What is a good wide to short tele AF zoom?

Marc Sabatella · 04-21-2010, 11:40 AM

I would say that anything 35/1.4 can do, a 35/2 can do *almost* as well. Sure, you might need to up the ISO or slow the shutter one stop in low light - or half a stop of each. But that's not a huge problem, especially given that you're talking about snapshots and 4x6 prints. Considering also what you lose in DOF, and no way would I be trying to hold out for a 35/1.4 and the expensive and size that entails. In fact, most people do this kind of shooting with f/2.8 lenses on digital - ISO 1600 and above being perfectly viable in ways that it isnt on film.

kacansas03 · 04-21-2010, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I would say that anything 35/1.4 can do, a 35/2 can do *almost* as well. Sure, you might need to up the ISO or slow the shutter one stop in low light - or half a stop of each. But that's not a huge problem, especially given that you're talking about snapshots and 4x6 prints. Considering also what you lose in DOF, and no way would I be trying to hold out for a 35/1.4 and the expensive and size that entails. In fact, most people do this kind of shooting with f/2.8 lenses on digital - ISO 1600 and above being perfectly viable in ways that it isnt on film.

I never thought of running the K100D at 1600 for the indoor shots. With my film lenses they were mostly around f2.8 and I used 800 indoors. Had the flash mounted but almost never used it. It is an AE camera so when the shutter was slow I knew to go to flash. K100D does Not like the compact florescent light bulbs we have every where in the house. WB is the one thing that I didn't think about with film and I am still learning on the digital. However my thoughts are faster is better IF I can afford that lens, any of the faster ones that is.

kacansas03 · 04-22-2010, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I would say that anything 35/1.4 can do, a 35/2 can do *almost* as well. Sure, you might need to up the ISO or slow the shutter one stop in low light - or half a stop of each. But that's not a huge problem, especially given that you're talking about snapshots and 4x6 prints. Considering also what you lose in DOF, and no way would I be trying to hold out for a 35/1.4 and the expensive and size that entails. In fact, most people do this kind of shooting with f/2.8 lenses on digital - ISO 1600 and above being perfectly viable in ways that it isnt on film.

I think I still like the idea of an extreme wide angle "fisheye" lens and then use that "PTLens" software to correct the distortion of a fisheye FOC IF I want to correct it. I have seen enough fisheye photos on the forum now to realize that there will be times I wish for that much FOV plus times I want it to look fisheye so when I print the photo anyone looking at it will know how it was taken. So I have changed what I am looking for from a zoom to a single focal length.

Ratmagiclady · 04-22-2010, 06:29 PM

If you don't mind me skipping over the middle pages of this thread:

"used to own a manual focus lens for film cameras that was a 35 to 150 mm"

I don't know what lens you're talking about there, but I have a 28-105 2.8-4 Sigma that comes from AF film days, which is very nice if stopped down somewhat. They are somewhat quirky in the bright, but really pretty nice and cover about that range of FOV.

The price is quite reasonable, (I think I paid a bill at Keh) being the niceness of them. If one turns up. I'm using one for a placeholder for a Tammy 28-75, and having fun with the extra bit of reach in the meanwhile. If you want to use on digital, ...put a good sized hood on there and try to stay under 100mm.

kacansas03 · 04-22-2010, 08:40 PM

PM sent to poster. Thanks.!!

kacansas03 · 04-25-2010, 12:44 PM

I have been thinking about what I wish to have in this focal range of lens. I have realized that I might be quite happy with an 18 to 200 mm zoom. I do plan to use it outdoors so if it was say f2.8 or 3.5 to f4.5 or 5.6 I would likely be ok with the IQ. Plus it would add a wider FOV than the old lens along with a real increase in magnification plus reduction in perceived FOV. Although I could be quite happy with the FOV of a 24 to 200 also but not so much with a 28 to 200. So this widens the search field for me and hopefully may decrease the actual purchase price of the lens too!

kacansas03 · 05-13-2010, 04:38 PM

I found a 24-135 mm Sigma lens right here on the forum Marketplace. This will make the 4th person I have bought from on the forum and about the 8th or 10th lens I have bought on the forum. Thank You Adam!

Jodokast96 · 05-14-2010, 02:28 AM

You're just lucky I didn't snag it up ahead of you.

04-25-2010, 12:44 PM	#66
kacansas03 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Photos: Albums Posts: 650 Original Poster	More thoughts. I have been thinking about what I wish to have in this focal range of lens. I have realized that I might be quite happy with an 18 to 200 mm zoom. I do plan to use it outdoors so if it was say f2.8 or 3.5 to f4.5 or 5.6 I would likely be ok with the IQ. Plus it would add a wider FOV than the old lens along with a real increase in magnification plus reduction in perceived FOV. Although I could be quite happy with the FOV of a 24 to 200 also but not so much with a 28 to 200. So this widens the search field for me and hopefully may decrease the actual purchase price of the lens too!

