "switch". It is located at about an inch to the right of the "18" and says "LOCK". Slide that switch/tab forward so the red disappears and it will release the zoom ring.

audiobomber · 07-17-2008, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by TYOsborn

I'm not all that impressed with the zoom on this lens (Pentax DA 18-250mm). It also appears to make things look farther away than with the naked eye. Is there a better lens that I should have purchased for it's zoom capabilities? I'm mainly interested in wildlife and shots of the grandkids playing soccer. As a side note, what is the advantage to shooting RAW over JPEG? Thanks so much for your help in advance...

It sounds like the Pentax DA 55-300mm would be more to your liking. It gives a similar view to your naked eye when you zoom out and it zooms in farther than the 18-250mm. But most people would not want the 55-300mm as their only lens because 55mm is too long for a lot of shots. If you intend to keep the 18-250mm (and I think you should), you could mount 55-300mm for soccer games and wildlife, and use the 18-250mm for a wider range of photos.

If you want a one-lens solution then have a look at the Tamron 28-300mm, which gives a wider angle of view than the 55-300mm and is longer than the 18-250mm.

RAW gives you more control for editing your photos, but it slows the camera down due to large file sizes and takes up more memory on your card and in the computer.

Last edited by audiobomber; 07-17-2008 at 01:17 PM.

TYOsborn · 07-17-2008, 06:49 PM

It would appear I have entertained Alfisti. I obviously know nothing about lenses. Thank you Venturi and audiobomber for your helpful and kind responses. Yes, I am very new to interchangeable lenses.

I guess I should have said I would like to zoom in farther or get closer (without having to move) than what I was getting with the 18-250MM. I also have a Lumix DMZ-FZ7 that has a 12X optical zoom. I like the Lumix for point and shoot kind of things except when I zoomed it was usually blurry. Camera shake.

Or me shake or both.

It just seems like I was actually able to get closer with that zoom than I was with the 18-250MM. I purchased the Pentax K200D in hopes of getting rid of the blur and also to get more "involved" with shooting. So far I love the camera, just need to find a lens I love too.

I have a lot to learn and joined the forums to gain from everyone's experience. With that being said, the Tamron is less expensive than the Pentax lens. Is there that big of a difference in the lenses to warrant the difference in price. Especially for a newbie.. then again I don't want to waste money on lenses I'm not going to be happy with. I'm used to dealing with 12X zoom lingo etc... What would the Tamron 70-300 or the Pentax DA 55-300mm equate to as far a as "times" zoom?

Thanks again!

k100d · 07-17-2008, 07:00 PM

i looked up the specifications of the FZ7 here
Panasonic DMC-FZ7 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review and the 35mm equivalent focal length is 432mm. for DSLRs, the 35mm equivalent focal length is 1.5 x the focal length. therefore for the tamron it is 375mm at its longest. which is why the picture is more "zoomed" in on the FZ7.

most likely when you are shooting things far away, you are experience some camera shake. because the panasonic is faster (has a lower f-stop number at the end of the zoom) 3.3, it will probably be able to take pictures with shorter shutter speeds. with the dslr + tamron, at the end the fastest aperture is 6.3, so it will need a longer shutter speed and will be even more susceptible to blur.

honestly, the FZ7 has excellent optics and it will be very expensive to get something better on a DSLR at the extreme long end.

sewebster · 07-17-2008, 07:05 PM

70-300mm = 4.3x
55-300mm = 5.5x

Note that the "times" is just the large number divided by the small number (eg. 70/300=4.3).

BUT the "times" number does NOT tell you how close the subject looks in the image. It just tells you how MUCH your lens can zoom.... the difference between the short and long end of the range.

To know how large the subject will look you want to check out the focal length of the lens (higher means closer looking). This is all for a given sensor/film size.

The Lumix DMC-FZ7 has a 36-432mm equivalent focal length range. The equivalent focal length range for the 70-300 is 105-450 (it has a 1.5x multiplier) so at full zoom subjects will appear slightly closer (since 450 is greater than 432).

Hope that helps and wasn't too confusing.

sewebster · 07-17-2008, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by k100d

i looked up the specifications of the FZ7 here
Panasonic DMC-FZ7 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review and the 35mm equivalent focal length is 432mm. for DSLRs, the 35mm equivalent focal length is 1.5 x the focal length. therefore for the tamron it is 375mm at its longest. which is why the picture is more "zoomed" in on the FZ7.

I think you have a typo since 1.5x300 = 450?

Edit: oops, I think you meant that the Pentax 18-250 has an equivalent of 375mm at the long end (250*1.5), not the Tamron 70-300.

