[Rockdoctor]

I shoot with the old SMC-M lenses 90% of the time. I suggest getting a 50mm/1.4 for catching the little guy crawling around, and the 28mm/2.8 for landscape. These are Prime lenses, but the optics are exceptional for the price you will have to pay. Less than $200 to pick them both up on ebay. It is very common to find them on ebay. Go to the "M Club" Topic on this forum and have a look at some of the test shots posted there.

Here is an example of my little guy (not crawling around mind you lol) shot with the SMC-M 50mm/1.4 wide open at 1.4 with my K20D:

I've read quite a few reviews on different lenses but I'd like to get some specific response to my situation.

I have a K20D with the 18-55 kit lens which from what I've read on this site - is one of the best starter lenses in the industry.

Having said that I would like more zoom - I was looking at the 50-150mm I believe it is and see that its got some good reviews as well. However, I'm looking to spend less than $500CDN and would like to be under the $400 (baby on the way so pennies count! )

I like shooting landscapes but would also like to ensure that I can take shots of our little one crawling around on the floor when the time comes - so I'm looking for a "do it all" type lense.

Any suggestions on what I should be looking at?

[malabito]

I am a newbie and couldn't be more happier with the pentax 18-250mm, (yes of course i could be, by having the DA* 50-135, but its a lot more expensive). Its actually kind of slow for night pictures but still can be usable.

Here are some examples, not the best, but can be of some help:

[Marc Sabatella]

Just got am email from my dad and he's got 2 old 40mm f2.8 film lenses from his old ME and MXs that will likely work on my K20D. Any thoughts about using that instead of the 50 f1.4? My only concern is getting used to manual aperature settings. What about the difference in low light shooting though - would it be that big a difference?

Assuming this is the M40/2.8 "pancake", I'd certainly take one of your dad's hands if I were you. I love my DA40/2.8, also a pancake design, and find it *just* fast enough for indoor use most of the time (meaning I do sometimes wish it were faster). But part of the appeal of the DA version is that it is probably the fastest focusing lens Pentax has ever made. The M version loses this advantage, and the pancake design does mean it might be harder to manually focus than most. So while you wpuld likely enjoy having the lens, between the being slower in aperture and not gaining the advantage of fast AF that the DA40 has, you would probably still use the 50 more if you had both, unless you also found the 40mm focal length better (as I do).

[hinman]

I've read quite a few reviews on different lenses but I'd like to get some specific response to my situation.

I have a K20D with the 18-55 kit lens which from what I've read on this site - is one of the best starter lenses in the industry.

Having said that I would like more zoom - I was looking at the 50-150mm I believe it is and see that its got some good reviews as well. However, I'm looking to spend less than $500CDN and would like to be under the $400 (baby on the way so pennies count! )

I like shooting landscapes but would also like to ensure that I can take shots of our little one crawling around on the floor when the time comes - so I'm looking for a "do it all" type lense.

Any suggestions on what I should be looking at?

I was a newbie to dSLR and I am still very much the same newbie but with more pictures this year. I got my K100D around Feb 2007 and this year in March, I got a used copy of K10D. I am sure your K20 will serve you better. There are numerous good suggestions and I may have repeated here again.

1 Pentax DA 18-55 f/3.5-5.6

I have the older version the first day out with my K100D and I tried out SR and later I used it for landscape. And subsequently I sold it and get something better. I somewhat regret the selling but I have better lens to cover. I recommend the v2 if you are into landscape and outing with your charming baby. It is the best kit's lens among other brands. You can easily check in store when you find Canon, Nikon around with a kit's lens.

Pentax DA 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 -- Hin's Tech Corner

#1
1/2 sec, f/4.5, 38mm, iso 200, -1/2 EV, K100D, hand-held



#2



#3

2. Pentax DA 50-200 f/4.0-5.6

I love this zoom though some poor reviews and some complaints from others. I sold this lens one after after I bought it and later bought it back again. It is my best travel zoom and walk around zoom when weight is considered important. When my kids start to walk and start playing hike and seek from the camera, this zoom is the best in outdoor setting where my kids won't notice me from a farther distance. I use 90mm to 150mm a lot on this zoom.

