[thrice]

I'm new to DSLR photography, I have a K10D and with DA 18-55. I really really enjoy the camera, but I'm not quite sold on the kit lens, I'm currently debating buying the Sigma 17-70, and have almost bought one a number of times. So here's the rub, I'm not a limited budget, 400 dollars is a fair amount of money for me (although if it were worth it I could find more), so is it worth it to wait for the DA*s? Any advice is appreciated!

And because I'm new here, I thought I'd post one of what I believe to be one of my better shots (grimace) any comments are welcome.

Picasa Web Albums - Jed - Matt and Casee

[SuperJared]

What is it about the kit lens you don't like? Sharpness? Too slow?

[FotoPete]

Frankly its more a subjective thing.

Do you need AF? no? Vivitar 28-90mm f2.8-3.5 is cheap and very sharp

Do you need Faster AF? no? Sigma 17-70/DA 16-45/ etc etc

DA*16-50.

I mean the DA* quality will be very good but is it worth the premium cost..that is up to you. There are many other sharp lenses out there but don't have the SDM AF motor. Do you need 'weather sealing' and how badly. I say this because the lens extends and I can't see how the engineers can possibly keep that thing sealed.

[daacon]

What is it about the kit lens you don't like? Sharpness? Too slow?

What SuperJared said - I think all too often (and I am more guilty of this than most) - we 'need' / 'want' to get bigger better stuff based on the criteria there is bigger better stuff to be had.

There is nothing wrong with that at all (I bought a 3 lenses already had the camera less than 2 month - have buyers remorse on one).

As for the da* everything I have seen and read point to this one being the new standard for zooms anyway - the 'wait' is up to you - spend $400.00 now and get a great lens or wait 'x-months' (as there is no definitive release date to my knowledge) and spend twice that for a great lens !

As for what I would do - I already did it - bought a $500.00 lens now instead of wating for the da* I may purchase that when it comes out - we will have to wait and see. Does the $500.00 lens take a better picture than the Kit lens of my dog on the deck ? Don't know as I haven't received the $500.00 lens yet haha. But to be truthful in more or less 'perfect picture taking conditions' - I think most would hard pressed to tell the difference between the Kit lens and my Tamron.

Check the picture post - there are some impressive pictures taken with the Kit lens.

Not much help I know - but I suspect you already know the answer to your question

[thrice]

I find that the 18-55 is a little slow for me, I'd also like a little better bokeh, also the weather sealing of the DA*s was desirable to me because 99% of what I do is in the dirt and weather. Other than that its a great lens to learn with. For a long time I thought I would get the 17-70 for my main walking around lens, and then get a 70-200 APO for when I wanted a little more length. I figured this would be a fairly cheap combination that would far exceed my skills (not that the 18-55 doesn't ).

Does anyone know what kind of price premium the DA*s are going to command?

[justuspr]

thrice, welcome to the forum, good to see at least one other pentaxian in Utah.

I've heard good things about the Sigma, the DA*'s should be fantastic. But the I've SEEN great shots taken with the kit lens. My personal opinion since you are new to DSLR photography would be to buy a lense or lenses in other focal lengths, before upgrading from the kit lense in that focal length... a 50-200, or a 14 prime, something to expand your focal length capabilities.

Learn to use the camera and kit lens well, and play with other focal lengths, you may find that you don't use some focal lengths as much as others, then buy the nicest lenses in the lengths you use the most.

Thats my $.02 and worth every cent you paid. Most of all have fun!

//Edit: Thrice you posted while I was writing... sounds like you are at least looking at other focal lengths, thats good.

[roy]

i'm also wondering how the kit lens has fail you. i really need a wide prime or a wide zoom to fill out my range. while i'm waiting i'm using the kit lens. it's never let me down. i agree with justus. get the 50-200 or maybe a 70-300. shoot with them for awhile and see where photography takes you. in 6 months you will probably know what primes you are going to want.. my other 2¢

[SuperJared]

Take 5 - 10 of your best photos and figure out how another lens could have made them better.

[mtngal]

I like the picture in your link, but it brings up a different side to your question. I noticed that its a flower - are you looking more for a macro lens?

Just my 2 cents - I really like the kit lens, and it does fine for my wide angle needs. I also have a 100mm macro lens for flowers etc. - things that require closer focusing than the kit lens. I also have the DA 50-200 but have a problem now with mine (can't figure it out, not typical of the lens).

