Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-29-2008, 06:58 PM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Peyton Colorado
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 56
Just my 2 cents worth, I picked up the DA*50-135 (kinda spendy) and am completely satisfied with the results I get with it. Then I saved a bit of coin and opted for the
DA 16-45mm and that lens works great for me. I too was finding myself changing lenses
frequently, then once I became more familiar / comfortable with my 16-45mm I found that lens is on my camera about 80% of the time. The downside to the 16-45 is it is not weather sealed


K10D
DA 12-24, DA 16-45, DA*50-135, DA 18-55, DA 50-200, DA 100mm macro

07-29-2008, 07:41 PM   #17
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
Original Poster
Timeline of Insanity

I'm sure a lot of you have gone through some version of this, but just to fill in more blanks here:

September 2007 - Replaced Panasonic FZ7 with K10D, DA 18-55, DA 50-200

December 2007 - Wanting wider and better IQ, replaced DA 18-55 with DA 16-45 and Tamron 28-75. LOVED both lenses, but found that I didn't use 28-75 much because of wide end of 16-45.

January 2008 - Had a brief affair with a Cosina 100mm Macro, sold it a month later

February 2008 - Decided to go wider, sold DA 16-45 for DA 12-24, thinking it would be a nice compliment to Tamron 28-75...it was, but I found myself switching lenses often with the split at 24/28 (not the 4mm gap, just where it fell in terms of focal length)

April/May 2008 - Sold Tamron 28-75 and DA 50-200 to "shrink" kit to something small and portable...purchased DA 35 and DA 70.

July 2008 - Two weeks on East Coast, beautiful results from all three lenses, but lots of lens changing, and wished I'd had longer glass for bears in Shenandoah NP.

So...you folks, as usual, have a lot of good ideas and I thank you. Here is what I'm thinking right now:

1) The DA* 16-50 is a lens I want badly. I like the idea of a worry-free weather-sealed setup (and yes, I could definitely have used it on my last trip), and the focal length is right in my strike zone. I think I could stand to give up the DA 12-24, except for one big thing: I've seen over and over again that the at 16-19mm, the DA* is a bit soft. That makes me want to keep the 12-24.

2) Considering this as my plan now:
- Sell DA 35 and DA 70
- Buy DA* 16-50
- Buy Sigma 50 Macro (gets great reviews, a bit longer than 35, only $250
- Keep 12-24 for landscapes under 20mm that DA* might be shaky with
- Start saving and get DA* 60-250
- Kit would be: DA 12-24, DA* 16-50, DA* 60-250, Sigma 50 Macro

I looked at the Nikon "Legends" page, and this setup is a lot like what the nature/wildlife and travel "Pros" use. If it's good enough for them, why not me?

I also like the idea of two bodies, as was suggested, so maybe a used K100DS or something until I upgrade to the next version of the K20D.

LBA - "Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me right back in"

Thanks everyone, keep the suggestions coming, as it sounds like a couple of others are following this thread for their own issues as well!

Todd
07-29-2008, 08:20 PM   #18
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteQuote:
...
2) Considering this as my plan now:
- Sell DA 35 and DA 70
- Buy DA* 16-50
- Buy Sigma 50 Macro (gets great reviews, a bit longer than 35, only $250
- Keep 12-24 for landscapes under 20mm that DA* might be shaky with
- Start saving and get DA* 60-250
- Kit would be: DA 12-24, DA* 16-50, DA* 60-250, Sigma 50 Macro
...
...
1) The DA* 16-50 is a lens I want badly. I like the idea of a worry-free weather-sealed setup (and yes, I could definitely have used it on my last trip), and the focal length is right in my strike zone. I think I could stand to give up the DA 12-24, except for one big thing: I've seen over and over again that the at 16-19mm, the DA* is a bit soft. That makes me want to keep the 12-24.
...
If the 60-250 turns out to be an adequate IQ replacement for the 50-135,
that will be a great kit.

However, I haven't seen softness at 16-19mm with the 16-50, in fact, it's
very sharp at those FL's:



Crop from above:




Link: Food for thought on the 16-50


But anyway, I think you have a pretty good plan there.


.
07-29-2008, 09:01 PM   #19
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 753
Original Poster
Okay, I'm over that now

Wow, you and the rest of the posters on that thread you linked to have completely eliminated any fear I had about softness at wider angles. Now I might even consider selling my 12-24

Todd

07-30-2008, 04:44 AM   #20
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by augustmoon Quote
You're lucky you got off so easily.... On our last trip, I insisted on testing my 4 DA ltds. against the 3 FA ltds, against 5 zooms.
Now that is hilarious!
07-30-2008, 05:04 AM   #21
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
So much good advice in this thread, and so much contradictory! That's because there are so many options. Your question is general enough that I am sure we have all found ourselves pondering it, except for those who are dedicated convenience addicts (one super-long zoom) or dedicated prime nuts. I shoot primes when I can, but for travel I too would prefer something better and more convenient than what I had last time out.

