Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-06-2014, 04:57 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Pepe Le Pew's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 589
QuoteOriginally posted by donfenix Quote
If this is your first ILC, don't bother with K-60 rumors. Get the K-50 (or a K-30 which is identical to the K-50 for all practical purposes).
K-30 had the better body in my opinion

02-06-2014, 05:14 PM - 2 Likes   #32
Forum Member
donfenix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
What do you mean by monitor with good colors?

Thanks for the tip re:wifi. I kind of suspect that is the case and that a decent card reader/USB stick or some other solution to connect to a smartphone or tablet is simple and practical to use.
Beyond the equipment you use to take your pictures, they will then be only as good as the medium that displays them. At some point you will need a good monitor if you don't already have one. Monitor with good colors means one that shows your photos in their full glory and accurate colors. It defeats the purpose of taking 16MP pictures and then watching them on a tiny phone screen or a cheap desktop or laptop monitor that might show your colors completely off (too cold, too warm, too purple, too green,...). I have a top of the line Dell laptop (>$3000). Its monitor is plain awful. I can't get the calibration right for the life of me, the colors are too cold, the viewing angle too small, black depth ridiculous, you get the picture! I also have a Dell Ultrasharp monitor on my desk: excellent! It brings my pictures to life in in every way, color, resolution, depth, etc., built by the same company! It's like comparing a NIssan Versa to a Porsche 911! Both are cars, have 4 wheels, drive from point A to point B alright. Driving experience? Night and day.
02-07-2014, 02:23 AM   #33
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by donfenix Quote
Yes, that is what you want. Also at that price, it's a steal, a no-brainer... I have 9 lenses, but the two that I use 80% of the time are my 18-135 and my nifty fifty
Tx.
Would you spend an extra $220 for the WR 18-135 as opposed two WR kit lenses 18-55 and 50-200?
02-07-2014, 05:42 AM   #34
Pentaxian
Oldbayrunner's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Havre de Grace, MD
Posts: 1,234
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
Tx.
Would you spend an extra $220 for the WR 18-135 as opposed two WR kit lenses 18-55 and 50-200?
After purchasing the two lens kit I would say yes. The 18-55 is marginal at best for image sharpness and then I factor in that I use my 50-200mm so far very rarely. Given hind site I would rather have spent the extra money on the 18-135mm. That would have covered a majority of my shooting needs without needing to change lenses, Then pick up the 55-300mm for which I would have more use for.


Last edited by Oldbayrunner; 02-07-2014 at 06:12 AM.
02-07-2014, 06:25 AM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Oldbayrunner Quote
After purchasing the two lens kit I would say yes. The 18-55 is marginal at best for image sharpness and then I factor in that I use my 50-200mm so far very rarely. Given hind site I would rather have spent the extra money on the 18-135mm. That would have covered a majority of my shooting needs without needing to change lenses, Then pick up the 55-300mm for which I would have more use for.
Thank you
A neighbor of mine who is an experienced photographer told me the same thing this morning. We live in a dusty climate - Middle East - and basically the goal is to keep one lens on the camera as much as possible. Ie don't change when you are out and about.
So I think I'm sold on this.
K-50 with 18-135 WR and add the 50mm f/1.8 for another $115 or so (b&h deal) to use at parties or for taking pictures at home.
02-07-2014, 08:21 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
Thank you
A neighbor of mine who is an experienced photographer told me the same thing this morning. We live in a dusty climate - Middle East - and basically the goal is to keep one lens on the camera as much as possible. Ie don't change when you are out and about.
So I think I'm sold on this.
K-50 with 18-135 WR and add the 50mm f/1.8 for another $115 or so (b&h deal) to use at parties or for taking pictures at home.
That's a good choice. One thing to consider -- would the 35/2.4 be more attractive to you than the 50/1.8? If you think so, maybe you could ask B&H if they could make a similar package with that instead.
02-07-2014, 04:13 PM   #37
Forum Member
donfenix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by TzalamChadash Quote
Tx.
Would you spend an extra $220 for the WR 18-135 as opposed two WR kit lenses 18-55 and 50-200?
Yes, I definitely would.
02-07-2014, 04:14 PM - 1 Like   #38
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,128
FWIW, Pentax has already made its CP+ announcements, so we almost surely won't be seeing another K-mount DSLR at the show. Perhaps they'll hint at something during our interview, however.


Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-07-2014, 04:16 PM   #39
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,450
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
FWIW, Pentax has already made its CP+ announcements, so we almost surely won't be seeing another K-mount DSLR at the show. Perhaps they'll hint at something during our interview, however.
They're better at obfuscation & misdirection. I doubt any interviewers will have much success squeezing out any vague hints.
02-07-2014, 04:18 PM   #40
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,128
QuoteOriginally posted by dansamy Quote
They're better at obfuscation & misdirection. I doubt any interviewers will have much success squeezing out any vague hints.
Well one of the questions will be how the K-500 has been doing alongside the K-50 (answer: not so hot). Hopefully they'll say something about the future of their entry-level and mid-range lineups.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

02-07-2014, 04:23 PM   #41
Forum Member
donfenix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by IchabodCrane Quote
That's a good choice. One thing to consider -- would the 35/2.4 be more attractive to you than the 50/1.8? If you think so, maybe you could ask B&H if they could make a similar package with that instead.
The 35/2.4 is not fast enough. 35 is a good focal length (almost equivalent to a 50 in FF) but should have been made at least at f/2 or f/1.8. I'd pick the 50/1.8 any day over the 35/2.4, but that's just my personal taste. This being said, the 35/2.4 is a prime candidate for being your 3rd lens once you get comfortable with your camera, but that largely depends on how your photography adventure and interests evolve.
02-07-2014, 04:33 PM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,450
QuoteOriginally posted by donfenix Quote
The 35/2.4 is not fast enough. 35 is a good focal length (almost equivalent to a 50 in FF) but should have been made at least at f/2 or f/1.8. I'd pick the 50/1.8 any day over the 35/2.4, but that's just my personal taste. This being said, the 35/2.4 is a prime candidate for being your 3rd lens once you get comfortable with your camera, but that largely depends on how your photography adventure and interests evolve.
I've often wondered why they did that.
02-07-2014, 05:33 PM   #43
Forum Member
donfenix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by dansamy Quote
I've often wondered why they did that.
Very simple reason: cost. This way Pentax made an affordable 35 available to beginners. For anybody with a more flexible budget, the FA 35/2 from film era is still available. Need something even faster with superior optics and have an even larger budget? You have the FA 31/1.8 Limited (which gives you a 46.5mm FF equivalent, which is a pretty darn good standard lens on APS-C if you ask me).
02-07-2014, 05:38 PM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,450
So the goal with the plastic fantastics was to make 2 affordable, useful primes?

I'm ecstatic with mine. I paid $125 for the 35 & $116 for the 50.
02-07-2014, 05:42 PM   #45
Forum Member
donfenix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 61
All this being said, to be fair Nikon has a DX 35/1.8 for $200 (Canon doesn't have anything close to that in terms of price). So Pentax should have tried to at least match or surpass Nikon in the standard lens realm. I think of it as a case of missed opportunity...

---------- Post added 02-07-2014 at 04:43 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by dansamy Quote
So the goal with the plastic fantastics was to make 2 affordable, useful primes?

I'm ecstatic with mine. I paid $125 for the 35 & $116 for the 50.
That's one hell of a deal!
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!
55-300mm, camera, hd, k-30, k-50, nikon, pentax k30, pentax k50
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-30 or wait for K-50 K-500 Colbyt Pentax K-30 & K-50 54 08-23-2013 06:17 AM
K-01 Now or Wait for K-5 IIs or K-30? Biro Pentax K-01 10 11-21-2012 09:31 PM
Kx user here - should i go to K-5 or K-30 or wait for K-3 ladybug Pentax K-5 17 08-18-2012 08:39 AM
Should I get a K-01 or wait for the K-30? randesigns Pentax K-01 8 05-25-2012 12:41 PM
Using K-x, should I upgrade to K-r or wait for more money to get K-7 ? hoangtu2410 Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 11-09-2011 07:32 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:14 AM. | 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