LBA on a budget

Gregor · 03-13-2010, 08:35 PM

I've saved up for a new lens and was thinking about the Tamron 17-50 2.8 to replace the kit lens. A friend suggested I might like a wide angle lens instead. Would the Tamron be a big enough upgrade in sharpness and speed over the kit lens or would a wide angle lens for around the same price as the Tamron give me more versatility? I like shooting the outdoors: animals, landscapes, sports, and the like. I'm especially torn because I know it will be a while before I can grab another lens. All I have right now is the 18-55 DAL, the f50 1.7, and I just got the 55-300 DA. Its my choice I know, but suggestions are welcome.

Thanks

Raybo · 03-13-2010, 08:45 PM

Tough question!

Is 18mm wide enough, or would you like something wider and maybe faster?

MSM · 03-13-2010, 08:50 PM

Gregor: I know that choosing can be difficult. I would suggest looking at photos taken with wide angle primes or zooms. The Tamron 17-50 is supposed to be a very nice lens and quite sharp. How much wider do you need? Look at images wider than 17 mm and see if that is what you typically see yourself shooting. You list animals and sports along with landscapes. I think the two former would be difficult with 17-50 let alone anything wider. Also, this should be good for landscapes. Of course, if you use your 18-55 and find it is never wide enough, then you know the 17-50 will likely not suit you.

Uncle_dad · 03-13-2010, 08:58 PM

First off there is no such thing as LBA on a budget. LBA by nature is a budget buster. That being said I went with the Tammy 17-50 and am very happy with it so far. I have not had alot of chances to use it since you can only take so many pictures of snow. And my LBA made me get a Sigma 100-300 F4 which I am loving and even though it kicked my butt hauling it around on the only hike we have been able to do I still had it on the K20D 95 % of the hike. My thoughts on the wide angle is you will get better lens for the money with the Tammy. My LBA has had me looking at wide angle and I have figured somewhere between the Sigma 10-20 but not sure if the new F3.5 ($650ish) or the older one F4-5.6 ($479) or the Pentax 12-24 ($699) are going to be the best IQ in my worthless opinion. The Tammy 17-50 was $389 from Prodigital2000. Seems to me if you are looking to upgrade the kit lens ya have to go with the 17-50 first ( which is what I did). And thats my 2 cents worth. Good luck with your LBA. I am thinking about starting LBAA to try and help with recovering buyers.

Raybo · 03-13-2010, 09:52 PM

My progression..............

18-55, most of us have it and it works!
50mm 1.4 & 1.7 "M", got to have a least one of these IMHO!
16-45, super lens!
Tamron 28-75, another super lens and it's on my camera 80% of the time!
10-17, now you're talking wide angle!
Vivitar Series 1 105mm macro, A super beauty!
Sigma 30mm F1.4, great low light wider angle lens!
Tameron 70-200 F2.8, another beauty and it's semi macroish!
Sigma 24mm Super Wide AF, I bought it and never used it for some reason but I know it's desired! (i'll get back to you on this one)
43 limited, sweet lens and I need to use it more!
MTO 500mm reflex (I also have the 1000mm), I don't care what anyone says about image quality or bokeh, I really like these lenses, the 500 is a dream and the 1000 is a real PITA to use!
I have several other Pentax and third party lenses that get rather limited use, i'll just keep that information for another day.

For what I image the Tamron 28-75 is what I use the VERY most

Marc Sabatella · 03-13-2010, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Gregor

A friend suggested I might like a wide angle lens instead... I like shooting the outdoors: animals, landscapes, sports, and the like.

Sounds ike your friends heard only the word "landscapes" in the above. How would a dedicated wide angle lens help with animals or sports? If you don't have a very specific application in mind, no way would a dedicated wide angle make more sense than the 17-50/2.8. On the other hand, you haven't really expressed a clear reason for wanting that: what *specifically* about your current lenses are you trying to improve? Really, the main thing the 17-50 improves on over what you have is in low light shooting, where it's a lot more flexible than the 50 you have. Sure, it's a bit sharper thn the 18-55 too, but that's not going to be anything you'd notice unless you get out a magnifying glass - and then, mostly only at large apertures that you wouldn't be using for landscape.