I have not used many of the lenses under discussion, but will chime in anyway.

To my mind the DA series of primes have lost their place in a world that has the DA *16-50 and DA* 50-150. The images I have seen from these rock the house and you can always substitute the DA 16-45 on the wider end to save cash. I don't find the extreme size of the DA primes an improvement over the faster FA primes, so have the FA43 and FA77 but no DA primes. I would not call these travel lenses however. Upshot: selling the DA70 makes sense to me.

Many of the solutions still leave you with three lenses, which isn't really solving your initial problem, is it? Basically you need to get from 3 lenses covering 12-70mm to two lenses covering something greater. Without being out of pocket much. And fast lenses don't seem to be a priority.

The DA* pair seems to be the ticket. I would keep the DA 35 to have a normal plus macro lens on hand. How can you go wrong with these three lenses?
07-30-2008, 05:39 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by gnaztee Quote
Thought I had this figured out with a travel set up of:

DA 12-24
DA 35
DA 70

After a two-week trip to the East Coast, numerous lens changes, and equally numerous eye-rolls and heavy sighs from my wife while waiting for these lens changes, I've decided to go the zoom route So I'm back to figuring out my best fit. Long glass is on hold for the moment (possibilities are 55-300, Tam 70-200, or DA* 60-250...when it comes out in 2013). Anyway, here are the combos I'm looking at, let me know what you think:

1) Sell DA 70 (I'm doing this regardless, it's in the marketplace right now), and buy either Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 (which I previously owned), leaving me with:
DA 12-24
Tam 17-50 or 28-75
DA 35 Macro
Long glass later

2) Sell both DA 35 and DA 70, get DA* 16-50, giving me:
DA 12-24
DA* 16-50
Long glass later

3) Sell all three lenses and get:
DA* 16-50
Tamron 70-200 (or DA* 50-135, but this seems a bit short to me)


I'm hesitant to lose the DA 12-24 because it performed beautifully for me and I am primarily a landscape enthusiast. I'm also hesitant to lose the DA 35, as I would have no macro capability, and it also performed beautifully for me as a landscape lens. Should have said this sooner: I'm trying to "break even" cost wise with the buying and selling. If I have to kick in an extra $100-150, that's okay. Any thoughts are appreciated as I'm really stuck right now.

Todd
If it were me, I would sell both the 70mm and the 35mm macro,

then what to get becomes your option. either the 16-50 amd 50-135, or if you feel that is too short, go for the the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 F2.8

Why, the 35 mm macro in my opinion is too short, I prefer something loinger to get working distance from subject, and the tamron 28-75 does OK for close ups any way

If you want to save weight, perhaps skip the 70mm+ zoom and take a long prime, but that leaves a big gap
07-30-2008, 08:20 AM   #23
Veteran Member
gkopeliadis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ATHENS, GREECE
Posts: 311
Go :
SIGMA 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC
TAMRON AF 17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical
TAMRON AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro (later on)

Go to DA* lenses only if weather sealing is imperative for you ...
My small contribution, IQ wise ...

07-30-2008, 04:22 PM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 423
I would keep the DA12-24 and pair it up with either Pentax 24-90 (if you can find it) or Tamron 24-135. Both lenses have got very good reviews. The only bad thing you can say about them is that they are not constant f2.8 lenses. But because they are not f2.8 lenses, they are lighter to carry around, better for holidays.
07-30-2008, 04:26 PM   #25
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 285
QuoteOriginally posted by gnaztee Quote
Thought I had this figured out with a travel set up of:

DA 12-24
DA 35
DA 70

[...]

3) Sell all three lenses and get:
DA* 16-50
Tamron 70-200 (or DA* 50-135, but this seems a bit short to me)

Todd
Don't forget about weight. The second setup is close to 2kg withouth the camera body. The first one is far below 1kg!

I'm carrying around the 18-55, a Sigma 24-60 (heavy brick) and either a Tamron 28-200 or an M42 2.8/100mm. I simply find it to heavy, it's around 1.3kgs.

I was thinking about a mostly-prime setup as you are using, with a wide-angle zoom. But just as you say, it means changing lenses all the time.

So for now, I've settled with this setup:
18-55 (evtually to be replaced by better lens)
1.4/50 (to be replaced by FA35 or DA40, eventually)
28-200 or M 2.8/100

Weight should be around 0.9kgs which I hope is still acceptable. I can tell after my vacation ;-)

PS: I own a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 which I NEVER take anywhere because it's so heavy (~1.2kg) - I've almost never used it at all.
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!
changes, da, da*, glass, k-mount, landscape, lens, lens choice, 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
Another lens dilemma... Damian.T Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 36 11-03-2010 08:27 AM
Lens dilemma thosan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 05-27-2010 12:12 PM
Lens dilemma. Pif Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 01-04-2009 08:33 AM
Lens choice dilemma daleroy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 08-25-2008 09:05 AM
Lens choice dilemma, the solution... racinsince55 General Talk 3 04-26-2008 10:48 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:54 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