Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-16-2012, 08:30 PM   #1
Forum Member
grimmy2016's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 53
What lenses should stay, which should go?

So there are numerous discussion about which lenses to keep in your kit and what not but I find they always tend to lean towards one end of the spectrum; whether that be landscape, portrait, macro, action etc.

I tend to do ALL of the above. My kids in sports, my love of macro, landscape when we take weekend getaways and portraits of family and friends for memories.

The other part of this issue is I had acquired LBA right after getting my KR last year. I bought through many different sources used lenses. So much so I need to sell most of them and try to get back down to maintaining just 4 or so lenses.

So what I want to know is of the lenses listed below and knowing that I shoot all over the board, which one are worth keeping and which should I consider for putting up for sale?



Thanks everyone for any input you can give me.

PS: Admins I couldnt get HTML to work in the post.

Attached Images
 
07-16-2012, 08:39 PM   #2
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
I'm doing the same thing and have sold 5 lenses with another 5 up currently. I'm trying to eliminate clear duplication first. Among yours, The 50-200 duplicates the 70-300 pretty closely but doesn't have its reach, especially useful for kids sports. I'd pick one of the fast fifties and one of the 28s and either the 28-105 or the 28-80. I'd keep the kit lens because it's you widest lens, is light, and is a descent performer.

Last edited by Docrwm; 07-16-2012 at 10:13 PM.
07-16-2012, 09:58 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 302
I agree, if I had to choose which 4 to keep, it'd be the 70-300, 28-105, M 50 1.7, and the 18-55 kit lens. Whole range, flexible, and will all fit in a camera bag. The lens that would stay on the camera would be the Viv 28-105.
07-16-2012, 10:19 PM   #4
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,863
QuoteOriginally posted by grimmy2016 Quote
PS: Admins I couldnt get HTML to work in the post.
That would be because the forum supports BBCode and not HTML.

07-16-2012, 10:36 PM   #5
ASa
Senior Member
ASa's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tampere/Helsinki
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 218
If I had to keep a few of those lenses, without adding anything, and taking into account your shooting range which is everything, I'd probably keep the Vivitar 28-105 as a walkaround lens, the 70-300 for the tele needs, the Mamiya 55 for bokeh and prime goodness, and probably the 18-55 for the occasional wide angle shots.
IF I was to add something, I'd probably sell the 55 and replace it with FA 50 f/1.4 which would add you autofocus, which can prove quite useful when trying to capture the fast moving kids. Add a Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or similar to replace the 18-55 and you've got yourself a nice package of lenses for everyday shooting and more!
07-17-2012, 04:29 AM   #6
Site Supporter
JimJohnson's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Superior - Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,270
Hope no one seriously objects to a fork in this thread, but I'm curious as to others' thoughts about this...

I purchased the DA L 50-200 ED, then two weeks later won a heck of a low bid on eBay for the DA L 55-300 ED. Aside from the focal length difference, the 50-200 is much smaller and lighter - nearly the same physical size as the DA L 18-55 and uses the same size filter. And the aperture range is the same as the 55-300. According to reviews, the 55-300 is better optically than the 50-200 ... but without doing a side by side, I don't notice it.

If you had both of these lenses, would you sell one, if so which one and why?
07-17-2012, 05:31 AM   #7
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by JimJohnson Quote
Hope no one seriously objects to a fork in this thread, but I'm curious as to others' thoughts about this...

I purchased the DA L 50-200 ED, then two weeks later won a heck of a low bid on eBay for the DA L 55-300 ED. Aside from the focal length difference, the 50-200 is much smaller and lighter - nearly the same physical size as the DA L 18-55 and uses the same size filter. And the aperture range is the same as the 55-300. According to reviews, the 55-300 is better optically than the 50-200 ... but without doing a side by side, I don't notice it.

If you had both of these lenses, would you sell one, if so which one and why?
The 50-200. It's shorter, the physical size difference between it and the 55-300 is just not that much, its not as sharp, and its reported to be worse on Aberrations and Bokeh.
07-17-2012, 05:57 AM   #8
Forum Member
grimmy2016's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 53
Original Poster
I should probably add that I have also just purchased a Panagor 90mm Macro F2.8. So that may change which lens to keep now.

07-17-2012, 09:49 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 302
Doesn't change it. 90mm macro is a different purpose, I'd keep it for headshots and bug shots in addition to the previous 4 lenses. Doesn't hurt to have a specialty lens around in case you decide you need it.
07-17-2012, 12:24 PM   #10
Forum Member
grimmy2016's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 53
Original Poster
@IcyWindow, So in the original post I listed links to each review of the lens. I am wondering if how they are rated would impact which ones. I get that i need to cover the different DoFs but I would think that IQ ratings would also impact which ones. Maybe they are, just wondering since it hasnt been mentioned much
07-18-2012, 05:05 PM   #11
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Windsor, Colorado
Posts: 196
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
The 50-200. It's shorter, the physical size difference between it and the 55-300 is just not that much, its not as sharp, and its reported to be worse on Aberrations and Bokeh.
Well, it is shorter as far as focal length of course........so that is definitely a benefit of getting the 55-300 (although on APS it's not as much of a difference than many think), but the "physical" difference is pretty substantial. The 55-300 is almost twice as long (even retracted) and almost twice the weight. I would say that's a BIG difference if you are carrying a lot of camera gear.....esp. if hiking somewhere. The 50-200 when retracted is barely bigger than the 18-55! It's a phenomenal lens in that regard.

