Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-06-2009, 02:10 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
Wow, that's awful, does anyone know how the 18-200mm stacks up with respect to this?
I don't, but you need to put this into perspective. I mean, who cares if it's "only" 160mm or whatever when focused on something a few feet away? One doesn't normally *use* long focal lengths like that on objects only a few feet away - one uses long focal lengths on distant objects. Yes, I realize that's an oversimplification, and there *are* times you'd want long focal lengths on close objects. But really, whose to say 160mm wouldn't be long enough? It sounds bad because 160 is nowhere near 250, but in practice, it's till going to be more magnification than you normally need for close objects. After all, if it's only a few feet away, you could just take a step or close closer and and get even more magnification. It's more distant objects where just taking a step or two doesn't change the relative distance much. Make sense? That is, taking picture of a person at 9 feet versus 6 feet makes a huge difference in how big they appear. Taking a picture of a mountain at a distance of 4 miles & 9 feet versus 4 miles and 6 feet makes no difference whatsoever. Which is to say, it's shooting at a distance where you normally most appreciate the long focal lengths.

All of that is just to say, yeah, 160 isn't 250, and that's terrible on paper, but in the real world, it isn't as big a deal as it sounds.

10-06-2009, 04:44 PM   #17
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I don't, but you need to put this into perspective. I mean, who cares if it's "only" 160mm or whatever when focused on something a few feet away? One doesn't normally *use* long focal lengths like that on objects only a few feet away - one uses long focal lengths on distant objects. Yes, I realize that's an oversimplification, and there *are* times you'd want long focal lengths on close objects. But really, whose to say 160mm wouldn't be long enough? It sounds bad because 160 is nowhere near 250, but in practice, it's till going to be more magnification than you normally need for close objects. After all, if it's only a few feet away, you could just take a step or close closer and and get even more magnification. It's more distant objects where just taking a step or two doesn't change the relative distance much. Make sense? That is, taking picture of a person at 9 feet versus 6 feet makes a huge difference in how big they appear. Taking a picture of a mountain at a distance of 4 miles & 9 feet versus 4 miles and 6 feet makes no difference whatsoever. Which is to say, it's shooting at a distance where you normally most appreciate the long focal lengths.

All of that is just to say, yeah, 160 isn't 250, and that's terrible on paper, but in the real world, it isn't as big a deal as it sounds.
Great logical points, thank you for that! Perhaps on zooms one can infer this from the mag magnification and the closest focusing distance relationship.

I just don't want to buy a 18-200mm to find out half the time it only goes to 150

Last edited by Eruditass; 10-06-2009 at 04:50 PM.
10-06-2009, 07:24 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
I just don't want to buy a 18-200mm to find out half the time it only goes to 150
Well that is exactly what you're going to find. Don't worry, you get used to it.
10-07-2009, 08:03 AM   #19
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
who cares if it's "only" 160mm or whatever when focused on something a few feet away? One doesn't normally *use* long focal lengths like that on objects only a few feet away - one uses long focal lengths on distant objects. Yes, I realize that's an oversimplification, and there *are* times you'd want long focal lengths on close objects.
It matters a lot for bird photography. Birds are often pretty close, but they're small, and you can't step forward or they'll fly away.

10-07-2009, 09:31 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
It matters a lot for bird photography. Birds are often pretty close, but they're small, and you can't step forward or they'll fly away.

Shooting birds with a superzoom eh .... you're gonna need some patience.
10-07-2009, 09:59 AM   #21
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
Good price on Pentax 18-250

If you're looking at the Pentax P-DA 18-250mm, Ritz Camera has it on clearance for $340. This might be a demo but has the full warranty.

Pentax smc P-DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 ED AL(IF) Lens - 21697 - RitzCamera.com

Best price for the equivalent Tamron is like $434 at Tristate Camera.
10-07-2009, 02:53 PM   #22
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
It matters a lot for bird photography. Birds are often pretty close, but they're small, and you can't step forward or they'll fly away.
OK, but how long a focal length do you *need* shooting a bird from 9 feet away? If you're shooting birds, you should have a longer focal length anyhow.

Not saying it doesn't matter at all, but given that virtually all zooms do this, there just doesn't seem much point in getting worked up over it. An 18-250 zoom will still magnify more at 9 feet than an 18-125 zoom will, and less than a 100-400 zoom will; what difference does it really make what the actual numbers work out to be?

I know, if it should happen to turn out that an 18-200 will actually give you greater magnification at 9 feet than an 18-250, that would be a difference that meant something. I kind of doubt that would turn out to be true, but only if it did would I see any reason to reject the 18-250 over this.
10-07-2009, 05:42 PM   #23
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
Shooting birds with a superzoom eh .... you're gonna need some patience.
I would never set out to shoot birds with a superzoom, but when I have the superzoom on the camera, I shoot anything, including birds.

10-07-2009, 05:45 PM   #24
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I know, if it should happen to turn out that an 18-200 will actually give you greater magnification at 9 feet than an 18-250, that would be a difference that meant something. I kind of doubt that would turn out to be true, but only if it did would I see any reason to reject the 18-250 over this.
In this context I have to agree. The OP is asking about various superzooms, all of which are Internal Focus designs, and all of which will lose focal length at less than infinity focus, just like the 18-250 does.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens, vacation
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: DA* 16-50mm/2.8, 50-135/2.8, 200/2.8, 300/4, DA 12-24/4, 18-50, 50-200, K10D Albert Siegel Sold Items 15 08-14-2010 08:51 AM
DA 50-200 vs DA 55-300 vs Vivitar S1 70-210 vs Pentax-A 70-210; Tele-Zoom Comparo PentHassyKon Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 04-28-2010 03:40 PM
I've read the reviews - still need help -DA 50-200, FA 75-300, DA 55-300 Neisey Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 08-22-2009 08:43 AM
For Sale - Sold: MC Finex-A (Pentax) 70-200 f/4.0 lens CHEAP ChrisPlatt Sold Items 1 07-01-2008 12:54 PM
Pentax 50-200 vs. Sigma 28-200 (vs. Tamron 70-300) shefaet Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 11-24-2007 10:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top