Pentax DA 50-200 f/4.0-5.6 -- Hin's Tech Corner

#4


#5


#6


#7


#8

3 Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4

This is the best value prime for portraits, indoor with available light, night time shooting, and I love it for its color and bokeh. It is a bit harder to use due to narrow DOF with wider apertures as in f/1.4, f/1.6, f/1.8 etc. but once I manage to pay attention to body movement and accept the user errors on my part, the lens is a beautiful tool not to be missed. It is especially good for portraits, surprisingly good for close ups and outdoor candids

Pentax FA 50 f/1.4 -- Hin's Tech Corner

#9


#10


#11


#12
with Cosina matched 1:1 close up adapter


#13


#14


#15
with Kenko 2x 1:1 Macro Teleplus MC7

4. Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

This zoom is highly recommend for your need in indoor and easy to use zoom for your baby from 0 month to retirement. It is easier to use than the FA 50 f/1.4 and it won't break your bank. I think it is a better choice to pick this zoom + DA 50-200 than your quest for 50-150 or DA* 50-135. If you find yourself needing to go the Zen approach to fewer lens and that you have the budget, go with DA* 50-135 but that cost you north of 700

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 -- Hin's Tech Corner

#16


#17


#18


#19

5. Tamron 70-300 Di LD 1:2Macro

This is the best budget zoom for newbie if you don't mind to learn to fight PF (purple fringe or CA for chromatic aberration). But in normal use with attention in avoiding high contrasty areas, this lens is almost too good for the price. There are better alternatives as in Sigma 70-300 and Pentax DA 55-300 but the other double the cost

Tamron 70-300 Di LD 1:2 Maco -- Hin's Tech Corner

#20


#21


#22
with Tamron 1.4x Pz-AF TC

Thank you,
Hin

---

Last edited by hinman; 10-04-2008 at 09:01 AM.

[Clicker]

no corrections other than a resizing for the above, *edit* my mistake, i did do some framing and slight exposure for the boar

forgive my focus, i'm still learning the nuances of the K200D's presets and sometimes (most times) i forget to adjust the focus point

[Konos]

Hey guys, well, I ended up picking up the FA50 f1.4 last week and tried it out here on Turkey weekend in Canada. The positives first - I haven't yet gone through any of the shots on my PC, but just from what I saw on the camera I know I've got some STELLAR shots! This is a really great lens - I can't believe how dim the room can be and yet I can still crack shots off without using a flash!

Now, the problem with this lens - and what will lead me to returning it this week is the fact that its just not wide-angle enough. This did have its advantages this weekend mind you. For example shooting over the shoulders of two other people without them being in the shot. However, It required that the subject be at least 10 feet or so away from me in order to include one person with a bit of background or two people.

And so the search continues... Is the FA40 any "wider"?

[Marc Sabatella]

Now, the problem with this lens - and what will lead me to returning it this week is the fact that its just not wide-angle enough. This did have its advantages this weekend mind you. For example shooting over the shoulders of two other people without them being in the shot. However, It required that the subject be at least 10 feet or so away from me in order to include one person with a bit of background or two people.

Yep, that's a pretty common experience. 50mm was a nice general focal length on film, but with the "crop factor" of Pentax DSLR's, it's too long for many situations.

Is the FA40 any "wider"?

Well, sure (assuming you mean the either the old manual focus M40 or the more recent DA40) - the numbers do actually mean something. Smaller numbers provided wider angle views. To see what focal lengths you might like, use you zoom lens to frame some shots how you like, then look at the barrel of the lens (or hit the Info button on the back of your camera) to see what focal lengths you seem to be preferring.

I find the DA40 just the right focal length for many purposes. Others say it's still a little long, and 35 is better (there is an FA35 as well as a DA35) for them. I find I like having both the DA40 and an old manual focus M28/2.8 available. The DA40 gets more use indoors, but if I'm trying to shoot a group of people, I'll switch to the 28. The 28 also makes a wonderful landscape lens (but then, so does the 40, for a more intimate type of shot).

The only downside to the 40mm & 28mm lenses is that f/2.8 isn't as wide an aperture as f/1.4. The FA35 does f/2.0, which contribures to its popularity. But I'm still perfectly happy with my 40.

[hinman]

Hey guys, well, I ended up picking up the FA50 f1.4 last week and tried it out here on Turkey weekend in Canada. The positives first - I haven't yet gone through any of the shots on my PC, but just from what I saw on the camera I know I've got some STELLAR shots! This is a really great lens - I can't believe how dim the room can be and yet I can still crack shots off without using a flash!

Now, the problem with this lens - and what will lead me to returning it this week is the fact that its just not wide-angle enough. This did have its advantages this weekend mind you. For example shooting over the shoulders of two other people without them being in the shot. However, It required that the subject be at least 10 feet or so away from me in order to include one person with a bit of background or two people.

And so the search continues... Is the FA40 any "wider"?

