upgrade to a K5 or a faster zoom lens?

james458 · 05-06-2012, 10:03 PM

I am sure there are many people already upgraded from a K7 to K5, so this questions should be easy...

I am currently using a K7 and finding the low light performance below average.
With limited budget, I am considering weather to put my money on an upgrade between: (a) upgrade to K5; (b) a decent 70-200mm F2.8.
Upgrading to a K5 seems to be a quick solution, but a decent set of glass may work on the K7 as well.

Any suggestions?

Many thanks

Eulogy · 05-06-2012, 10:39 PM

Bodies come and go, but glass is forever?

hcc · 05-07-2012, 01:38 AM

Agree with Euology.

I have a K-7 and I invested in good glass: in my case, nice primes (CZ, VL, FA*). The result is well worth it and each lens is a true investment.

Like many K-7 users, I acknowledge the low-light limitations of the K-7. Some fast primes enhance greatly the situations. I shot several times at sunset with my K-7 and VL58mm f1.4. There were other Canikons and I was always the last person to shot, sometimes 45 min. after the Canikon users left!!!! I did not check their lenses and assumed that most had a kit lens, except in one case when a Nikon user had a f2.8 lens (and he stopped to shoot way befor me)....

Food for thoughts...

timh · 05-07-2012, 01:58 AM

A fast 70-200 will add approx. 1kg to your kit weight (and a lot of bulk) over a slower tele zoom like the 55-300. If that's a factor, the K-5 might be a better solution.

I had to make this kind of choice myself and after I handled the Sigma 70-200 I realised that even if I bought it I'd be leaving the damn thing at home more often than not.

Great lenses for a specific use, hardly general-purpose.

Sandy Hancock · 05-07-2012, 01:58 AM

In the 70-200 zoom range, 2.8 is about as good as it's every likely to get without getting stupidly large and expensive.
New and better bodies are going to keep happening all the time, and the K-5 is due for an upgrade soon.

So get the lens

top-quark · 05-07-2012, 04:00 AM

K7 had known issues with low light performance when it was released. K5 had (and still has) no issues. In five years time your K7 will be just as unsatisfying as it is now, while a K5 will be just as good.

I recently upgraded a Kr. I thought about saving a bit of money and going for a K7 (perhaps a move sideways rather than up), but on the principle of buy right or buy twice I went for the one I'd really wanted all along: a K5. I don't anticipate buying another body for five years or so.

I'd say go for the new body. It'll serve you well.

Bestzoom · 05-07-2012, 04:27 AM - **1 Like**

Go for a good prime.
Save the change for the upgrade when it is available!

james458 · 05-07-2012, 04:46 PM

Thanks guys.

To make the picture more complete, I normally carry my K7 with three lenses: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8, FA 50mm F1.4, and Vivitar 70-210mm F2.8-4.0.
The Tamron 17-55mm covers most of my daily usage and the FA 50mm gives me a good choice of bokeh when shooting stills and portraits. I suppose the logical thing to do next is to replace the Vivitar, because it is slower and softer. At 210mm F4.0, the K7 is very challenging to shoot with, giving me extremely soft images. Stopped down, it is harder to shoot without a tripod or increasing the ISO. The choice is between:
1) Shooting with K5 at higher ISO at F 5.6 (get a new body?)
2) Shooting with K7 at lower ISO at F 2.8 (get a new lens?)

I suppose the right question to ask is: how good is the low light performance of K5? is it better than the pictures taken with K7 with a fast lens?

**Ex Finn.** · 05-07-2012, 05:23 PM

"is it better than the pictures taken with K7 with a fast lens?"
Yes.

Sandy Hancock · 05-07-2012, 05:36 PM

Get both.
I know you want to

RioRico · 05-07-2012, 06:38 PM

Data points:

* Ain't no zooms faster than f/2.8
* Long f/2.8 zooms are costly and heavy
* Good glass lasts forever; bad cams suck forever

My recommendation: Get the K5, and some fast manual primes.

james458 · 05-07-2012, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Get both.
I know you want to

You so read my mind!!!

hoanpham · 05-09-2012, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Get both.
I know you want to

Agree!

timh · 05-09-2012, 07:12 AM

You'll also get an extra 3.5 stops of dynamic range from the K-5. With all your lenses.

Blazefire · 05-09-2012, 03:22 PM

For low light shooting the k5 will make a difference. Maybe getting a monopod would help with stability as well.

