Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-27-2008, 10:06 PM   #16
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,676
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Igilligan Quote
As others have mentioned, you got lots of overlap that I dont really understand the need for. But we all buy lenses in the order we buy them... (I have a lot of overlappin' myself.
Yes, the order we buy them in. Perhaps my choices would make more sense if I told you that the 18-250mm was purchased to replace the 18-55mm, and the 55-300mm was bought to replace the Tamron. The Tamron has stayed because it is damned impressive for macros at 180mm with the Raynox on the end. The kit lens I just haven't bothered to deal with and may never. It's worth next to nothing anyway.

I deliberately went for lots of overlap with the 18-250 and the 55-300mm because I like to shoot as long as I can and as wide as I can without changing lenses. No way I'd give up the 18-250, no matter what else I might get. Even though the 18-250 and 55-300 overlap a lot, I use them for different purposes. I don't consider the 18-250 a telezoom. To me it's just a standard zoom with extra reach. OTOH I love the 50mm 1.4 for what it does.

QuoteQuote:
But what I would want to know before tossin' in my 2 cents is..... What do you like to shoot... With all those lenses it seems like you have got to have a pretty good idea of that!
I wanted others to tell me what they would do with this kit. If I tell you I love to shoot long, that's what the responses will reflect. I didn't want to make it about that.

QuoteQuote:
But the "go shoot the camera" is probably the best advice... You got a lot of decent glass and should be able to get some very satisfying and borderline amazing shots.... The limit to what we can do with the cameras more often than not is us!
I agree that I have more than enough gear to get some great shots. Look at Cynthia's PPG files, all done with kit lenses. Beautiful! PENTAX Photo Gallery

You like to shoot people, and you told me what lenses you'd get. That's the kind of info I was after. Thanks for the response.

07-28-2008, 12:21 AM   #17
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
So it's pointless because your advice may not be taken?
Point is...no one is spending your money for you.

The only opinion that matters is yours. I'll tell you to replace everything with good ol MF gear. Want a list?

Since you mentioned it's what I want for me, and budget isn't an option, I want this plskthx.
07-28-2008, 05:23 AM   #18
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,676
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
Point is...no one is spending your money for you.

The only opinion that matters is yours. I'll tell you to replace everything with good ol MF gear. Want a list?

Since you mentioned it's what I want for me, and budget isn't an option, I want this plskthx.



If you would need to replace all the lenses with MF to have this kit work for you, then that's a valid answer. Yes, I'd like to know which MF glass. I doubt very much that you would buy a 400mm F2.8 next if you had my gear.
07-28-2008, 06:52 AM   #19
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Here's some advice and some heresy.

1) Keep your glass; get a K20D body if you feel the need for more pixels and features. Yes, I love my K20D! But,

2) Forget about glass and pixels. Think about what you're trying to do, and what's possible with what you have and/or can get cheap.

A couple years ago, visiting Guatemala, I met an ugly photography professor from Berkeley CA. We spoke of art and technology, and I whined that my 1.1mpx Sony PNS hadn't the resolution to do real photography. The photoprof replied that art has NOTHING to do with resolution. He mentioned numerous (in)famous photos that are virtually pointillistic blobs, yet convey volumes of vision. (But is it art... ???)

More recently, before buying a K20D and many many lenses, I asked another forum for suggestions on modern photo gear, with a budget of US$3000. One answer: get any MF film camera (Mamiya, Bronica, etc) and a basic set of lenses, and a hi-res film scanner. There would be plenty of cash left over for film and processing. Film still beats digital for resolution. And real photographers still use LF viewcams, eh?

Another approach: I set my old 1.1mpx Sony DSC-P20 to TEXT (high-contrast) mode and pretend I'm back using Kodalith developer on Pan-X film for grainless black-or-white images. No, this does not produce warm-fuzzy or soft-bokeh or nuanced-color pictures, but stark poster graphics. Shooting faces means LOTS of exposure bracketing and creative flashing, because lighting is critical when defining contours. The resultant TIFFs can be blown up to almost any size. (But is it art... ???)

Good luck. Happy shopping. Et cetera.

07-28-2008, 07:45 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
I'd sell the redundant lenses, which to keep of each would depend on which I thought was better. Not having them (other than the 18-55) I can't offer an opinion.