I will argue that the 40mm won't satisfy your need for fast prime in f/2.8 if your intention is to consider speed instead of wider view. The 50mm may be too long but I always find ways to work around the lens and use it for night shooting with a focus on importance of speed. And I often used it with cropping in mind. And it is my go-to lens for the food shots that is very reasonable to use. 50 is not long for the food shots for me

#1 no cropping

Hin's Sushi Lens




#2 no cropping

Hin's Pizza Lens




#3 no cropping



#4 with cropping

[felix68]

I'll definately check out that lens.

Just got am email from my dad and he's got 2 old 40mm f2.8 film lenses from his old ME and MXs that will likely work on my K20D. Any thoughts about using that instead of the 50 f1.4? My only concern is getting used to manual aperature settings. What about the difference in low light shooting though - would it be that big a difference?

I tried the "A" and "M" lenses and they worked well until my daughter started getting mobile. Autofocus is probably a necessity unless you are really good with manual focus lenses. I am not and have sold off all of my MF gear because I just could not get any kind of hit rate under the conditions that you will most likely want to shoot. Those conditions are low light, indoor, with a moving subject.
I have ditched the zooms for primes indoors exclusively. Unless you have some pretty good light to shoot with, any zoom that is not f2.8 is not going to be very useful. I got the FA50 1.4 and it was my go to lens for 9 months, until I got the FA31... I have posted this shot here many times but it is a good exmaple of what the FA50 can do with incandescent light, no windows, shot at f2.0 with a custom white balance.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2138/2294877966_446c8e7ffc_o.jpg

Here's one with the FA31, outdoors. Almost too much detail (pardon the dried snot!)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/2931932781_0e407772c2_b.jpg

[Class A]

The Pentax DA 18-250 is a great lens when it comes to do-it-all lenses, but it's not going to give you the same quality as a 18-55 and a 50-200.

Do you know this for sure for these particular lenses? In principle it is easier to get better IQ out of two lenses with a shorter combined focal length range, but are you really sure that your statement is also true for the particular lenses involved?

It is a difficult statement to make anyhow, since there is no single "better" or "worse" as it depends on whether you prefer centre sharpness, lack of purple fringing, minimum distortion / vignetting, etc.

[fearview]

50 f/1.4 cheap useable lens.

35 f/2 norm lens. and vey cheap to.

[tcdk]

4. Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

Or Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 if you want a bit wider. Especially good value if you can get it at 200us$:

Amazon.com: Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG IF Aspherical

[patrickt]

If you have a new baby there is probably a limit on how many lenses you'll want to buy and how much time you'll have to spend.

Assuming you're new, there are two considerations. One is what you've mentioned, the focal length. Wide-angle is nice for birthday parties, family gatherings, Christmas around the tree. Telephoto is nice to zoom in and get the look on the baby's face without him concentrating on you and the camera two feet away. It lets you sit on the deck and take pictures of the baby in the sandbox.

The other consideration is the speed of the lens. You have fast lenses, those with a large maximum aperture, and slow lenses, those with a smaller maximum aperture. Oddly, the largest aperture is the smallest f/stop number. A f/1.7 will take a photo with less ambient light than a f/3.5. Telephoto lenses tend to be slower lenses.

I would consider, partly on price the 50-200mm lens which is selling for $220, I have it and think it's a good moderately priced lens. I would get either the 35mm f/2 for birthday parties and Christmas for $300 or a 50mm f1.4 for $200. For me, having small rooms, the 50mm would be a little long.

[tomtor]

Do you know this for sure for these particular lenses? In principle it is easier to get better IQ out of two lenses with a shorter combined focal length range, but are you really sure that your statement is also true for the particular lenses involved?

It is a difficult statement to make anyhow, since there is no single "better" or "worse" as it depends on whether you prefer centre sharpness, lack of purple fringing, minimum distortion / vignetting, etc.

According to various reviews and my experience with the 18-250 will be very similar in image quality to the 18-55 and 50-200 kit combo. The huge advantage is not having to change lenses, the disadvantage is that the 18-250 is bigger and heavier than the two lenses it replaces. The 50-200 is also a bit faster the the 18-250, meaning you can take images in slightly less light.

All suggestions in this thread offer a nice upgrade to your 18-55 kit (a fast 35/40/50 prime, a fast 28-70ish zoom, the 50-200, a 18-250, a flash).

Of these I would suggest a 50-200 as the most cost effective, combined with a flash.

I my opinion every SLR kit should also have a decent flash. I love low available light photography and fast primes which produce nice blurry backgrounds, but when taking images of moving people in a dimly lit room you'll eventually need a good flash. In addition the flash offers a focus assist beam, which helps your camera focus in low light.