RioRico · 03-14-2010, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Gregor

I like shooting the outdoors: animals, landscapes, sports, and the like.

And I like beer, pretzels, cigars, and the like. Nice things to like, but they're rather different. And there are many different sorts of animals, landscapes, and sports. And all have different optical requirements -- or maybe not requirements, but various approaches and lenses 'work' well.

Landscapes: Many people think of ultrawides for landscapes, but except for long tele shots of distant trees and mountains, most landscape pics you'll see published were shot in focal lengths equivalent to your kit lens. Ultrawides push the horizon away, and are best for emphasizing a close subject. I crawl on the ground with a fisheye for miniature landscapes of weeds and rocks.

Animals: Wild, captive, otherwise? Fast- or slow-moving? Out in the sun, hiding in bogs and under rocks, coming at you with deadly intent, or what? Birders often prefer long, fast zooms; a shorter, not-so-fast zoom will work in a zoo or farmyard; use a macro for ant farms; an ultrawide zoom is best if you're surrounded by coatimundis or hungry pigeons.

Sports: Similar to animals (not to insult athletes!) -- track & field or soccer, chess, baseball, poker tournaments or arm-wrestling, indoor vs outdoor basketball, bowling, ping-pong, all will call for rather different approaches. A long fast lens for far fast stuff; a kit lens for most outdoor non-distant stuff; a shorter fast lens for close indoor stuff.

Your lens choices are dictated by distance, light, how fast the subject moves, and how much you want to spend. If you don't want to spend a lot, read all the threads here about getting fast, sharp, CHEAP manual primes etc. And read up on how pictures you like are made.

Mike Cash · 03-14-2010, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by Uncle_dad

First off there is no such thing as LBA on a budget. LBA by nature is a budget buster.

There are those of us who would strenuously disagree with the absolute nature of that assertion.

RioRico · 03-14-2010, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

There are those of us who would strenuously disagree with the absolute nature of that assertion.

Ditto for Mamiyas, Vivitars, Meyers, Rikenons, Ennas, Chinons, the Russians, etc.

Mike Cash · 03-14-2010, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

Ditto for Mamiyas, Vivitars, Meyers, Rikenons, Ennas, Chinons, the Russians, etc.

And for an astounding number of perfectly fine used Pentax lenses.

tokyoso · 03-14-2010, 05:30 AM

What you have is perfectly fine.

Uncle_dad · 03-14-2010, 09:13 AM

It's the addiction part that busts the budget. If it's not an addiction, then its just a hobby which won't bust the budget. The only thing that can stop a true LBA is lack of funds to buy more. True ??? <;o)

Pentaxor · 03-14-2010, 11:07 AM

symptoms that you have LBA are the following:

1.> you need to have a lens that you dont really need nor intend of using.
2.> your set budget for one lens goes beyond what you normally planned due to the fact that you saw the opportunity to buy certain lenses that are a steal or bargain of a price that you believe does not come that often.
3.> your last set purchase is not really the last purchase. it just morphed into a different kind of lens purchase. it just never ends.

Uncle_dad · 03-14-2010, 11:21 AM

Symptom #4 When you cut the water from your backpack so you can get 3 more lens in there even though it's gonna be 95 degrees out. Of course you are not going to use them but that really doesn't matter because the possibility you will break out in hives if you don't have them near you.

Uncle_dad · 03-14-2010, 11:23 AM

Symptom #4 only applies to level 3 or higher LBA..