Dr Windmill · 07-17-2008, 07:16 PM

PM sent to Ty.

audiobomber · 07-17-2008, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by k100d

honestly, the FZ7 has excellent optics and it will be very expensive to get something better on a DSLR at the extreme long end.

I don't agree with that at all. A K200D with any of the telezooms in this thread is going to beat the pants off a compact camera for image quality.

Ty, you talk about the longer zoom of the FZ7 and it being blurry. Are you maybe using the digital zoom too?

pixelpruner · 07-18-2008, 06:09 AM

A lot of compact camera manufacturers quote digital zoom and optical zoom together as the overall 'zoom range'. Digital zoom figures should be completely ignored - it is false marketing to call it a zoom because all the camera does is crop the image, ie showing you it at a larger size. Obviously this decreases image quality just like if you magnified an image on your computer.

The optical quality you will achieve from your 18-250mm Pentax lens will be superior to this and you can, if you desire, crop the images yourself later on. If I were you I would experiment further before buying another lens - if you can get well focussed, sharp images with your current combination (I would probably require a monopod or tripod to do this even at 250mm, but it depends how steady your hands are) you should, when you load them to your computer, be able to see the difference in quality. Make sure you turn on 'anti-shake' and use shutter priority (Tv) mode to set a fast shutter speed and freeze the action.

Good Luck!

Alfisti · 07-18-2008, 07:06 AM

This is more complicated than it seems.

The FZ7 is 430mm right. The 18-250 is theoretically the same as 375mm except, and this is the key, the actual FOV is much shorter the closer you focus. So if you focus 3 feet away that 375mm will look like 275mm. Only at infinity will 375 actually be 375.

To the OPer, grab the Tamron or Pentax 300mm lenses for more reach.

reeftool · 07-18-2008, 07:15 AM

You should be able to get some decent shots with the lens you have, at least for the soccer shots. For wildlife shots, the longer the better, but 250 should get you some decent wildlife shots with a little luck. For now, I would spend some time with that 18-250 and really get to know the camera also before sinking big money into lenses.

audiobomber · 07-18-2008, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by reeftool

You should be able to get some decent shots with the lens you have, at least for the soccer shots. For wildlife shots, the longer the better, but 250 should get you some decent wildlife shots with a little luck. For now, I would spend some time with that 18-250 and really get to know the camera also before sinking big money into lenses.

If by "wildlife" he means songbirds, then the 18-250mm is woefully inadequate. I have the 18-250 and I have a couple of the popular 300mm telezooms, and there is a huge difference when photographing small birds. As in don't even bother with the 18-250 unless you're ten feet away.

Alfisti is on to something. The 18-250mm only reaches a true 250mm if you use infinity focus (i.e. rarely). Even then, 250 is not 300, and 375 mm equivalent is not 450 mm equivalent. AFAIC the 18-250mm is a great standard zoom. It does not compete with the telezooms for distant or really small subjects.

audiobomber · 07-18-2008, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by reeftool

You should be able to get some decent shots with the lens you have, at least for the soccer shots. For wildlife shots, the longer the better, but 250 should get you some decent wildlife shots with a little luck. For now, I would spend some time with that 18-250 and really get to know the camera also before sinking big money into lenses.

The most expensive lens mentioned in this thread is available for under $350. The Tamron 70-300mm is only $130. Hardly "big money".

07-16-2008, 06:07 PM	#1
TYOsborn Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Illinois Photos: Gallery Posts: 250	I took the plunge...Pentax DA 18-250mm Hello, I'm a newbie to DSLR. I purchased a Pentax K200D as well as a Pentax DA 18-250mm. My hope was to get a great zoom lens. I'm not all that impressed with the zoom on this lens (Pentax DA 18-250mm). It also appears to make things look farther away than with the naked eye. Is there a better lens that I should have purchased for it's zoom capabilities? I'm mainly interested in wildlife and shots of the grandkids playing soccer. As a side note, what is the advantage to shooting RAW over JPEG? Thanks so much for your help in advance...

07-17-2008, 07:00 PM	#6
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	i looked up the specifications of the FZ7 here Panasonic DMC-FZ7 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review and the 35mm equivalent focal length is 432mm. for DSLRs, the 35mm equivalent focal length is 1.5 x the focal length. therefore for the tamron it is 375mm at its longest. which is why the picture is more "zoomed" in on the FZ7. most likely when you are shooting things far away, you are experience some camera shake. because the panasonic is faster (has a lower f-stop number at the end of the zoom) 3.3, it will probably be able to take pictures with shorter shutter speeds. with the dslr + tamron, at the end the fastest aperture is 6.3, so it will need a longer shutter speed and will be even more susceptible to blur. honestly, the FZ7 has excellent optics and it will be very expensive to get something better on a DSLR at the extreme long end. Last edited by k100d; 07-17-2008 at 07:06 PM.

