Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-22-2010, 09:48 AM   #1
Senior Member
AirSupply's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 153
Upgrade from 16-45mm to 12-24mm or 50-135mm?

Since I have my K-7 works really well together with the 40mm LMT and 16-45mm, the IQ is over my expectation from several kinds of photography like landscape, portrait ... However, I would like to upgrade my 16-45mm to another higher level for taking wildlife pictures, big event (Boy Scout Jamboree ...) or sometime portrait. I am standing between the 12-24 and 50-135, and I really don't know which one is best for my purposes. The difference in price is not too big between those good lens (~200)
I really need your Pentax professional advise. It would be greatly appreciated

01-22-2010, 12:28 PM   #2
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
hi there, I recommend the Tamron 70-200/2.8. but if you won't mind shooting at slower aperture and want something at 50mm and an extended reach at 300mm, I recommend the DA55-300 variable aperture lens. both lenses are great, it depends on what would fit your need or comes down to aperture speed or focal length.

or get both if you can afford them both.
01-22-2010, 12:41 PM   #3
Damn Brit
Guest




Apart from an 8mm overlap between the 16-45 and 12-24 these are completely different focal lengths you're looking at so I don't see what you mean by upgrade, IQ has nothing to do with it in that sense.
You go on to say you want this lens "for taking wildlife pictures, big event (Boy Scout Jamboree ...) or sometime portrait.", the 12-24 isn't going to be any good to you for any of those situations so 50-135 would be the choice on the basis of that alone.
Don't discount the Sigma or Tamron offerings in similar FL's though. The Tamron already mentioned is an excellent lens by all accounts, it doesn't have SDM which is a concern that should be considered (the less people buy those lenses the sooner Pentax will change their attitude to the customer IMO) and it has a much longer warranty. The Sigma 70-200 also seems to be quite well thought of and again, no HSM and a much longer warranty. I think the 70-200 range will better suit your needs than the 50-135. For FL below 70mm, you should perhaps look at getting a prime in the 50mm area as then next purchase after this one. It would be a good chance to buy a used manual focus 50 for not too much money and give yourself the opportunity to practice manual focusing.
01-22-2010, 12:47 PM   #4
Senior Member
AirSupply's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 153
Original Poster
Thanks Pentaxor and Damn Brit, your guys advices are always valuable to me. The 70-200/2.8 seems interesting to me, but I am a bit afraid of its lacking of weather sealed (in comparison with the 50-135) because I always hiking or exploring with my Boy Scout troop and really need a well built lens for it.

The 55-300 seems ok to me but a bit shorter than my expectation, but still a good deal with a tempting price tag.

01-22-2010, 12:50 PM   #5
Senior Member
AirSupply's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 153
Original Poster
@Damn Brit: can you suggest me some good 50mm models that I should take a look at?
01-22-2010, 12:57 PM   #6
Damn Brit
Guest




From the older Pentax lenses you have a choice of 50 1.4, 50 1.7, and 55 1.8 (note - some may be screwmount in which case you would need an adapter). M designated lenses mean fully Manual A designated lenses mean the camera can control the aperture for you.

You should find a few in the marketplace here. Even if they are sold you can check the reviews in the lens database, at least you will familiarise yourself with them and know what to look for and how much to pay.

I assume you are keeping the 16-45, it's a great lens and I don't think is an issue with it, it just doesn't have a really wider aperture making low light conditions difficult, so I wouldn't worry about the 50 just yet. From what you have said, you need a longer zoom so my advice would be to concentrate on that for now.
01-22-2010, 01:08 PM   #7
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
as Gary pointed out, if ever you'll get the 70-200mm, get a manual focus 50mm, either a 1.4 or 1.7. or both. if you want that extra speed and smooth bokeh, the 1.4 is your lens, if sharpness at wide open is your concern, the 1.7 is your lens.