As far as sharpness, I think that's highly subjective as well. From comparison photos I've seen in reviews and or anecdotally, the difference is negligible. I have not heard about the CA being worse than the 55-300, but I know I don't notice it much at all on my 50-200......so my calculated hunch is that there is not much difference. Each control it effectively in most situations. I don't know about the bokeh differences......though I would admit it is rather unusual on some of the shots I've taken with the 50-200. I did not expect a cheap zoom lens to be that great in that area.

Here are a few shots, all JPEG's, all at the supposed soft end of 200mm (except for the goats which are 95mm.....which proves you need patience as much as focal length for wildlife) I took that I like to show for the relative sharpness of the 50-200......for the price it's certainly no slouch. You be the judge.








Last edited by ccd333; 07-18-2012 at 05:20 PM.
07-18-2012, 05:10 PM   #12
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by ccd333 Quote
Well, it is shorter as far as focal length of course........so that is definitely a benefit of getting the 55-300 (although on APS it's not as much of a difference than many think), but the "physical" difference is pretty substantial. The 55-300 is almost twice as long (even retracted) and almost twice the weight. I would say that's a BIG difference if you are carrying a lot of camera gear.....esp. if hiking somewhere. The 50-200 when retracted is barely bigger than the 18-55! It's a phenomenal lens in that regard.

As far as sharpness, I think that's highly subjective as well. From comparison photos I've seen in reviews and or anecdotally, the difference is negligible. I have not heard about the CA being worse than the 55-300, but I know I don't notice it much at all on my 50-200......so my calculated hunch is that there is not much difference. Each control it effectively in most situations. I don't know about the bokeh differences......though I would admit it is rather unusual on some of the shots I've taken with the 50-200. I did not expect a cheap zoom lens to be that great in that area.

Here are a few shots I took that I like to show for the relative sharpness of the 50-200......for the price it's certainly no slouch. You be the judge.
Nice shots. To me the 55-300 and the 50-200 are relatively similar in size/weight. Of course I am comparing them to the old manual glass that I frequently carry that often weighs 2-3x as much.
07-18-2012, 05:30 PM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Windsor, Colorado
Posts: 196
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Of course I am comparing them to the old manual glass that I frequently carry that often weighs 2-3x as much.
Then that isn't relative to each other as much as to the older glass. I'm not suggesting that the 55-300 is a tanker......rather I am stating that for situations where physical specs factor as part of an entire repertoire of camera equipment (or in the example of hiking as part of a variety of other items being carried), the 50-200 is a great option for a balance of size and weight to focal length and image quality.

Last edited by ccd333; 07-18-2012 at 05:47 PM.
07-18-2012, 05:42 PM   #14
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by ccd333 Quote
Then that isn't relative to each other as much as to the older glass. I'm not suggesting that the 55-300 is a tanker......rather I am stating that for situations where physical specs factor as part of an entire repertoire of camera equipment (or in the example of hiking as part of a variety of other items being carried), the 50-200 is a great option for a balance of size and weight to focal length and image quality.
You are right in absolute terms. They are relatively similar and 150g just isn't that much to me at all. As for their relative merits optically, I am very glad that you like yours and that it has been a part of making such great photos for you.
07-18-2012, 06:11 PM   #15
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Windsor, Colorado
Posts: 196
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
You are right in absolute terms. They are relatively similar and 150g just isn't that much to me at all.
Fair enough. Each person has their own subjective views of such things. The weight is perhaps not as big a deal as the size for me. Here's a side by side view:



The third lens is a Sigma 70-300.....which I also own (so I admit that I love having that extra 100mm sometimes). It is just slightly larger than the 55-300 but almost twice the size of the 50-200. So when I hike any considerable distances, guess which one I take?

It's not just the weight, it's packability. The fact that the 50-200 fits in ostensibly the same space as the 18-55 is great when you are carrying food, clothing, sunscreen, etc. But I understand that many (if not most) won't consider this a factor.

Last edited by ccd333; 07-18-2012 at 06:21 PM.
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!
camera, k-r, kr, landscape, lenses, macro, pentax k-r
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Stay with me basquist02 Post Your Photos! 3 12-27-2011 10:09 AM
Low-cost Sigma Lenses: Stay away? Or go ahead? alstauffer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 11-05-2011 08:50 AM
Should I stay with Pentax or not? RUSBoris Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 29 10-26-2010 02:55 PM
Stay with D300S - or go to K-5??? rlloyd3 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 6 10-03-2010 05:31 PM
Should they stay or should they go? Some of my lenses that is. jboyde Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 07-30-2009 01:21 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:21 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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