03-13-2010, 08:35 PM	#1
Gregor Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Austin Posts: 161	LBA on a budget I've saved up for a new lens and was thinking about the Tamron 17-50 2.8 to replace the kit lens. A friend suggested I might like a wide angle lens instead. Would the Tamron be a big enough upgrade in sharpness and speed over the kit lens or would a wide angle lens for around the same price as the Tamron give me more versatility? I like shooting the outdoors: animals, landscapes, sports, and the like. I'm especially torn because I know it will be a while before I can grab another lens. All I have right now is the 18-55 DAL, the f50 1.7, and I just got the 55-300 DA. Its my choice I know, but suggestions are welcome. Thanks

03-13-2010, 10:08 PM	#6
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Gregor A friend suggested I might like a wide angle lens instead... I like shooting the outdoors: animals, landscapes, sports, and the like. Sounds ike your friends heard only the word "landscapes" in the above. How would a dedicated wide angle lens help with animals or sports? If you don't have a very specific application in mind, no way would a dedicated wide angle make more sense than the 17-50/2.8. On the other hand, you haven't really expressed a clear reason for wanting that: what specifically about your current lenses are you trying to improve? Really, the main thing the 17-50 improves on over what you have is in low light shooting, where it's a lot more flexible than the 50 you have. Sure, it's a bit sharper thn the 18-55 too, but that's not going to be anything you'd notice unless you get out a magnifying glass - and then, mostly only at large apertures that you wouldn't be using for landscape. Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 03-15-2010 at 11:08 AM.

03-14-2010, 11:07 AM	#13
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	symptoms that you have LBA are the following: 1.> you need to have a lens that you dont really need nor intend of using. 2.> your set budget for one lens goes beyond what you normally planned due to the fact that you saw the opportunity to buy certain lenses that are a steal or bargain of a price that you believe does not come that often. 3.> your last set purchase is not really the last purchase. it just morphed into a different kind of lens purchase. it just never ends. Last edited by Pentaxor; 03-14-2010 at 06:29 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Student Budget	soppy	General Talk	17	09-29-2010 07:22 PM
LBA on a (real cheap) budget	LittleSkink	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-16-2010 11:17 AM
Help me with my new budget!	jct us101	Photographic Technique	29	05-03-2009 07:21 PM
Budget (B/W) Printer?	EdD	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	0	01-18-2009 03:32 PM
Need a budget tele...HELP	jgmankos	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	07-30-2007 05:04 PM

03-13-2010, 08:45 PM	#2
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	Tough question! Is 18mm wide enough, or would you like something wider and maybe faster?

03-13-2010, 08:50 PM	#3
MSM Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Alabama Photos: Gallery Posts: 994	Gregor: I know that choosing can be difficult. I would suggest looking at photos taken with wide angle primes or zooms. The Tamron 17-50 is supposed to be a very nice lens and quite sharp. How much wider do you need? Look at images wider than 17 mm and see if that is what you typically see yourself shooting. You list animals and sports along with landscapes. I think the two former would be difficult with 17-50 let alone anything wider. Also, this should be good for landscapes. Of course, if you use your 18-55 and find it is never wide enough, then you know the 17-50 will likely not suit you.

03-13-2010, 08:58 PM	#4
Uncle_dad Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Edgewater Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 111	First off there is no such thing as LBA on a budget. LBA by nature is a budget buster. That being said I went with the Tammy 17-50 and am very happy with it so far. I have not had alot of chances to use it since you can only take so many pictures of snow. And my LBA made me get a Sigma 100-300 F4 which I am loving and even though it kicked my butt hauling it around on the only hike we have been able to do I still had it on the K20D 95 % of the hike. My thoughts on the wide angle is you will get better lens for the money with the Tammy. My LBA has had me looking at wide angle and I have figured somewhere between the Sigma 10-20 but not sure if the new F3.5 ($650ish) or the older one F4-5.6 ($479) or the Pentax 12-24 ($699) are going to be the best IQ in my worthless opinion. The Tammy 17-50 was $389 from Prodigital2000. Seems to me if you are looking to upgrade the kit lens ya have to go with the 17-50 first ( which is what I did). And thats my 2 cents worth. Good luck with your LBA. I am thinking about starting LBAA to try and help with recovering buyers.

