Upgrading from kit zoom lens

Mattias · 02-27-2009, 03:04 AM

Thanks for the pictures! I think they look great, it looks like it's going to be the Pentax 55-300 after all.

/Mattias

iNVision ART · 02-27-2009, 04:00 AM

^^^ I agree with Mathias!! Those pictures are real nice and it helps me to confirm my next purcahse but it would be the Macro one.

jesalonen · 02-27-2009, 05:35 AM

Matthias, it might be that 17-70 Sigma does not add to a kit lens, since Pentax kit lens is very good. When I got my first DSLR, EOS 400D with a 18-55 kit lens, I bought also a Canon budget zoom 70-300. It seemed that I couldn't get a good picture and I lost my interest for whole thing, took me about a year before I gave it a second try. 17-70 Siggy was my choice then, and it was a huge improvement IQ-wise compared to the kit lens. But, Canon kit lens was quite useless and Pentax kit lens is much, much better.

I haven't really tried 55-300 but it gets a lots of praise everywhere, so I guess it is worth to try it. Lots of people seem to think that one could learn the practice of photography with cheaper equipment and get better lenses when skills grow. I have always thought that it is nice to know that if my pictures doesn't look good, it is not about the equipment but the guy that stares me from the mirror. Hence good, perhaps more expensive but also better built optics.

If you're thinking about buying from Finland, I guess they sell 55-300 for appr. 400 euros. Tammy 18-250 is around 500 euros, Pentax 18-250 almost 600 euros. From Maitolaituri.tv you can get Sigma 70-200/2.8 for 685 euros - and that is some serious glassware. This is not a complete price list, merely an example. What I'm trying to say here is that it might be a better idea to invest a couple hundred euros more now than several hundred euros later. Trust me, you will love photography with good equipment!

Best wishes,
Jari

ve2vfd · 02-27-2009, 06:53 AM

I have to admit, I really like my 55-300.

I find that it balances image quality and price quite well. It's obviously not a $1500 DA* lens, but I find it gives you a lot of quality for it's decent price.

On the low side, it does focus hunt a little in low light (and thats's basically the only "bad" thing I can find)

On the plus side, image quality is very good, very little (if any) purple fringe, good value for the price.

A few pics I took with it...

Pat

Mattias · 02-27-2009, 07:03 AM

Again, very nice pictures, indeed. I haven't made a final decision yet, but the Pentax 55-300mm is closest. Thank you all for your replies.

@Jari: I will probably order from cyberphoto.fi they have plenty to choose from and low prices.

Regards,
Mattias

Marc Sabatella · 02-27-2009, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Mattias

I have really thought of the Sigma 17-70, it seems to be a nice lens with good reviews but it feels like it wouldn't add much to my current zoom, correct me if I'm wrong.

It's not a bird lens, of course, but that 55-70 range is nice for portraits, and the Sigma 17-70 is half a stop to a stop faster than the DA18-55 depending on focal length. I'd be curious to see some focal length breakdowns from someone who has a superzoom. My own numbers are biased by the lenses I have (a few smaller range zooms & mostly primes), but my guess is that if I had an 18-250, I'd be shooting about 70% of the time in the 17-55 range, and about 90% of the time in the 17-70 range. So a 17-70 would allow me to take 90% of the shots I'd be taking with an 18-250. But then, neither lens would be on my camera that much - I still much prefer primes.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Upgrading from the K-x Kit Lens	jaieger	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	07-13-2010 11:14 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax k-2000 + kit lens (18-55) + sigma zoom lens 70-300mm	dexmus	Sold Items	6	11-09-2009 05:25 PM
Best lens to replace kit lens? Upgrading from K10 to K7.	swhang	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	07-07-2009 08:22 AM
Upgrading a KIT lense	pentagor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	03-09-2008 12:12 AM
Need help with upgrading from 18-55 kit lens	Slideshowmike	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	01-20-2007 08:51 AM

02-27-2009, 03:04 AM	#16
Mattias Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Finland Posts: 8 Original Poster	Thanks for the pictures! I think they look great, it looks like it's going to be the Pentax 55-300 after all. /Mattias

02-27-2009, 04:00 AM	#17
iNVision ART Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The 808 State: Hawaii. From Nikon to PENTAX to Canon to Pentax Photos: Gallery Posts: 71	^^^ I agree with Mathias!! Those pictures are real nice and it helps me to confirm my next purcahse but it would be the Macro one.

02-27-2009, 05:35 AM	#18
jesalonen Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Finland Posts: 60	Matthias, it might be that 17-70 Sigma does not add to a kit lens, since Pentax kit lens is very good. When I got my first DSLR, EOS 400D with a 18-55 kit lens, I bought also a Canon budget zoom 70-300. It seemed that I couldn't get a good picture and I lost my interest for whole thing, took me about a year before I gave it a second try. 17-70 Siggy was my choice then, and it was a huge improvement IQ-wise compared to the kit lens. But, Canon kit lens was quite useless and Pentax kit lens is much, much better. I haven't really tried 55-300 but it gets a lots of praise everywhere, so I guess it is worth to try it. Lots of people seem to think that one could learn the practice of photography with cheaper equipment and get better lenses when skills grow. I have always thought that it is nice to know that if my pictures doesn't look good, it is not about the equipment but the guy that stares me from the mirror. Hence good, perhaps more expensive but also better built optics. If you're thinking about buying from Finland, I guess they sell 55-300 for appr. 400 euros. Tammy 18-250 is around 500 euros, Pentax 18-250 almost 600 euros. From Maitolaituri.tv you can get Sigma 70-200/2.8 for 685 euros - and that is some serious glassware. This is not a complete price list, merely an example. What I'm trying to say here is that it might be a better idea to invest a couple hundred euros more now than several hundred euros later. Trust me, you will love photography with good equipment! Best wishes, Jari

02-27-2009, 06:53 AM	#19
ve2vfd Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Montreal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,433	I have to admit, I really like my 55-300. I find that it balances image quality and price quite well. It's obviously not a $1500 DA* lens, but I find it gives you a lot of quality for it's decent price. On the low side, it does focus hunt a little in low light (and thats's basically the only "bad" thing I can find) On the plus side, image quality is very good, very little (if any) purple fringe, good value for the price. A few pics I took with it... Pat

02-27-2009, 07:03 AM	#20
Mattias Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Finland Posts: 8 Original Poster	Again, very nice pictures, indeed. I haven't made a final decision yet, but the Pentax 55-300mm is closest. Thank you all for your replies. @Jari: I will probably order from cyberphoto.fi they have plenty to choose from and low prices. Regards, Mattias

02-27-2009, 10:01 AM	#21
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Mattias I have really thought of the Sigma 17-70, it seems to be a nice lens with good reviews but it feels like it wouldn't add much to my current zoom, correct me if I'm wrong. It's not a bird lens, of course, but that 55-70 range is nice for portraits, and the Sigma 17-70 is half a stop to a stop faster than the DA18-55 depending on focal length. I'd be curious to see some focal length breakdowns from someone who has a superzoom. My own numbers are biased by the lenses I have (a few smaller range zooms & mostly primes), but my guess is that if I had an 18-250, I'd be shooting about 70% of the time in the 17-55 range, and about 90% of the time in the 17-70 range. So a 17-70 would allow me to take 90% of the shots I'd be taking with an 18-250. But then, neither lens would be on my camera that much - I still much prefer primes.