Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-03-2014, 07:46 AM   #16
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England
Photos: Albums
Posts: 41
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote


I don't wish to sound harsh, but you shouldn't get a K-3 unless you can afford at least one lens that costs about as much as the camera.


DSims, point taken - I have about 900 but I would prefer not to spend it all on a single lens, and although I am a generally a cautious buyer I did jump in and buy the K-3 because it was the only camera within my budget that had the features I needed (inc. video) and it is a very big step up from my K-x.


I only ever use manual mode (I am used to that) and have yet to try some of the other positions on the dial (same as K-x, the dial never moved from 'M'), not sure if this is a good thing, but I do like the control I have - the additional front wheel on the K-3 makes changing settings very easy and is a great feature.

The assistance to the question has been unbelievable, so Thank you all. I have lots of lenses to check out now and have just discovered my local Pentax Pro Centre doesn't stock lenses so I will have to go further afield.

---------- Post added 07-03-14 at 03:48 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by vagrant10 Quote
I've used the da55-300 at a concert a few years back and I thought it was a great focal length - I was about 10 feet from the stage https://www.flickr.com/photos/550381...7624566296278/ I also used that lens at an outdoor concert: https://www.flickr.com/photos/550381...7624566272104/
Great photos Vagrant10 and thank you for the input!!

07-03-2014, 07:57 AM   #17
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,288
QuoteOriginally posted by zelda_n64 Quote
seems to get mixed reviews.
Others have given you lots of advice on particular lenses so I will refrain. I just wanted to comment on the 'mixed reviews'. Say you are shooting with the 18-55, a good kit lens but nothing special, and then you put on say the 18-135. Wow, the improvement is noticeable! It is easy to see on screen which is the better lens. So you write a review and gush over how excellent the 18-135 is.

On the other hand say you are shooting with FA or DA primes and throw on the 18-135 because you want some flexibility. Yawn! There is no improvement and in most situations the primes will be far better than the consumer zoom you just used. So you write a review and rate the poor 18-135 down because it does not live up to your standards.

My point is to take the reviews with a grain of salt and try to see where the reviewer is coming from. And also to realize that quality costs money. And the scale is not a linear one. That last percent of improvement in image quality you get from '*' or Limited lenses comes at a very high price. Only you can decide where you are on the price/performance curve.

There are very, very few poor lenses in the Pentax line up. You just have to understand that they are all occupying a niche on the price/performance scale.
07-03-2014, 08:12 AM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 904
I have the DA*16-50/2.8 and used to have the DA*50-135/2.8. I sold off the DA*50-135 to have a greater reach and go a 2nd hand Sigma 70-200/2.8, but this lens is about 1.4kgs in weight.

I too have the DA18-135 and the IQ I find is good enough for concerts. It's a great all rounder lens. My default kit lens on my K5, K5IIs and now my K3 is the DA*16-50/2.8.

Going from a * lens to a non-* lens, I do not find that the 18-135 loses out in IQ and I am ok with the results as I do not pixel peep. I shoot mostly in JPEG.
07-03-2014, 08:30 AM   #19
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England
Photos: Albums
Posts: 41
Original Poster
Thank you!!

I don't pixel peep and the photos are only for my daughter who I escort to the concerts (not old enough to go by herself quite yet).

Last weekend was the first time I have been asked to move when I was taking photographs of a band and that was after I had asked 'the band' if I could take some photos in front of the barrier. An official venue bloke came up to me and asked what magazine/publication I worked for as I crouched on the floor getting some great shots of the lead singer and lead guitarist, he kept going on that I needed permission from the venue and that should be in writing etc. etc..

I personally don't think he believed me when I said I was taking photos for my daughter and the band gave me permission to photograph them because I give the photos to them also. Anyway, I moved, changed lenses (my older K-x kit lens 50-200) and got some storming close up shots of the whole band. A little later I saw him and went over and chatted with my daughter and her friend - he then realised I was telling the truth when the lead singer came and asked if I got some cool photos of them. As a point, I will check out where I stand in relation to the stage (going to a concert tomorrow night with my daughter) and see what focal length will work best. I will take my older
SMC Pentax-FA 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 AL along to see what results that gives.



Please note, I am not a pro just enthusiastic to get good images.


07-03-2014, 10:48 AM   #20
Pentaxian
awaldram's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hampshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 720
QuoteOriginally posted by zelda_n64 Quote
Having had the Pentax K-3 now for a couple of weeks and taken nearly 900 photographs (mainly of boy bands for my daughter ) at various concerts I feel something is lacking and I cannot figure out for the life of me what to do.

