[GT Baseball]

Hi All,

Looking for some opinions: I have saved enough to buy either a PENTAX SMCP-DA 16-50mm f/2.8 ED or I can get PENTAX SMCP-D FA 50mm F2.8 MACRO and a Pentax AF-360 FGZ Autofocus TTL.
Currently I have a K200D and 3 manual focus lenses(50, 135 & 200), I would like
to get into some portrait and possibly wedding photography but I do like taking
some macro shots.

Thanks for any responses

Alan

[redpigeons]

I would get the 16-50mm

much more useful on a Dslr

50mm 2.8 is nice macro lens but too long for general use

[res3567]

I would get the 16-50mm

much more useful on a Dslr

50mm 2.8 is nice macro lens but too long for general use

I second that!

[flippedgazelle]

Torn between two lenses, feelin' like a fool
Buying' both of you is breakin' all the rules...

Sorry, I just had to!

[Canada_Rockies]

I second that!

I third the vote for the DA* 16-50.

[Marc Sabatella]

My vote is neither. If you're specifically looking to get into portraits and weddings, I'd say something like the Tamron 28-75 would make more sense.

[Ash]

Marc's got a point.
I have both (the 16-50 and 28-75) and default to the 28-75 for weddings, leaving the 16-50 at home. I find that I usually can get far enough away from the action to take a 'wide angle' shot at 28mm but can rarely get close enough for the tight head shots at 75mm. And the 28-75 is rated amongst the best fast lenses in its range - perhaps not as great as the 16-50, but just more appropriate for weddings. (the 75mm perspective is also more flattering for portraits than a 50mm perspective).

[TTQ225]

Marc's got a point.
I have both (the 16-50 and 28-75) and default to the 28-75 for weddings, leaving the 16-50 at home. I find that I usually can get far enough away from the action to take a 'wide angle' shot at 28mm but can rarely get close enough for the tight head shots at 75mm. And the 28-75 is rated amongst the best fast lenses in its range - perhaps not as great as the 16-50, but just more appropriate for weddings. (the 75mm perspective is also more flattering for portraits than a 50mm perspective).

I agree with Ash. I have 16-50 and love it to death. I also had Tamron 28-75 (sold) and a year ago used it to shoot a wedding (as a volunteer) of our son. There were two pros hired for the job. One used Nikon and the other one Canon. I was shadowing these two girls shooting alongside with them with my K20D. My results were at par with theirs and several of my shots made it to the wedding album. Tamron is a great lens. I also took it with me to China and Hong Kong and brought back a lot of good shots.

[robjmitchell]

Another alternative is the sigma 70 macro! great at portraits and macro. It makes more sense since you already have a 50mm.

It should also be noted that you can get some excellent manual 100mm macro lenses for low prices, although you will still need that flash!

[asdf]

Currently I have a K200D and 3 manual focus lenses(50, 135 & 200), I would like
to get into some portrait and possibly wedding photography but I do like taking
some macro shots.

If you want to shoot indoors and/or want a narrow DOF, you'll need speed: f/1.8 is already a stop-and-a-half faster than f/2.8.

If 28 is "normal" on a DSLR, then 31 is pretty close (although, I don't know whether it's within your budget):

Pentax SMC-FA 31mm f/1.8 AL Limited Review / Test Report

[and]

of the two I would get the 16-50 as it is far more useful for general purpose and for macro I think the 50 is a bit short and for general use you already have another 50 which should be faster too, altho not AF.

And the 360 i wouldnt recommend as it doesnt swivel, I would get the 540 instead or a sigma one that swivels.

then again for portraits I dont know how good the 16-50 is, although its a preference thing, for group portraits it should be ok, for head and shoulders I would use something a lot longer. although for general wedding use I would imagine it would be useful to have the lens for general shooting. normally wedding shooters carry 2 zooms as the basic setup, one 14/28-70 equiv and one 70-200 equiv so that would be the pentax 16-50 plus 50-135

[Marc Sabatella]

Oh, and regarding macro - a Raynox 150 will turn just about any telephoto lens into a usable macro lens. It would give about 1:1 with the 135 you already have, somewhat beyond that with the 200.