[Another dyemention]

Hello, new here and new to photography. I'm about to pull the trigger on a k30 but am a little hesitant because of the in camera sr. I've read a few places that it's not very effective at 200mm and beyond. I was going to buy a d3200, a 50 1.8, and a tamron 70-300. I am planning on using the 50 for indoors and low light and the 70-300 for wildlife, flowers, and my son outside at the park. As I said, I'm new (but have been reading up on photography for months now) and i would imagine that using the 300mm outside I should be able to use fast enough shutter to not get any blur from camera shake. But I just don't know. So is this something I should consider? I realize I can get a tele with IS but I won't be able to use AF. With being new, I'm not sure exactly how to focus. I have some experience with my brothers d3200 but my manual focus shots didn't end up so well. So any info on this would be appreciated. Thanks

[TER-OR]

It's fine at those focus lengths. Also, when you're outdoors in bright light your shutter speed is usually so fast the SR isn't necessary.

Some of the longer telezooms from Sigma etc. have their own SR systems, which require you to turn off your in-body SR. These are still AF, btw. These do tend to be more expensive, of course.

The only thing I'd warn you about with the Tamron 70-300 is it exhibits some serious chromatic aberrations - purple fringing - in high contrast. IMHO, spring for the Pentax 55-300 zoom instead. I have personal experience with this.

[Another dyemention]

Are you referring to the hd model or just the smp? Thanks

[Homo_erectus]

The in body SR takes a bit of learning to gain maximum effect from it. It takes a fraction of a second for it to engage. So shooting goes like this: half depress shutter for focus, pause just a tiny bit, then press all the way.

It reminds me of dune. The slow knife passes through the shield!

Once you get a feel for it, it works amazingly well. I regularly shoot my 10-20 mm at 1/8 of a second and get excellent results. I'll shoot my 70-200 at the long end as low as 1/50 if the subject isn't moving and I haven't had too much coffee!

[TER-OR]

Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6 AF Di LD Macro Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

This is the one I had. It worked really well, but just yielded that unacceptable purple fringing.

[Another dyemention]

Smc* sorry.

---------- Post added 04-24-14 at 08:10 AM ----------

Also I was asking about which pentax model. One is hd and is considerably more than the non hd. Like $200 more. Sorry, should have been more specific.

[TER-OR]

Oh, sorry. I have the non-HD 55-300 (Not L)
As far as I know the optics are the same, but the coating and WR factor make the new HD version very attractive - albeit pricier and not likely available used. Still, WR would be really nice.

They'll all work the same on the camera though with regard to autofocus. I haven't done definitive tests, perhaps I should, but I think the Pentax at 300 is sharper and slightly higher resolution. I still have the Tammy, perhaps I'll do a quick controlled comparison at some point.

[boriscleto]

I have the DA L 55-300 and have used it with both the K-x and K-5. I would only trade it for the WR...

This is my SR showoff shot. 1/40s @ 300mm handheld.

[Another dyemention]

I was actually looking at the L model when talking about the price. It looks like the hd and non hd are comparable ($60 different) it'll be a minute before I can swing that. The tamron at $200 is much more in my price range. But I think I'll just chase my kid around with the 50 1.8 until I save up to get the pentax.

[ziscwg]

Using the 50 mm 1.8 indoors can be a bit of a challenge in a house or similar. In more open areas like schools, churches and such, you are fine. The 35 mm 2.4 is better in tighter "house" situations.

[pete-tarmigan]

Hello, new here and new to photography. I'm about to pull the trigger on a k30 but am a little hesitant because of the in camera sr. I've read a few places that it's not very effective at 200mm and beyond.

I have used 300mm to 500mm lenses a lot over the decades. I can hand-hold a Pentax with Shake Reduction and get sharp shots with a 500mm lens that I couldn't get with a 300mm lens on a body without SR. SR makes a BIG difference.

[Another dyemention]

Using the 50 mm 1.8 indoors can be a bit of a challenge in a house or similar. In more open areas like schools, churches and such, you are fine. The 35 mm 2.4 is better in tighter "house" situations.

I've considered both but decided on the 50 just for the extra reach. I'll be using it outside at music festivals and for insects and flowers as well. I don't have xp using a 35 but I feel
Like I'd have to get a lot closer than I'd like to be to my subject. But I'm new and could be talking out my a** lol

---------- Post added 04-24-14 at 09:19 AM ----------

Thanks everyone for the replies btw. I feel like my concerns are gone. It's a little scary since there's not nearly the information available on pentax as there is on canon and nikon. I've been searching for over a week trying to find something wrong with this camera and haven't had much luck. It sounds to me like it's due to lack of information rather than any real problems. So thanks again.

[Kozlok]

The k-30 is amazing for the price. A great piece of gear. Don't worry, just get it and grow.

I STRONGLY suggest you get the 35/2.4 over the 50. So much more useful. Besides, there are lots of cheap manual focus 50's. You could get an M 50/1.7 for around $50, or a SuperTak 55/1.8 for $40, both great manual focus lenses. Manual focusing is also fun. I have found when I use a 50, I usually have time to focus. Besides, there is no cheap MF 35...

Also, get the kit with the 18-55, a very nice starter lens.

[Another dyemention]

Isn't the only difference between the 35 and 50 going to be more background? I might not be saying it correctly but that's how I see it. I could be missing something but I prefer less background and more focus on the subject. I guess I could crop the pic but I don't see an advantage to one over the other. And as far as the kit lens, I don't feel if ever use it below 35 ish anyhow. And if I'm getting a 35 or 50, I feel it'd be redundant. I rather dislike wide angle pictures so I don't feel I'd get much use out of the kit. Plus I can get the k30 body for 439 compared to closer to 600 with the kit.

---------- Post added 04-24-14 at 09:57 AM ----------

Again, I'm new and don't have much experience other than a short time with my brothers d3200. Though I have been reading and reading and researching photography is general for months now. I've also looked at hundreds of pictures and determined what I like about each one and found out what lenses and settings were used. This is how I put together a rig in my mind at least. But I could be completely wrong about all of it. Until I get out and start shooting, just having some knowledge isn't going to be much real world help.

[boriscleto]

Besides, there is no cheap MF 35....

In K-mount. The Super/S-M-C Takumar 35/3.5 costs a fraction of what the K 35/3.5 goes for now.