Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-27-2014, 11:18 AM   #16
Junior Member
kphillippo's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 34
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TER-OR Quote
Maybe we need to make a Chicago club here somewhere!
Great photos and absolutely beautiful dogs; thanks for sharing! I'd love to get a Chicago group going on here. I'm sure there are plenty of us!

01-27-2014, 11:33 AM   #17
Pentaxian
schnitzer79's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 988
when i bought my k-50, i had the option of 18-55 and 50-200(or 55-300) or go with the 18-135.i went for the latter and couldnt be happier after seeing the quality of the images.plus its a great walkaround lens. whenever i go on holiday, i like to travel light and is always the lens i take with me. if price is an issue, you could always go with the k-30 and 18-135.
01-28-2014, 09:52 AM   #18
Junior Member
kphillippo's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 34
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by schnitzer79 Quote
when i bought my k-50, i had the option of 18-55 and 50-200(or 55-300) or go with the 18-135.i went for the latter and couldnt be happier after seeing the quality of the images.plus its a great walkaround lens. whenever i go on holiday, i like to travel light and is always the lens i take with me. if price is an issue, you could always go with the k-30 and 18-135.
Thanks for the advice! So you went with the 50-200? I'm thinking I'll have to purchase that lens eventually. Also, the f-stop on my lens is 3.5-5.6; is it worth it to upgrade to something smaller right away?
01-28-2014, 09:58 AM   #19
dmc
Forum Member
dmc's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Calgary, AB Canada
Posts: 76
I think he went with the 18-135. I have used this lens for a couple of years now and I highly recommend it.

01-28-2014, 10:02 AM   #20
Junior Member
kphillippo's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 34
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dmc Quote
I think he went with the 18-135. I have used this lens for a couple of years now and I highly recommend it.
Thanks! What kind of restrictions should I expect to run into with my 18-55?
01-28-2014, 10:18 AM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
Mostly reach with the 18-55, though if you compare it with something like a prime lens the resolution difference will be apparent.

Use the lenses you have until you figure out what you'd like to do better. You might want a better portrait lens, something optimized for that 50ish mm range, or a wide-angle if the 18mm isn't wide enough. Or if you're going birding and want something with more reach, there are options for that. Don't get ahead of yourself, though.

The 18-135 advantage is reach beyond 55mm, a frankly unbelievably fast and silent focus and weather resistance. (if your kit is WR, there's no difference). Many figure the 18-135 is a close to ideal "walkaround" lens for when you don't know what you're going to take pictures of.

The first lens I bought was a 16-45, since my K10 came with the first gen 18-55. Then a Tamron 70-300, then the FA100mm f2.8 macro. That was my kit for a while until I rented a 10-17 fisheye and bought one soon thereafter. The 70-300 performed terribly on the K5, so it was replaced with a DA 55-300 which is really good.

This is a period of a few years, though, it's all budget and requiremnts.
01-28-2014, 10:53 AM   #22
Pentaxian
schnitzer79's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 988
QuoteOriginally posted by kphillippo Quote
Thanks for the advice! So you went with the 50-200? I'm thinking I'll have to purchase that lens eventually. Also, the f-stop on my lens is 3.5-5.6; is it worth it to upgrade to something smaller right away?
i went for the 18-135. basically it all depends on your needs.if u take a lot of pictures of birds and want that extra reach then go for 55-300. if u want an all rounder then go for 18-135.i also think a fast prime as a 2nd lens is a must. u can get get some really decent ones for dirt cheap
01-28-2014, 11:20 AM   #23
Junior Member
kphillippo's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 34
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TER-OR Quote
Mostly reach with the 18-55, though if you compare it with something like a prime lens the resolution difference will be apparent.

Use the lenses you have until you figure out what you'd like to do better. You might want a better portrait lens, something optimized for that 50ish mm range, or a wide-angle if the 18mm isn't wide enough. Or if you're going birding and want something with more reach, there are options for that. Don't get ahead of yourself, though.

The 18-135 advantage is reach beyond 55mm, a frankly unbelievably fast and silent focus and weather resistance. (if your kit is WR, there's no difference). Many figure the 18-135 is a close to ideal "walkaround" lens for when you don't know what you're going to take pictures of.

The first lens I bought was a 16-45, since my K10 came with the first gen 18-55. Then a Tamron 70-300, then the FA100mm f2.8 macro. That was my kit for a while until I rented a 10-17 fisheye and bought one soon thereafter. The 70-300 performed terribly on the K5, so it was replaced with a DA 55-300 which is really good.

