[Cosmin]

The 50mm F 1.8 is at 100$ now. Are the optics good? I saw some photos made with it and they were really good . It is reduced from 250$ to 100 on Amazon. Is it worth it? Should I get the 50mm and a flash insted of a Sigma 17-70?

---------- Post added 06-21-15 at 09:58 AM ----------

The 50mm F 1.8 is at 100$ now. Are the optics good? I saw some photos made with it and they were really good . It is reduced from 250$ to 100 on Amazon. Is it worth it? Should I get the 50mm and a flash insted of a Sigma 17-70?

[normhead]

An AF 50 prime for $100 is a steal, I don't care who you are. But you still want an 17-70, 18-135, 16-85 type lens to go with it. One can't replace the other.

[Cosmin]

The 35mm F2.4 is 130$ and I can sell the 28-300 and get a 50-200. I think this may be a good idea: 35, 50 and 50-200. I think i will keep the 18-55 for the wide end because it got more than decent optics , the only problem may be the F3.5

[VoiceOfReason]

The 50-200 will not be as good as the 18-135, the 17-70, or the 16-85. If you want an improvement you're going to have to bite the bullet for better optics.

[Bagga_Txips]

I agree that the 50- 200 will not be as good as the 18-135. However, the 18-135 is not as good as the 35 and the 50, and not a lot better than the 18-55 the OP already owns, in the range up to 40 or 50 ish.. BUT, the 100 WR is much better than the 18-135 at any range from 100-135, when cropped. And the 50-200 is much much better than the 18-135 in the range from 136-200!!


My 18-135 is often unsatisfactory in the range 110-135, you see - a bit blurry in the corners. Whereas the 100WR is sharp even for massive crops, possibly even approaching 200 mm equivalent. And considering the other areas where it excels, I wish I had bought my 100 much earlier in my list. However, and here is an important factor in my opinion, the 50-200 is WR, and here in China it is selling at 550 renminbi - approximately 88 dollars, brand new!! So very cheap for a weather resistant and very light zoom, it is an ideal first zoom, more so even than the 18-135 at three times the price. I may well buy a 55-200 myself soon, because it will be perfect in rainy gritty salty conditions, as I won't care much if it destroys itself within a year, it's so cheap.


Bottom line: 35 f2.4 and 50 f1.8 for cheap quality, 18-55 WR kit lens and 50-200 WR zoom for cheap fun, versatility and stress free shooting, seems like a wonderful setup for a year or two of fun shooting while I work out what quality lenses I wanted to buy, and how I'm gonna pay for 'em!


I just checked - the 50-200WR is about 140 dollars on Amazon in the USA. Still cheap, but 52 dollars more than here in China. Perhaps I should start exporting them!

[normhead]

Have you actually tested this hypothesis, I have....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/297821-50mm-what-use.html

My 18-135 is often unsatisfactory in the range 110-135, you see - a bit blurry in the corners. Whereas the 100WR is sharp even for massive crops, possibly even approaching 200 mm equivalent.

SO to take an 18-135 to 200mm just crop off the blurry corners and you're just as good as the 100.

The FA 100 has lw/ph of 2194 ( with a max scale of 2350) as tested at Photozone, cut that in half and you have 1100 lw/ph. That's good for an 11 inch print.
A DA* 200 will achieve 2074 at ƒ 5.6 that will easily give you a 30x20 print.
The resolution of one is imperceptably close to the other. So if you can easily crop a 100 to 200, you can also easily crop a 200 to 400. It's far from the same functionality.

The DA 18-135 was measured at 2405 lw/ph in the centre (out of 2750) measured on a 16 MP sensor, as opposed to a 10 MP sensor of the other two.

Since when cropping, the 18-135 is only losing 1/3 of it's lw/ph, it could easily be argued that the 18-135 will give you a much better crop reduced to 200mm than an FA 100 does. At 2/3 size the 18-135 should give you 1600 lw/ph on a K-5. the FA 100 will probably give you about 1200-1300.

There's not much chance based on the math that you're right, but if you were to show me some images proving your point I'd be willing to reconsider.

But back to the original topic... the DA 50-200 rated at 10 MP is 1865 lw/ph at ƒ8 and 1906 at ƒ11... if you look at the above 1100 quoted for half an FA 100 image, you'll see using the FA 100 is about 1/3 less resolution than using the DA 50-200. So maybe using the FA 100 is good enough for web purposes, but lets not pretend it's the same.