07-17-2008, 07:08 PM	#8
sewebster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 544	Originally posted by k100d i looked up the specifications of the FZ7 here Panasonic DMC-FZ7 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review and the 35mm equivalent focal length is 432mm. for DSLRs, the 35mm equivalent focal length is 1.5 x the focal length. therefore for the tamron it is 375mm at its longest. which is why the picture is more "zoomed" in on the FZ7. I think you have a typo since 1.5x300 = 450? Edit: oops, I think you meant that the Pentax 18-250 has an equivalent of 375mm at the long end (2501.5), not the Tamron 70-300. Last edited by sewebster; 07-17-2008 at 07:15 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PENTAX 18-250mm VS QUANTARAY 70-300mm@250mm	charliezap	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	02-08-2010 11:38 PM
Got that great Pentax K10D or K20D! Take the plunge to RAW files.	ebooks4pentax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	02-29-2008 09:07 PM
Seal Beach Polar Plunge (w/ a Pentax MX)	ChrisM	Post Your Photos!	8	02-10-2008 10:30 AM

07-16-2008, 06:59 PM	#2
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	This is the second best post ever, the best was the guy complaining the view through the viewfinder was small with the 12-24 .... of course it is it's an ultra wide lens. What I THINK you're saying is that 250 is still too short for you yes? If this is the case then really, try the Tamron 70-300 ($150), Pentax 55-300 ($350) or the Sigma 50-500 ($1,000) and 100-300 f/4 ($1,200). RAW allows you to process the image, so if you change the colour and sharpness a little you do not "damage" the photo the way you would a jpeg.

07-16-2008, 11:41 PM	#3
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	Hello Ty, welcome to the forums. When you say it makes things appear farther away do you mean what you see through the view finder or in the captured photograph? For the former, you may just want a magnifying eyepiece. Amazon.com: Pentax O-ME53 Magnifying Eye Piece for all Pentax DSLR Bodies: Electronics Lots of folks use them, myself included. For the latter, I'm going to take a shot in the dark and make an assumption that SLR cameras with interchangeable lenses are still pretty greek to you. If I'm wrong please accept my apologies and skip the following. You may not have realized that the DA 18-250 lens has a zoom lock "switch". It is located at about an inch to the right of the "18" and says "LOCK". Slide that switch/tab forward so the red disappears and it will release the zoom ring.

07-17-2008, 05:20 AM	#4
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by TYOsborn I'm not all that impressed with the zoom on this lens (Pentax DA 18-250mm). It also appears to make things look farther away than with the naked eye. Is there a better lens that I should have purchased for it's zoom capabilities? I'm mainly interested in wildlife and shots of the grandkids playing soccer. As a side note, what is the advantage to shooting RAW over JPEG? Thanks so much for your help in advance... It sounds like the Pentax DA 55-300mm would be more to your liking. It gives a similar view to your naked eye when you zoom out and it zooms in farther than the 18-250mm. But most people would not want the 55-300mm as their only lens because 55mm is too long for a lot of shots. If you intend to keep the 18-250mm (and I think you should), you could mount 55-300mm for soccer games and wildlife, and use the 18-250mm for a wider range of photos. If you want a one-lens solution then have a look at the Tamron 28-300mm, which gives a wider angle of view than the 55-300mm and is longer than the 18-250mm. RAW gives you more control for editing your photos, but it slows the camera down due to large file sizes and takes up more memory on your card and in the computer. Last edited by audiobomber; 07-17-2008 at 01:17 PM.

07-17-2008, 06:49 PM	#5
TYOsborn Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Illinois Photos: Gallery Posts: 250 Original Poster	It would appear I have entertained Alfisti. I obviously know nothing about lenses. Thank you Venturi and audiobomber for your helpful and kind responses. Yes, I am very new to interchangeable lenses. I guess I should have said I would like to zoom in farther or get closer (without having to move) than what I was getting with the 18-250MM. I also have a Lumix DMZ-FZ7 that has a 12X optical zoom. I like the Lumix for point and shoot kind of things except when I zoomed it was usually blurry. Camera shake. Or me shake or both. It just seems like I was actually able to get closer with that zoom than I was with the 18-250MM. I purchased the Pentax K200D in hopes of getting rid of the blur and also to get more "involved" with shooting. So far I love the camera, just need to find a lens I love too. I have a lot to learn and joined the forums to gain from everyone's experience. With that being said, the Tamron is less expensive than the Pentax lens. Is there that big of a difference in the lenses to warrant the difference in price. Especially for a newbie.. then again I don't want to waste money on lenses I'm not going to be happy with. I'm used to dealing with 12X zoom lingo etc... What would the Tamron 70-300 or the Pentax DA 55-300mm equate to as far a as "times" zoom? Thanks again!