03-13-2010, 09:52 PM	#5
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	My progression.............. 18-55, most of us have it and it works! 50mm 1.4 & 1.7 "M", got to have a least one of these IMHO! 16-45, super lens! Tamron 28-75, another super lens and it's on my camera 80% of the time! 10-17, now you're talking wide angle! Vivitar Series 1 105mm macro, A super beauty! Sigma 30mm F1.4, great low light wider angle lens! Tameron 70-200 F2.8, another beauty and it's semi macroish! Sigma 24mm Super Wide AF, I bought it and never used it for some reason but I know it's desired! (i'll get back to you on this one) 43 limited, sweet lens and I need to use it more! MTO 500mm reflex (I also have the 1000mm), I don't care what anyone says about image quality or bokeh, I really like these lenses, the 500 is a dream and the 1000 is a real PITA to use! I have several other Pentax and third party lenses that get rather limited use, i'll just keep that information for another day. For what I image the Tamron 28-75 is what I use the VERY most

03-14-2010, 01:17 AM	#7
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Gregor I like shooting the outdoors: animals, landscapes, sports, and the like. And I like beer, pretzels, cigars, and the like. Nice things to like, but they're rather different. And there are many different sorts of animals, landscapes, and sports. And all have different optical requirements -- or maybe not requirements, but various approaches and lenses 'work' well. Landscapes: Many people think of ultrawides for landscapes, but except for long tele shots of distant trees and mountains, most landscape pics you'll see published were shot in focal lengths equivalent to your kit lens. Ultrawides push the horizon away, and are best for emphasizing a close subject. I crawl on the ground with a fisheye for miniature landscapes of weeds and rocks. Animals: Wild, captive, otherwise? Fast- or slow-moving? Out in the sun, hiding in bogs and under rocks, coming at you with deadly intent, or what? Birders often prefer long, fast zooms; a shorter, not-so-fast zoom will work in a zoo or farmyard; use a macro for ant farms; an ultrawide zoom is best if you're surrounded by coatimundis or hungry pigeons. Sports: Similar to animals (not to insult athletes!) -- track & field or soccer, chess, baseball, poker tournaments or arm-wrestling, indoor vs outdoor basketball, bowling, ping-pong, all will call for rather different approaches. A long fast lens for far fast stuff; a kit lens for most outdoor non-distant stuff; a shorter fast lens for close indoor stuff. Your lens choices are dictated by distance, light, how fast the subject moves, and how much you want to spend. If you don't want to spend a lot, read all the threads here about getting fast, sharp, CHEAP manual primes etc. And read up on how pictures you like are made.

03-14-2010, 02:20 AM	#8
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Uncle_dad First off there is no such thing as LBA on a budget. LBA by nature is a budget buster. There are those of us who would strenuously disagree with the absolute nature of that assertion.

03-14-2010, 02:36 AM	#9
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Mike Cash There are those of us who would strenuously disagree with the absolute nature of that assertion. Ditto for Mamiyas, Vivitars, Meyers, Rikenons, Ennas, Chinons, the Russians, etc.

03-14-2010, 04:48 AM	#10
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by RioRico Ditto for Mamiyas, Vivitars, Meyers, Rikenons, Ennas, Chinons, the Russians, etc. And for an astounding number of perfectly fine used Pentax lenses.

03-14-2010, 05:30 AM	#11
tokyoso Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tokyo Photos: Albums Posts: 723	What you have is perfectly fine.

03-14-2010, 09:13 AM	#12
Uncle_dad Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Edgewater Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 111	It's the addiction part that busts the budget. If it's not an addiction, then its just a hobby which won't bust the budget. The only thing that can stop a true LBA is lack of funds to buy more. True ??? <;o)

03-14-2010, 11:21 AM	#14
Uncle_dad Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Edgewater Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 111	Symptom #4 When you cut the water from your backpack so you can get 3 more lens in there even though it's gonna be 95 degrees out. Of course you are not going to use them but that really doesn't matter because the possibility you will break out in hives if you don't have them near you.

03-14-2010, 11:23 AM	#15
Uncle_dad Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Edgewater Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 111	Symptom #4 only applies to level 3 or higher LBA..