[Alfisti]

AFAIC, 28, 50 and 135mm is a very good fov selection, just lacking something wide. I agree, a kit lens would be a good addition, or 16-45mm, or virtually any wide angle. I'd be a lot more concerned with plugging that hole than trying to improve at the long end.

Thing is, Photolady's budget is very tight, we need to keep that in mind. She is using thew siggy 70-300 and not happy so we have to find money somewhere

[photolady95]

I was told not to use the Ricoh 50mm on this camera. This is why someone here sent me the 28-80mm.

the 135mm is a macro with three settings on it. I would rather keep this lens. Though not true macro it suffices for what I use it for, that being mostly family portraits.

The weather here has not been cooperative and I've not gotten outside to do any photography. When it warms up a bit then I'll do some testing of the siggy.

And Alfisti is right, my budget is very tight so I have to hunt and pick which lenses I can afford to buy.

[Marc Sabatella]

Marc and Dan: As for "crop factor" I think we discussed this before in on of my other threads on using DSLRs compared to Film cameras. But if that's true why doesn't the actual focal length show up in EXIF details?

It does. Focal length is focal length' that's what shows up in the EXIF. The fact that a lens of a given focal length has a narrower field of view on your K100D than on your film camera is not relevant here - focal length is focal length. Your K100D doesn't care what lens might provide the same field of view on a different camera (and that's what crop factor tells you) - your camera cares what the actual focal length of the lens is.

Course I have noticed that this says "310" when the camera is set on 300. Is that a problem?

Seems odd, but no, I wouldn't think so.

[photolady95]

Thanks for the explanation Marc. I checked today on a photo I posted in PYP and the EXIF did show focal length as 450mm. So, I don't know what photo I was checking out the details of that didn't show that info.

The other, 310mm I don't know that it matters as it doesn't seem to effect shots as far as I could tell.

I'm thinking this lens isn't all that bad now. Here's why:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/86910-nature-my-best-today.html

[Marc Sabatella]

Thanks for the explanation Marc. I checked today on a photo I posted in PYP and the EXIF did show focal length as 450mm. So, I don't know what photo I was checking out the details of that didn't show that info.

There are two different EXIF fields - one for the actual foal length , and one for the "focal length in 35mm equivalent".

I'm thinking this lens isn't all that bad now. Here's why:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/86910-nature-my-best-today.html

Nice! It's important to keep in mind that the differences we are talking about between lenses are pretty minimal, really - 99% of the difference between a good picture and bad one is technique, not quality of lens. I personally wouldn't be spending hundreds of dollar just for whatever marginally better IQ you could get from another lens.

[photolady95]

Which one should I use? The real focal length or the 35mm equivalent?

Thanks for the comment on the photo. I think after my shooting I did today, I'll keep this lens a bit longer. Check PYP in about an hour.

[Clicker]

The 50-200 is not a kit lens but i agree it's a great lens.

[Marc Sabatella]

Which one should I use? The real focal length or the 35mm equivalent?

How does one "use" a number? You use a lens. Those numbers are just for looking at. Look at either one you like, or both, or neither. Look a them both. Doesn't matter. If you're in a conversation with other digital SLR owners and want to discuss focal length, talk about the real focal length. If you are in a conversation with film SLR users, consider talking about the 35mm equivalent number if you think they won't know how to do the conversion - but most probably do.

[photolady95]

Ok, thanks. From what you said it doesn't matter that the 35mm equivalent is higher than the actual focal length. I'll stick with posting the real focal length.

[Alfisti]

Well you need it when calculating your minimum shutter speed, you need roughly 1/focal length to hand hold without blur, if shooting a 300mm lens you need 1/450th as a shutter speed.

[photolady95]

Thanks for that info. Be aware, I had some BIF shots I posted in PYP where the actual shutter speeds were from 1/750s to 1/1000s.

[Ash]

Be weary that motion blur is different from camera shake - a shutter speed faster than the lower limits of BOTH of these need to be satisfied to get a sharp image. So when shooting something fast at 200mm for example, 1/200s is required to prevent camera shake, but at least 1/500s may be needed to effectively stop the action in the image.

[photolady95]

It's been two years since I posted in this thread. Two years of using the Sigma but now it appears the Sigma is dying and I'm going to replace it with a Tamron. I'm still on a low end budget so I have to find one that meets the amount I can pay. I've found some that are less than $100. I just have to decide which one I want.

And I have more lenses than I had two years ago. A Sears (Samyang) 135mm M f2.8, a Samyang 100-500mm f7.1, a Pentax M50 f2.0, a Pentax F zoom 28-80mm Macro, I still have my 28-80mm M Macro at 28mm, Oh, and my photography has gotten lots better....

[msatlas]

It doesn't have as much reach on the long end, but the Pentax F 70-210mm f/4-5.6 is optically pretty nice. The Tamron 70-300 is supposed to have some purple fringing issues that the F 70-210 mostly avoids. I have one and like it enough that I've been able to hold off buying a 55-300. I got mine for $85 from KEH a few years ago and they're typically <$100.

SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 Reviews - F Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[photolady95]

Thanks, but I just ordered a Quantaray 70-300mm Macro from KEH. And it was cheaper than the Tamron. I read reviews on here for the Quantaray before ordering it.