07-17-2008, 07:05 PM	#7
sewebster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 544	70-300mm = 4.3x 55-300mm = 5.5x Note that the "times" is just the large number divided by the small number (eg. 70/300=4.3). BUT the "times" number does NOT tell you how close the subject looks in the image. It just tells you how MUCH your lens can zoom.... the difference between the short and long end of the range. To know how large the subject will look you want to check out the focal length of the lens (higher means closer looking). This is all for a given sensor/film size. The Lumix DMC-FZ7 has a 36-432mm equivalent focal length range. The equivalent focal length range for the 70-300 is 105-450 (it has a 1.5x multiplier) so at full zoom subjects will appear slightly closer (since 450 is greater than 432). Hope that helps and wasn't too confusing.

07-17-2008, 07:16 PM	#9
Dr Windmill Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sequim, WA Posts: 198	PM sent to Ty.

07-17-2008, 10:05 PM	#10
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by k100d honestly, the FZ7 has excellent optics and it will be very expensive to get something better on a DSLR at the extreme long end. I don't agree with that at all. A K200D with any of the telezooms in this thread is going to beat the pants off a compact camera for image quality. Ty, you talk about the longer zoom of the FZ7 and it being blurry. Are you maybe using the digital zoom too?

07-18-2008, 06:09 AM	#11
pixelpruner Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Leeds, NE UK Posts: 220	A lot of compact camera manufacturers quote digital zoom and optical zoom together as the overall 'zoom range'. Digital zoom figures should be completely ignored - it is false marketing to call it a zoom because all the camera does is crop the image, ie showing you it at a larger size. Obviously this decreases image quality just like if you magnified an image on your computer. The optical quality you will achieve from your 18-250mm Pentax lens will be superior to this and you can, if you desire, crop the images yourself later on. If I were you I would experiment further before buying another lens - if you can get well focussed, sharp images with your current combination (I would probably require a monopod or tripod to do this even at 250mm, but it depends how steady your hands are) you should, when you load them to your computer, be able to see the difference in quality. Make sure you turn on 'anti-shake' and use shutter priority (Tv) mode to set a fast shutter speed and freeze the action. Good Luck!

07-18-2008, 07:06 AM	#12
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	This is more complicated than it seems. The FZ7 is 430mm right. The 18-250 is theoretically the same as 375mm except, and this is the key, the actual FOV is much shorter the closer you focus. So if you focus 3 feet away that 375mm will look like 275mm. Only at infinity will 375 actually be 375. To the OPer, grab the Tamron or Pentax 300mm lenses for more reach.

07-18-2008, 07:15 AM	#13
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	You should be able to get some decent shots with the lens you have, at least for the soccer shots. For wildlife shots, the longer the better, but 250 should get you some decent wildlife shots with a little luck. For now, I would spend some time with that 18-250 and really get to know the camera also before sinking big money into lenses.

07-18-2008, 07:50 AM	#14
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by reeftool You should be able to get some decent shots with the lens you have, at least for the soccer shots. For wildlife shots, the longer the better, but 250 should get you some decent wildlife shots with a little luck. For now, I would spend some time with that 18-250 and really get to know the camera also before sinking big money into lenses. If by "wildlife" he means songbirds, then the 18-250mm is woefully inadequate. I have the 18-250 and I have a couple of the popular 300mm telezooms, and there is a huge difference when photographing small birds. As in don't even bother with the 18-250 unless you're ten feet away. Alfisti is on to something. The 18-250mm only reaches a true 250mm if you use infinity focus (i.e. rarely). Even then, 250 is not 300, and 375 mm equivalent is not 450 mm equivalent. AFAIC the 18-250mm is a great standard zoom. It does not compete with the telezooms for distant or really small subjects.

07-18-2008, 07:58 AM	#15
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by reeftool You should be able to get some decent shots with the lens you have, at least for the soccer shots. For wildlife shots, the longer the better, but 250 should get you some decent wildlife shots with a little luck. For now, I would spend some time with that 18-250 and really get to know the camera also before sinking big money into lenses. The most expensive lens mentioned in this thread is available for under $350. The Tamron 70-300mm is only $130. Hardly "big money".