This is a period of a few years, though, it's all budget and requiremnts.
This is great information. I'll stick with the 18-55 for starters. It seems like lenses are okay to buy used, but please correct me if I'm wrong! Once I see see how this handles with my photos, I'll be able to determine my next lens. For now, I photograph a lot of food/drink and landscapes. I rarely need to zoom for something like birds, etc. Thanks again! I'm learning so much and I haven't even received my K-50 yet (should arrive today)!

01-28-2014, 11:21 AM   #24
Junior Member
kphillippo's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 34
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by schnitzer79 Quote
i went for the 18-135. basically it all depends on your needs.if u take a lot of pictures of birds and want that extra reach then go for 55-300. if u want an all rounder then go for 18-135.i also think a fast prime as a 2nd lens is a must. u can get get some really decent ones for dirt cheap
Great. I shouldn't need the extra reach for starters, but it's good to know that I can always add lenses as needed! Thanks for your help!
01-28-2014, 12:01 PM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
I haven't bought any lenses new. Replacement lens hoods on the other hand...keep an eye on those things.

Last edited by TER-OR; 01-28-2014 at 12:37 PM.
01-28-2014, 12:37 PM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
Chicago Pentaxians - PentaxForums.com

I think it's time to revive this sleepy group.
01-28-2014, 12:46 PM   #27
Junior Member
kphillippo's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 34
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TER-OR Quote
Chicago Pentaxians - PentaxForums.com

I think it's time to revive this sleepy group.
Wow - it exists! Yes, we need to get this group up and running again!
01-30-2014, 07:02 PM   #28
Des
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Sth Gippsland Victoria Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,659
QuoteOriginally posted by kphillippo Quote
Also, the f-stop on my lens is 3.5-5.6; is it worth it to upgrade to something smaller right away?
I have never had a lens faster than f3.5 until recently. For most photography, you can live with a slowish lens, especially if shooting outdoors. Recent cameras like the K-50 with image stabilization and good higher-ISO rendering allow you to use slow shutter speeds and higher ISO for low-light shooting even if the lens isn't fast. Also, for landscapes and buildings, you often want more depth of field anyway. If you need shallow DOF (e.g. for still-life and portraits) get a cheap prime (eg I just got a Pentax-A 50mm f1.7 for $A75).

Faster lenses (ie bigger apertures) are generally bigger, heavier and more expensive, esp at longer focal lengths - e.g. 200mm f2.8 will weigh more than 1kg (2.5lb), whereas the DA 55-300mm lens weighs half that. The difference sounds mdest but makes a big difference to usability.
01-31-2014, 06:38 AM   #29
Junior Member
kphillippo's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 34
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Des Quote
I have never had a lens faster than f3.5 until recently. For most photography, you can live with a slowish lens, especially if shooting outdoors. Recent cameras like the K-50 with image stabilization and good higher-ISO rendering allow you to use slow shutter speeds and higher ISO for low-light shooting even if the lens isn't fast. Also, for landscapes and buildings, you often want more depth of field anyway. If you need shallow DOF (e.g. for still-life and portraits) get a cheap prime (eg I just got a Pentax-A 50mm f1.7 for $A75).

Faster lenses (ie bigger apertures) are generally bigger, heavier and more expensive, esp at longer focal lengths - e.g. 200mm f2.8 will weigh more than 1kg (2.5lb), whereas the DA 55-300mm lens weighs half that. The difference sounds mdest but makes a big difference to usability.
This is so helpful; thank you! My next lens will definitely be something like the one you mentioned. I don't need anything major just yet, so this one seems like the best (most affordable) option for my next lens! I plan on shooting a lot of food/drink, so I think I'll need this soon. I'll keep my 18-55 for landscapes, etc.
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!
advice, camera, entry level, future pentax, hobby, k-3, k-50, lens, midwest, new, pentax, photographer, photographer and future, photography, photos, research
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Positive about Pentax and it's future 7samurai Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 01-29-2014 06:57 AM
The Direction and Future of Pentax. godwinaustin Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 01-04-2013 10:29 PM
Future Pentax owner civano Welcomes and Introductions 2 02-21-2011 09:20 AM
Future photographer hopefully? Atindra Post Your Photos! 9 09-24-2008 10:02 PM
Future new Pentax owner byFaroudja Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 08-24-2007 10:59 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 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