I'd try like hell to upgrade to a K20D, even if it meant selling the K100D (I have both). I'm heavily biased, but I'd put my lens money into Takumars for general purpose shooting, and pick up a Tamron 28-75 for events or occasions where I wanted proven IQ and autofocus. For 99% of my shooting, I wouldn't worry about anything longer than a 135mm, whether in a zoom or prime, especially with the fantastic cropping ability the K20D allows. It really is like having a longer lens mounted should you really need to pull something out of an image. I can crop out something like 1/10 of an image and still have something pretty darned good.

And I'd pick up a couple of old auto-thyristor flashes for very little cash outlay and pick up a set of radio triggers. The ones Peter recommended in another thread are very attractive. See what a difference it makes getting your flash off-camera and you'll wonder how you ever tolerated shots made with flash mounted in the "normal" way.

Last edited by Mike Cash; 07-29-2008 at 10:05 AM. Reason: typo
08-01-2008, 07:09 AM   #21
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,676
Original Poster
I've figured out how my gear can make sense. I intend to buy a 16-45mm next. That would give me two basic kits:

Kit #1: 18-250mm - For when I want a general walkaround lens with no, or minimal, lens changes.

Kit #2: 16-45mm, 55-300mm - When I want longer and/or wider with a bit better IQ.

- The 50mm 1.4 can go with either kit for low light / high quality.

- The Tamron 70-300mm/Raynox combo is my main macro setup, but the Raynox diopter could go with either kit #1 or kit #2 for macro. I don't do a lot of macro shooting.

- Sigma flash and tripod with either kit, as required. I definitely need to upgrade the tripod.

- Several people suggested upgrading the camera. I intend to do that, but I may wait to see what the K30D brings.

Thanks to all who responded.

Last edited by audiobomber; 08-01-2008 at 08:10 AM.
08-01-2008, 08:17 AM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Carradale, Scotland
Posts: 289
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Here's my kit so far:

K100D Super
DA 18-55mm
DA 18-250mm
FA 50mm 1.4
DA 55-300mm
Tamron 70-300mm Di (for macro)
Raynox 250 diopter
UV filter for each lens
Sigma 530 Super flash
Tripod (basic, needs upgrade)
Battery grip
1G SD and 4G SDHC cards
3 kit bags, various sizes
Photoshop Elements, Pentax Photo Lab, Picasa

My question is, what would you do next? I assume most people would add a lens or two, so I posted in the Lens discussion, but if at this stage you would upgrade the camera or add something I don't have, or if something I have needs a massive upgrade to suit your style, tell us about it. OTOH maybe this kit would meet your needs and you'd do nothing. Maybe you don't like so much gear and would sell some off. Maybe you'd sell it all.

Please note that I am not asking what I should do next. I'm asking what you would do next. It doesn't matter what focal lengths I like to shoot in, or what my budget is. I just want to know what you would do to make this kit work for you.
I would get out and take some pictures and stop drooling over my gear. Just my 0.02p, hope it helps
08-01-2008, 08:49 AM   #23
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,676
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by keithlester Quote
I would get out and take some pictures and stop drooling over my gear. Just my 0.02p, hope it helps
LOL! Apparently I can drool and shoot at the same time.

08-01-2008, 09:32 AM   #24
Veteran Member
heatherslightbox's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,595
It sounds like you've got a good plan. The only thing I would change about your lens setup would be to sell the 70-300 and pick up a dedicated macro in the neighborhood of 100mm. If you don't want to spend a lot of money and you can find one the A100/4 is a good choice. It only goes to 1:2, but if you add the Raynox adapter, you'll get at least 1:1, if not even more than that. I haven't tried it, but I'm very tempted. If you need to go beyond 100, then you can always slap the Raynox onto the 55-300 and shoot away.

HTH,
Heather
08-01-2008, 12:06 PM   #25
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Croatia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 80
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Here's my kit so far:

K100D Super
DA 18-55mm
DA 18-250mm
FA 50mm 1.4
DA 55-300mm
Tamron 70-300mm Di (for macro)
Raynox 250 diopter
UV filter for each lens
Sigma 530 Super flash
Tripod (basic, needs upgrade)
Battery grip
1G SD and 4G SDHC cards
3 kit bags, various sizes
Photoshop Elements, Pentax Photo Lab, Picasa

My question is, what would you do next? I assume most people would add a lens or two, so I posted in the Lens discussion, but if at this stage you would upgrade the camera or add something I don't have, or if something I have needs a massive upgrade to suit your style, tell us about it. OTOH maybe this kit would meet your needs and you'd do nothing. Maybe you don't like so much gear and would sell some off. Maybe you'd sell it all.