05-13-2010, 04:38 PM	#67
kacansas03 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Photos: Albums Posts: 650 Original Poster	Found it! I found a 24-135 mm Sigma lens right here on the forum Marketplace. This will make the 4th person I have bought from on the forum and about the 8th or 10th lens I have bought on the forum. Thank You Adam!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Good Wide Angle Zoom?	JamesD	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	11-07-2009 03:52 PM
Wide-to-medium Tele zoom (DA 16-45mm, DA* 16-50 or DA 17-70mm?)	tlwyse	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-08-2009 06:36 AM
Good Budget Wide Angle Zoom	FckShoes	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	10-10-2008 05:25 AM
Wide & Tele Zoom Lens	ugaarguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	01-26-2007 09:47 PM

04-21-2010, 11:40 AM	#61
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	I would say that anything 35/1.4 can do, a 35/2 can do almost as well. Sure, you might need to up the ISO or slow the shutter one stop in low light - or half a stop of each. But that's not a huge problem, especially given that you're talking about snapshots and 4x6 prints. Considering also what you lose in DOF, and no way would I be trying to hold out for a 35/1.4 and the expensive and size that entails. In fact, most people do this kind of shooting with f/2.8 lenses on digital - ISO 1600 and above being perfectly viable in ways that it isnt on film.

04-21-2010, 11:56 AM	#62
kacansas03 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Photos: Albums Posts: 650 Original Poster	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I would say that anything 35/1.4 can do, a 35/2 can do almost as well. Sure, you might need to up the ISO or slow the shutter one stop in low light - or half a stop of each. But that's not a huge problem, especially given that you're talking about snapshots and 4x6 prints. Considering also what you lose in DOF, and no way would I be trying to hold out for a 35/1.4 and the expensive and size that entails. In fact, most people do this kind of shooting with f/2.8 lenses on digital - ISO 1600 and above being perfectly viable in ways that it isnt on film. I never thought of running the K100D at 1600 for the indoor shots. With my film lenses they were mostly around f2.8 and I used 800 indoors. Had the flash mounted but almost never used it. It is an AE camera so when the shutter was slow I knew to go to flash. K100D does Not like the compact florescent light bulbs we have every where in the house. WB is the one thing that I didn't think about with film and I am still learning on the digital. However my thoughts are faster is better IF I can afford that lens, any of the faster ones that is.

04-22-2010, 01:02 PM	#63
kacansas03 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Photos: Albums Posts: 650 Original Poster	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I would say that anything 35/1.4 can do, a 35/2 can do almost as well. Sure, you might need to up the ISO or slow the shutter one stop in low light - or half a stop of each. But that's not a huge problem, especially given that you're talking about snapshots and 4x6 prints. Considering also what you lose in DOF, and no way would I be trying to hold out for a 35/1.4 and the expensive and size that entails. In fact, most people do this kind of shooting with f/2.8 lenses on digital - ISO 1600 and above being perfectly viable in ways that it isnt on film. I think I still like the idea of an extreme wide angle "fisheye" lens and then use that "PTLens" software to correct the distortion of a fisheye FOC IF I want to correct it. I have seen enough fisheye photos on the forum now to realize that there will be times I wish for that much FOV plus times I want it to look fisheye so when I print the photo anyone looking at it will know how it was taken. So I have changed what I am looking for from a zoom to a single focal length.

04-22-2010, 06:29 PM	#64
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	If you don't mind me skipping over the middle pages of this thread: "used to own a manual focus lens for film cameras that was a 35 to 150 mm" I don't know what lens you're talking about there, but I have a 28-105 2.8-4 Sigma that comes from AF film days, which is very nice if stopped down somewhat. They are somewhat quirky in the bright, but really pretty nice and cover about that range of FOV. The price is quite reasonable, (I think I paid a bill at Keh) being the niceness of them. If one turns up. I'm using one for a placeholder for a Tammy 28-75, and having fun with the extra bit of reach in the meanwhile. If you want to use on digital, ...put a good sized hood on there and try to stay under 100mm.

04-22-2010, 08:40 PM	#65
kacansas03 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Photos: Albums Posts: 650 Original Poster	PM sent to poster. Thanks.!!

05-14-2010, 02:28 AM	#68
Jodokast96 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Erial, NJ USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,134	You're just lucky I didn't snag it up ahead of you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search