Lens Suggestion...which to buy

**aslyfox** · 08-09-2017, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Gondo

I talked to the wife. Here's what we decided. . . . .

the choice is yours

and you are wise to make sure she is in agreement

Wasp · 08-10-2017, 02:58 AM

The 24mm and 300mm lenses would be a good addition to the kit lens. Good choice!

Don't forget to share the pics taken with the new gear.

**twilhelm** · 08-10-2017, 03:11 AM

Great choices, I'm sure you'll be very happy!

**jatrax** · 08-10-2017, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by pres589

I'm still wondering why the 16-50 is being suggested if the Tamron 17-50 is still available new. This is a serious question.

16-50 is 1mm wider, which is significant at the wide end, is weather sealed, has quick shift (maybe the Tamron does to?) and has Pentax on the outside. The build quality is superb, it works and feels like a well built tool and is a pleasure to use.

I used the 16-50 semi-professionally for a number of years and I was very happy with the results. I have not used the Tamron so I cannot really talk about it. I have handled one very briefly and found it plasticky and not as well constructed as the 16-50 but that is just my opinion from a brief encounter. The big advantage the Tamron has is price, it is downright cheap compared to the 16-50. I don't think one is necessarily 'better' than the other, both are superior in some areas. Which is why they both have fans.

**pres589** · 08-10-2017, 09:16 AM

The Tamron probably isn't as well made but it also seems to be pretty reliable. It's also not overly heavy and performs quite well. Right now brand new 16-50's in the USA are available for about $825 or so. Tamron 17-50's are still $300, I believe. That's a shocking difference. The other thing is how the reviews here on PF.com seemed to point to the Tamron and the Sigma 17-50 both performing a bit better than the Pentax.

You kind of can't go wrong with any of these three until you look at the price. I've handled the Tamron a tiny bit on a Canon DSLR and it seems quite nice. My sister seems to be doing quite well with that combination and starting a small side photog business taking pictures of people for small events.

VoiceOfReason · 08-11-2017, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Gondo

On the telephoto end I like the look of the DA* 60-250mm as a general walkaround telephoto but if I'm going to go big I might as well get the FA 150-450mm. The DA* is cheaper but add the expensive teleconverter from Pentax and it becomes the same price as the FA.

After those 2 if I really desire a serious astro lense I'd spring for a 14mm prime as suggested.

I can tell you from personal experience the DA* 60-250 isn't the best for astro, but the DFA 150-450 is excellent for it. It has some coma at the edges (this is less of a problem with APSC, but once stopped down a small bit that goes away. I use mine for it some.

Gondo · 08-23-2017, 12:52 PM

Well it was a hard decision but I bit the bullet.

24mm was just not wide enough. Especially on the cropped sensor. So that left me with 3 lenses from Rokinon. 10mm, 14mm, and 16mm. Although the 16mm was an f2.0 it wasn't full frame. Same goes for the 10mm. The 14mm is full frame so would work with a future upgrade. If my body ever dies I'll get a full frame. Also the full frame lense is much cheaper than the other 2 for some reason.

So I ordered the classic Rokinon 14mm F2.8. I also ordered the GPS unit for my camera so I can use the astrotracer feature. The only downside of the 14mm is that it doesn't support a filter. But I will only be using it at night for landscape astro or city landscapes so I don't care. And with the Astrotracer I can do 2 exposures. 1 super long for the sky and 1 shorter for foreground and stack the 2 in photoshop. It should be fun.

Thanks everyone for convincing me to go with a wide prime for the landscape astro and to look into Rokinon.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
lense hood help (50-200mm lense for k-30)	obsidianjeff	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	05-06-2014 06:46 PM
Universal lense wide lense: Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8, DA 16-45mm F4, DA 17-70mm ?	Vejas	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	02-11-2014 12:04 PM
Which body, which lense(s)?	oharek	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	03-15-2011 03:58 PM
Last question before I buy... Kx or K7, which would you buy?	DavoMrMac	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	02-01-2010 02:42 AM
Noob Question Difference Between a Lense That Does Macro & A True Macro Lense	Christopher M.W.T	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	16	07-19-2009 12:20 AM

08-09-2017, 04:09 PM	#31
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,581	Originally posted by Gondo I talked to the wife. Here's what we decided. . . . . the choice is yours and you are wise to make sure she is in agreement

08-10-2017, 02:58 AM	#32
Wasp Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Pretoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,660	The 24mm and 300mm lenses would be a good addition to the kit lens. Good choice! Don't forget to share the pics taken with the new gear.

08-10-2017, 03:11 AM	#33
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	Great choices, I'm sure you'll be very happy!

08-10-2017, 08:21 AM	#34
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by pres589 I'm still wondering why the 16-50 is being suggested if the Tamron 17-50 is still available new. This is a serious question. 16-50 is 1mm wider, which is significant at the wide end, is weather sealed, has quick shift (maybe the Tamron does to?) and has Pentax on the outside. The build quality is superb, it works and feels like a well built tool and is a pleasure to use. I used the 16-50 semi-professionally for a number of years and I was very happy with the results. I have not used the Tamron so I cannot really talk about it. I have handled one very briefly and found it plasticky and not as well constructed as the 16-50 but that is just my opinion from a brief encounter. The big advantage the Tamron has is price, it is downright cheap compared to the 16-50. I don't think one is necessarily 'better' than the other, both are superior in some areas. Which is why they both have fans.

08-10-2017, 09:16 AM	#35
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	The Tamron probably isn't as well made but it also seems to be pretty reliable. It's also not overly heavy and performs quite well. Right now brand new 16-50's in the USA are available for about $825 or so. Tamron 17-50's are still $300, I believe. That's a shocking difference. The other thing is how the reviews here on PF.com seemed to point to the Tamron and the Sigma 17-50 both performing a bit better than the Pentax. You kind of can't go wrong with any of these three until you look at the price. I've handled the Tamron a tiny bit on a Canon DSLR and it seems quite nice. My sister seems to be doing quite well with that combination and starting a small side photog business taking pictures of people for small events.

08-11-2017, 05:17 AM	#36
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Originally posted by Gondo On the telephoto end I like the look of the DA* 60-250mm as a general walkaround telephoto but if I'm going to go big I might as well get the FA 150-450mm. The DA* is cheaper but add the expensive teleconverter from Pentax and it becomes the same price as the FA. After those 2 if I really desire a serious astro lense I'd spring for a 14mm prime as suggested. I can tell you from personal experience the DA* 60-250 isn't the best for astro, but the DFA 150-450 is excellent for it. It has some coma at the edges (this is less of a problem with APSC, but once stopped down a small bit that goes away. I use mine for it some.

08-23-2017, 12:52 PM	#37
Gondo New Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 18 Original Poster	Well it was a hard decision but I bit the bullet. 24mm was just not wide enough. Especially on the cropped sensor. So that left me with 3 lenses from Rokinon. 10mm, 14mm, and 16mm. Although the 16mm was an f2.0 it wasn't full frame. Same goes for the 10mm. The 14mm is full frame so would work with a future upgrade. If my body ever dies I'll get a full frame. Also the full frame lense is much cheaper than the other 2 for some reason. So I ordered the classic Rokinon 14mm F2.8. I also ordered the GPS unit for my camera so I can use the astrotracer feature. The only downside of the 14mm is that it doesn't support a filter. But I will only be using it at night for landscape astro or city landscapes so I don't care. And with the Astrotracer I can do 2 exposures. 1 super long for the sky and 1 shorter for foreground and stack the 2 in photoshop. It should be fun. Thanks everyone for convincing me to go with a wide prime for the landscape astro and to look into Rokinon.