I'm probably going to get the DA* 50-135 2.8 when it comes out, because of the problems I'm having with my DA 50-200. I'll drool over the DA* 60-250 when it comes out at the end of the year (or next year?) and have a hard time convincing myself not to get it also. I have no plans on getting anything to replace my kit lens at all.

[Edwood]

I now have a Nikon D80. Been thinking of getting the 18-200mm VR lens.

I think I'll let fate decide which system to go with. Whichever is in stock (at a good price, not price gouged) first wins.

So, Nikon has until August to get the 18-200mm in stock at B&H, or I'll just end up with the DA* 16-50mm, sell the D80, and buy a K10D. (I have an *ist DS at the moment.)

Another deciding factor is how well and fast the auto focus is with the DA*'s and the K10D combo. I am continually annoyed with how slow my *ist DS is at focusing in lower light. The lack of a focus assist lamp is annoying. With my 360 flash, it has a red focus assist lamp, but the *ist DS still "hunts" back and forth for a focus lock. Since the K10D lacks a built in focus assist lamp, I'm guessing it won't be much better.

-Ed

[thrice]

One of the things that aggravate me the most about the 18-55 is the focal length, everytime I try to get good and close to a subject I have a very hard time maintaining focus (but I guess that is because its not really a macro lens, but I'm not sure still pretty new to this language). The picture I linked to I took this weekend and was the source of some of that aggravation, I haven't edited it at all, but for the most part I'm happy with the way it turned out, with some minor caveats.

It seems like the various fixed fast 50s have a great reputation on this forum and I've almost picked up a couple on KEH a few times but I keep thinking I'm better served by staying with my 18-55 at the moment, I'm going to take come college courses in my spare time in the fall to improve upon my skills (I have a very difficult time getting good exposure on most of my outdoors pictures that have areas of various lighting levels).

I guess even have never bought another lens I'm effected by a little of the LBA...

Currently anywhere I go the K10D goes, and I take pictures of everything and I'm getting better I'm just looking for the best next step and the best investment for my money.

Thanks for all the replies.

[jnorth]

I'm liking the looks of the DA*'s for the peace of mind it will give me by being 'sealed', and for the extra speed. Most every (d)slr with most every lens can meet my skill, but not all can give me a degree of peace, when shooting in a wet enviro, or when I need some speedy glass. I realize that they won't be water & grime proof, but they will offer more protection than any of my lenses have, and though I won't be exposing them to extremes they will offer me a user induced peace of mind. In reality I probably won't be exposing my gear to anything much worse than what my existing gear can handle, it's just that my nerves can't always handle it.

Sometimes I wish I had the kit 18-55. Like when my wife grabs the camera for some snaps of the kids inside the house and has my 16-45 too wide, so that the onboard flash casts a shadow.

[justuspr]

One of the things that aggravate me the most about the 18-55 is the focal length, every time I try to get good and close to a subject I have a very hard time maintaining focus

I think you are talking about minimum focusing distance which varies from lens to lens.

The focal length of a lens is defined as the distance in mm from the optical center of the lens to the focal point, which is located on the sensor. A zoom lens such as the kit can have an 18mm focal length or a 55mm focal length or anything in between.

(I have a very difficult time getting good exposure on most of my outdoors pictures that have areas of various lighting levels)

Everyone has a hard time with this, its one of the hardest technical things in photography. Try metering on the far away things and using flash to fill in the foreground. Classes are a great idea, so are books. One of my favorites (gives a good overview of alot of photography topics. John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide he discusses everything in terms of nature photography but the concepts carry over into any kind of photography.

[thrice]

I think you are talking about minimum focusing distance which varies from lens to lens.

The focal length of a lens is defined as the distance in mm from the optical center of the lens to the focal point, which is located on the sensor. A zoom lens such as the kit can have an 18mm focal length or a 55mm focal length or anything in between.



Everyone has a hard time with this, its one of the hardest technical things in photography. Try metering on the far away things and using flash to fill in the foreground. Classes are a great idea, so are books. One of my favorites (gives a good overview of alot of photography topics. John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide he discusses everything in terms of nature photography but the concepts carry over into any kind of photography.

I've read a couple books that I picked up at Barnes and Noble (I'll look into the book that you suggested) that have helped me, and you are correct I meant minimum focusing distance, I got my terms wires crossed up in my brain.

[kskjon]

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/35mm/k10d/image/ex_07.jpg

There's the official demo picture for the DA* 16-50/2.8. I personally find it quite impressive, considering it's taken at wide open aperture. It should be even sharper stopped down.

I know I'm getting the DA*, however my wallet doesn't seem to like me for that decision.