Something is inspiring me to purchase a new lens, but after reading reviews (paid for, amateur and people's general thoughts) I am unsure which to get.

I have plenty of old manual lenses, not a lot of money and feel I could do with another WR lens (as I am having fun taking pictures in weather others dare not to tread).

The K-3 came with the 18-55 WR kit lens, I have looked at the 50-200 WR but that along with the HD 55-300 WR & 18-135 WR seems to get mixed reviews. On the non WR front, Tamron & Sigma seem to get mixed reviews. DA* lenses are way out there as far as price goes. Even reading about the SMC DA 35mm & 50mm cheap Pentax primes leaves me wondering whether to buy one of them.

Perhaps I should wait, maybe someone has additional pointers to enable me to make a better choice as to what will make my K-3 shine more than it already is.
If it for concert shooting and you need 200mm + which from your description you do then the following is true
1 you will need AF if your 'snap' shooting
2 you will need fast glass for low light and mixed light shooting options
3 you will need at least 150mm at the long end
4 there is no 'cheap' option

I would hesitake to sugest any of the xx-300's as they are just to slow @300mm for low light shooting.

If your serious about getting decent shots then the cheapest sensible option is the Tamrom 70-200 f2.8

The lens I'd seriosuly consider would be
1 Pentax da* 50-135
2 Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex os hsm
3 Tamron 70-200 f2.8
4 Sigma 50-150 EX (if you can find one)

In the short term stick with what you have as whats the point in purchasing a lens for your camera that just won't do the job It'll give you an exercise in frustration at best and totally alienate you from photography at worst ?
07-03-2014, 11:49 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
There are very, very few poor lenses in the Pentax line up. You just have to understand that they are all occupying a niche on the price/performance scale.
QuoteOriginally posted by zelda_n64 Quote
I will take my older
SMC Pentax-FA 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 AL along to see what results that gives.
But unfortunately the FA28-80 is one of the few candidates for a somewhat poor lens (I had either it or the similar F35-80 (I believe the latter) on my first SLR, and even then I could tell the images lacked quality on standard Kodak Gold 200 film). So make sure it's not the only lens you take, unless you know you're already happy with the results.

QuoteOriginally posted by zelda_n64 Quote
I only ever use manual mode (I am used to that) and have yet to try some of the other positions on the dial (same as K-x, the dial never moved from 'M'), not sure if this is a good thing, but I do like the control I have - the additional front wheel on the K-3 makes changing settings very easy and is a great feature.
Nothing wrong with shooting M, especially if you're getting good exposures! You may find TAv mode with matrix metering is handy too.

---------- Post added 07-03-14 at 12:02 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by awaldram Quote
If it for concert shooting and you need 200mm + which from your description you do then the following is true
1 you will need AF if your 'snap' shooting
2 you will need fast glass for low light and mixed light shooting options
3 you will need at least 150mm at the long end
4 there is no 'cheap' option

I would hesitake to sugest any of the xx-300's as they are just to slow @300mm for low light shooting.

If your serious about getting decent shots then the cheapest sensible option is the Tamrom 70-200 f2.8

The lens I'd seriosuly consider would be
1 Pentax da* 50-135
2 Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex os hsm
3 Tamron 70-200 f2.8
4 Sigma 50-150 EX (if you can find one)
I agree with everything here, although I'm not convinced you're "serious" enough to worry about it.

Also, while I otherwise agree with the order of the list, I'd put the Tamron at #2 ahead of the Sigma, because (unlike on his K-5) on your K-3 the Tamron is not only cheaper but also performs about the same (AF performance). The only downside is that the focusing isn't silent like on the Sigma. But I believe these are concerts, not violin concertos.
07-03-2014, 03:19 PM   #22
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,288
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
But unfortunately the FA28-80 is one of the few candidates for a somewhat poor lens
Hey, I didn't say 'none' On the other hand one of my best selling images was taken with an FA28-90 on the k-x. Not a combination I found to be very special. But the composition, lighting and situation overcame a decidedly mediocre lens. I wish I could go back an do it over with the k-3 and better glass but it's not possible.
07-03-2014, 03:28 PM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
n the other hand one of my best selling images was taken with an FA28-90 on the k-x.
You can't fool me. It's not the same lens. I had one of those briefly, and it was actually capable of surprising you (not with true brilliance, but still something with a little bit of those "special" colors like the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 often gives you).