05-06-2012, 10:03 PM	#1
james458 New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Auckland Photos: Albums Posts: 14	upgrade to a K5 or a faster zoom lens? I am sure there are many people already upgraded from a K7 to K5, so this questions should be easy... I am currently using a K7 and finding the low light performance below average. With limited budget, I am considering weather to put my money on an upgrade between: (a) upgrade to K5; (b) a decent 70-200mm F2.8. Upgrading to a K5 seems to be a quick solution, but a decent set of glass may work on the K7 as well. Any suggestions? Many thanks

05-07-2012, 01:38 AM	#3
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,002	Agree with Euology. I have a K-7 and I invested in good glass: in my case, nice primes (CZ, VL, FA). The result is well worth it and each lens is a true investment. Like many K-7 users, I acknowledge the low-light limitations of the K-7. Some fast primes enhance greatly the situations. I shot several times at sunset with my K-7 and VL58mm f1.4. There were other Canikons and I was always the last person to shot, sometimes 45 min. after the Canikon users left!!!! I did not check their lenses and assumed that most had a kit lens, except in one case when a Nikon user had a f2.8 lens (and he stopped to shoot way befor me).... Food for thoughts... Last edited by hcc; 05-07-2012 at 02:42 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A faster, yet affordable lens	crossmr	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	51	05-07-2012 05:50 PM
A good kit zoom upgrade for the K-5	vapentaxuser	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	10	12-30-2011 10:33 PM
faster lens or a k-5?	sanox	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	07-21-2011 12:25 AM
Is a f4.0 medium format lens faster than a 35mm f4.0 lens?	hangu	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	07-17-2010 05:01 PM
Zoom faster than 2.8	yusuf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	04-04-2010 08:59 AM

05-06-2012, 10:39 PM	#2
Eulogy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick Photos: Gallery Posts: 632	Bodies come and go, but glass is forever?

05-07-2012, 01:58 AM	#4
timh Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Wales Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 445	A fast 70-200 will add approx. 1kg to your kit weight (and a lot of bulk) over a slower tele zoom like the 55-300. If that's a factor, the K-5 might be a better solution. I had to make this kind of choice myself and after I handled the Sigma 70-200 I realised that even if I bought it I'd be leaving the damn thing at home more often than not. Great lenses for a specific use, hardly general-purpose.

05-07-2012, 01:58 AM	#5
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	In the 70-200 zoom range, 2.8 is about as good as it's every likely to get without getting stupidly large and expensive. New and better bodies are going to keep happening all the time, and the K-5 is due for an upgrade soon. So get the lens

05-07-2012, 04:00 AM	#6
top-quark Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Aylesbury, Bucks Photos: Albums Posts: 492	K7 had known issues with low light performance when it was released. K5 had (and still has) no issues. In five years time your K7 will be just as unsatisfying as it is now, while a K5 will be just as good. I recently upgraded a Kr. I thought about saving a bit of money and going for a K7 (perhaps a move sideways rather than up), but on the principle of buy right or buy twice I went for the one I'd really wanted all along: a K5. I don't anticipate buying another body for five years or so. I'd say go for the new body. It'll serve you well.

05-07-2012, 04:27 AM - 1 Like	#7
Bestzoom Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 232	Go for a good prime. Save the change for the upgrade when it is available!

05-07-2012, 04:46 PM	#8
james458 New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Auckland Photos: Albums Posts: 14 Original Poster	Thanks guys. To make the picture more complete, I normally carry my K7 with three lenses: Tamron 17-50mm F2.8, FA 50mm F1.4, and Vivitar 70-210mm F2.8-4.0. The Tamron 17-55mm covers most of my daily usage and the FA 50mm gives me a good choice of bokeh when shooting stills and portraits. I suppose the logical thing to do next is to replace the Vivitar, because it is slower and softer. At 210mm F4.0, the K7 is very challenging to shoot with, giving me extremely soft images. Stopped down, it is harder to shoot without a tripod or increasing the ISO. The choice is between: 1) Shooting with K5 at higher ISO at F 5.6 (get a new body?) 2) Shooting with K7 at lower ISO at F 2.8 (get a new lens?) I suppose the right question to ask is: how good is the low light performance of K5? is it better than the pictures taken with K7 with a fast lens?

05-07-2012, 05:23 PM	#9
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	"is it better than the pictures taken with K7 with a fast lens?" Yes.

05-07-2012, 05:36 PM	#10
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Get both. I know you want to

05-07-2012, 06:38 PM	#11
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Data points: * Ain't no zooms faster than f/2.8 * Long f/2.8 zooms are costly and heavy * Good glass lasts forever; bad cams suck forever My recommendation: Get the K5, and some fast manual primes.

05-07-2012, 08:06 PM	#12
james458 New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Auckland Photos: Albums Posts: 14 Original Poster	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Get both. I know you want to You so read my mind!!!

05-09-2012, 06:44 AM	#13
hoanpham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Strand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,366	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Get both. I know you want to Agree!

05-09-2012, 07:12 AM	#14
timh Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Wales Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 445	You'll also get an extra 3.5 stops of dynamic range from the K-5. With all your lenses.

05-09-2012, 03:22 PM	#15
Blazefire Inactive Account Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2	For low light shooting the k5 will make a difference. Maybe getting a monopod would help with stability as well.