as far concerns regarding weather-sealing, just use it with extra care and always bring a towel or cloth to wipe the liquid off or cover the lens with plastic.
01-22-2010, 01:24 PM   #8
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
on a side note, the K55/1.8 is quite trickier to find as compared to the 1.4 and 1.7. but anyways, I love that lens the best among the 3. it's the best cheapest manual focus 50mm lens, IMO, next to the most expensive manual focus 50mm lens which is the f1.2 which goes to 11. but that is another story.

p.s. just be careful of not misreading or misunderstanding a 1.2 for a 1:2.
the 1:2 is an f2 lens and completely different and is the ugliest of the 4 manual 50mm sisters. the K55/1.8 and K55/2 are the 2 older adopted twin sisters of the 50mm family.

meet the 50mm family: 50/1.2 , 50/1.4, 50/1.7, 50/1:2, 55/1.8, 55/2

01-22-2010, 01:49 PM   #9
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by AirSupply Quote
The 70-200/2.8 seems interesting to me, but I am a bit afraid of its lacking of weather sealed (in comparison with the 50-135) because I always hiking or exploring with my Boy Scout troop and really need a well built lens for it.

The 55-300 seems ok to me but a bit shorter than my expectation, but still a good deal with a tempting price tag.
I don't understand how you can be considering a 50-135 or 70-200 but then turn around and say the 55-300 is a bit shorter than your expectation. I'm also confused as to how you could find any of these - or the 12-24 - to be an "upgrade" to your 1645. That's like me getting a 32" LCD TV as an upgrade to my refrigerator.
01-22-2010, 02:02 PM   #10
Senior Member
AirSupply's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 153
Original Poster
@Marc: sorry for the confusing. I am just an amatuer to the Pentax world and still don't have a good knowledge about the lens etc. Back to the original purpose, I may keep my 16-45 for a while, but I will get a long-range telezoom lens and a 50mm as people suggested above. Thanks for your comment Marc
01-22-2010, 02:05 PM   #11
Damn Brit
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
That's like me getting a 32" LCD TV as an upgrade to my refrigerator.
LOL, haven't you heard Marc? Next years model of refrigerators have a 32" LCD TV built into the door. Admittedly the tv is built in 'portrait' style but I like to lay down and watch tv anyway.
01-22-2010, 02:09 PM   #12
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,279
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I'm also confused as to how you could find any of these - or the 12-24 - to be an "upgrade" to your 1645. That's like me getting a 32" LCD TV as an upgrade to my refrigerator.
Hilarious! My humble guess is that the OP finds his 16-45 too limited in focal length on both the wide and tele ends, and is not thinking "upgrade" but rather "in addition to." Otherwise, I agree, it's a 32" LCD refrigerator...

Just keep the 16-45mm and get the 50-135mm. Great for portraits and "close-ups" of events with kids, but not for th bigger picture unless you are some distance from the action.
01-22-2010, 04:02 PM   #13
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 235
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I don't understand how you can be considering a 50-135 or 70-200 but then turn around and say the 55-300 is a bit shorter than your expectation. I'm also confused as to how you could find any of these - or the 12-24 - to be an "upgrade" to your 1645. That's like me getting a 32" LCD TV as an upgrade to my refrigerator.

Thanks Marc. I was begining to think it was me
01-22-2010, 08:06 PM   #14
Senior Member
AirSupply's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 153
Original Poster
Before I opened this post, I was thinking the DA 50-135 would be my next purchase ... However, finally, after reading a lot about the SDM issues and u guys comments, I convinced myself go for the Tamron 70-200. I love the Pentax built on the 50-135, but they didn't do a serious job on solving the SDM problems. So Tamron is on my list ....
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!
16-45mm, k-mount, pentax lens, portrait, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would you upgrade from a K-x to a K-7 or keep the K-x and buy a DA* 50-135mm crossover37 Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 09-11-2010 08:12 AM
Upgrade from kit to 16-45mm? A-z Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 48 05-10-2010 01:00 PM
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 a worthy upgrade from the DA 16-45mm f4? Ben Hunt Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 04-20-2010 06:26 AM
For Sale - Sold: 16-45mm trade for 24mm\28-70mm\75mm f2.8 amicah22 Sold Items 3 03-16-2009 03:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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