Please note that I am not asking what I should do next. I'm asking what you would do next. It doesn't matter what focal lengths I like to shoot in, or what my budget is. I just want to know what you would do to make this kit work for you.
List is a bit light on the wide end, and pretty good covered at telephoto end, so I guess most interesting purchase (for fun) would be some of extreme-wide lenses, sigma 10-20 or something in fisheye league.
actually, best bet would probably be upgrade to pro-class lenses, get rid of those telephoto zooms and go for 50-135, and then primes to cover range up to 50/77mm.

personaly, I'd go for pro lenses, although that means another equipment upgrade since probably won't fit into your bag, and you'll need some serious tripod for heavier-bigger lenses...

my choice - first, 50-135, then tripod, then flash unit(s), then 35 2,0, then 16-50 or 16-45, then divorce (if married)
08-01-2008, 01:50 PM   #26
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,676
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by hwblanks Quote
It sounds like you've got a good plan. The only thing I would change about your lens setup would be to sell the 70-300 and pick up a dedicated macro in the neighborhood of 100mm. If you don't want to spend a lot of money and you can find one the A100/4 is a good choice. It only goes to 1:2, but if you add the Raynox adapter, you'll get at least 1:1, if not even more than that. I haven't tried it, but I'm very tempted. If you need to go beyond 100, then you can always slap the Raynox onto the 55-300 and shoot away.

HTH,
Heather
1:2 macro at 100mm isn't terribly appealing. The 100mm at 1:2 would only be good for flower head sized shots, wouldn't it? I already get 1:2 macro with the Tamron, and it's pretty sharp when used below 200mm. I can get up to 2.7:1 with the Raynox and the Tamron at 300mm. I may consider the Pentax 100mm for 1:1 down the road, but for now macro is not a big part of my interest. I pulled the trigger on the 16-45mm.
08-01-2008, 02:29 PM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,610
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Here's my kit so far:

K100D Super
DA 18-55mm
DA 18-250mm
FA 50mm 1.4
DA 55-300mm
Tamron 70-300mm Di (for macro)
Raynox 250 diopter
UV filter for each lens
Sigma 530 Super flash
Tripod (basic, needs upgrade)
Battery grip
1G SD and 4G SDHC cards
3 kit bags, various sizes
Photoshop Elements, Pentax Photo Lab, Picasa

*snip*

Of the responses I read kjask had the best advice "go shooting" If I was given this kit, and I take as a given that I'd have to work within my realworld budget, I'd sell the tamron 70-300, the DA 18-250, the Raynox, and the UV filters and I'd get: (over time because I can't afford it all at once and in order) 1) decent tripod, 2) remote shutter release (doesn't have to be wireless) 3) Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro 4) CP filters for the kit and the tammy, 5)FA 77ltd, 6)Zenitar 16mm F2.8 fisheye and finally 7) Tamron 28-70 F2.8. I figure it would take about 1.5 to 2.0 years to complete the task.

NaCl(then I'd take a deep breath, go shooting and figure out what lens to get next)H2O
08-01-2008, 03:18 PM   #28
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,676
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by silent_eyes Quote
List is a bit light on the wide end, and pretty good covered at telephoto end...
That's not an accident. I shoot long a lot more often than I shoot wide. I'm thinking 16mm will do for me.

QuoteOriginally posted by silent_eyes Quote
...personaly, I'd go for pro lenses
As far as I can tell the 16-50mm IQ is pretty comparable to the 16-45. The 50-135mm is too wide and too short for a lot of what I want to do. If I wanted to increase quality and speed, I'd probably add a couple of primes to what I have now.
08-01-2008, 03:22 PM   #29
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,676
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
Of the responses I read kjask had the best advice "go shooting"
That's definitely my intent. Once I get the 16-45 and a new tripod, I should be good for quite a while. Hopefully until there's a K30D. :ugh:
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!
da, k-mount, kit, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:37 PM. | 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