07-03-2014, 07:45 PM   #24
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,288
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
It's not the same lens.
No, but for some reason I thought it was actually rated worse than the 28-80 but I checked and I was wrong, it is rated much higher than I thought. I no longer have it, my daughter in law does and uses it on her k-x. I do have the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 and find I use it quite a lot mostly on my second body for establishing shots and just having a light flexible lens along. And like you say it is good and often surprises but not consistently. I don't know what conditions cause it to suffer but I suspect it is different angles where the light reflects internally and washes things out a bit. Well worth having and it has a near permanent spot in my bag.

I also have an FA 28-70 f/4 which is supposed to be a better lens but I've never gotten an image from it that I liked. Maybe I have a bad copy.
07-03-2014, 08:18 PM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
I also have an FA 28-70 f/4 which is supposed to be a better lens but I've never gotten an image from it that I liked. Maybe I have a bad copy.
I understand that lens is prone to having more element alignment problems and such (bad copies). I only had one for a few days, so I never got to try it out much. I expected it was going to be good, but I sent it back along with the defective film camera it came with (eBay, I'm sure) and never got another one. I (rarely) wonder about whether I would have liked it. Now I'll wonder even less.
07-03-2014, 08:50 PM   #26
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,288
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
I understand that lens is prone to having more element alignment problems and such (bad copies).
Yeah I read that as well. I've looked it over thoroughly and I do not see anything wrong with it, just that images are not what I had hoped. I got the lens with some other stuff I was buying so no loss. I had high hopes for it at the time but after a few trials it went on the shelf and stayed there. Weight, focal range and aperture are all attractive, especially at that price point but oh well.
07-03-2014, 10:20 PM   #27
Pentaxian
awaldram's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hampshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 720
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
Yeah I read that as well. I've looked it over thoroughly and I do not see anything wrong with it, just that images are not what I had hoped. I got the lens with some other stuff I was buying so no loss. I had high hopes for it at the time but after a few trials it went on the shelf and stayed there. Weight, focal range and aperture are all attractive, especially at that price point but oh well.
The glue they used to cement the doublet seperates it's a design issues and AFAIN is the norm rather than exception.

A badly effected lens will appear fogged in the rear element but a moderatley effected lens will appear OK but still contrast will be substantially reduced.

If you do get hold of an uneffected lens then it is capable of contrast and resolution that will put the fa*28-70 f.28 to shame !!

Pity such a good lens is so blighted
07-04-2014, 04:58 AM   #28
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England
Photos: Albums
Posts: 41
Original Poster
I would like to thank you all for the serious input, and there is certainly a lot to read, check out and digest. Hopefully I can get to a decent camera shop with my camera that actually sells Pentax K mount lenses (one about an hour away) and try out a few. I will of course let you know what happens.
07-04-2014, 02:22 PM   #29
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 401
I used to live in the UK, and got my initial lenses (Sigma 18-50, Sigma 70-200, and Sigma 50mm) from SRS Microsystems. They're long time supporter of Pentax, and the service is second to none.

No idea where they are in relation to you, but highly recommended as a Pentax supplier.
07-05-2014, 01:48 PM   #30
Pentaxian
awaldram's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hampshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 720
QuoteOriginally posted by zelda_n64 Quote
I would like to thank you all for the serious input, and there is certainly a lot to read, check out and digest. Hopefully I can get to a decent camera shop with my camera that actually sells Pentax K mount lenses (one about an hour away) and try out a few. I will of course let you know what happens.
Fill your boots there not in short supply in the UK

PENTAX Pro Centre Dealers - RICOH IMAGING UK LTD.

IMO you should always use a pro centre as they have better warranty (2 years)
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, concert, dslr, f2.8, k-3, k-x, k3, lens, lenses, light, mode, option, pentax, pentax k-3, results, reviews, sigma, tamron, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-3 Awesome For Wildlife dane.dawg Pentax K-3 19 01-17-2014 11:08 AM
Awesome K-3 timelapse clip on youtube Arne Bo Pentax K-3 19 01-16-2014 04:10 PM
PhotoUniverse: Pentax K 3 - But is it Sharp? Steve.Ledger Pentax K-3 6 11-30-2013 12:34 AM
Wedding shooter thinking about upgrading my K-5 to a K-3 but... enoeske Pentax K-3 18 11-03-2013 09:07 AM
K-r is in my cart, but worried about AF lavascript Pentax K-r 33 01-28-2011 03:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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