However, the 18-135 is not as good as the 35 and the 50, and not a lot better than the 18-55 the OP already owns,

Not in my test. In my test the 18-135 is interchangeable with FA 50 ƒ1.8, unless you need speed, and the Tamron 17-50.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/297821-50mm-what-use.html

[bladerunner6]

Hello , i bought a k-50 1 year ago and I made some Photography courses. I familiarized with it and I want to get a new lens. I got a Tamron 28-300 for about 130$ but i just think it is not what I want for my photography career because it is made for family photography and not for a real photographer. I was just excited because the price was so good and I bought it. Now i plan to sell it for like 200-250$ and get a new lens . My photography 'teacher' uses Nikon cameras and lenses so he can't help me get the right lens. I discovered that for me , the range 90-300 is almost useless because i mostly shoot portraits and that 'street photography' . I think I need a lens betwen 40-70mm. I did some research and I found some Limited lenses at a good price . Can you guys tell me what kind of lens may be the best for me? I would really appreciate it.

I think you are optimistic about how much you can get for your lens. I looked on eBay and the best someone has gotten for the lens is $200.

The range of $110-140 is more likely.

[Bagga_Txips]

Interesting ideas, norm head. From what you say, it seems that the 50-200 is even better value. I do stand by my comment about the 35 f2.4 and the 50 f1.8 though - I was talking about the two 'plastic fantastics', and taking into account other factors, including price, weight, and max aperture. Especially price, trying to squeeze as many different options as possible into the OP's stated budget. The 100 WR I was recommending was the latest DFA100WR macro, and its macro facility was part of my bias.

I tend to buy lenses based on the ratio of fun to price, rather than absolute sharpness, especially because I have terrible eyesight! When I pixel peep I am mere inches from the screen, so when I sit up straight even the finest lens is a disappointment in terms of sharpness!

[VoiceOfReason]

To put things into perspective one could look at the equipment list I have in my sig. I have some good lenses, and, not counting my old film kit with the 28-80 and 70-210 my DA 18-135 could arguably be considered my worst lens, yet it gets more time on my camera than the others do. Sharp, water and dust resistant, silent, fast focusing, and a true walk around. I will say it will be quite hard to beat that lens at that price point, and it will truly blow the 28-300 and the 50-200 away, especially in that range OP said he wants to use it.

[Bagga_Txips]

Yeah, I agree. Indeed, I already implied that, by suggesting that the 18-135 would be better than the 18-55 at an FL of more than 40. But I reckon the DA50 f1.8 would be better than both, and fits in with OP's comments about wanting 40-70. And 50-200 also covers 70, but the DA70 would be even better, though much more expensive.

However, I will admit that by suggesting the 50-200 I have gone a bit beyond the OP's brief, but I think we on this forum do that all the time, vicariously spending other people's money because it's such good fun! Virtual LBA!

---------- Post added 06-23-15 at 07:31 AM ----------

BTW, I do own the 18-135 myself, and think it is excellent value, but I don't think it is the best value recommendation for the OP right now.

[VoiceOfReason]

Yeah, I agree. Indeed, I already implied that, by suggesting that the 18-135 would be better than the 18-55 at an FL of more than 40. But I reckon the DA50 f1.8 would be better than both, and fits in with OP's comments about wanting 40-70. And 50-200 also covers 70, but the DA70 would be even better, though much more expensive.

However, I will admit that by suggesting the 50-200 I have gone a bit beyond the OP's brief, but I think we on this forum do that all the time, vicariously spending other people's money because it's such good fun! Virtual LBA!

---------- Post added 06-23-15 at 07:31 AM ----------

BTW, I do own the 18-135 myself, and think it is excellent value, but I don't think it is the best value recommendation for the OP right now.

Reading your experience with the 18-135 it sounds like you may have gotten a weaker copy. Mine is sharp even in the corners unless pixel peeping, and only at the very extreme wide and long ends. It even does nicely on the K3. I've gotten pics with it on the K5 that are really good, and if OP uses it for portraiture and in the range he specified it will hold up with most everything until he gets to lenses costing far more. I've been seeing the 18-135 go for less than 300 used, and I got mine new a few years ago for 360.

I know my copy was far sharper than my 18-55 kit lens was at all focal lengths. It has even saved my behind on an indoor photoshoot using flash when my 17-50 screwed up and needed to be sent in to Tamron for service.

[Bagga_Txips]

Cool! I haven't used mine for ages, as I bought it mainly for my wife to use as a walkaround on her K30. But now we have a Sigma 17-50, which I like a lot, but I don't get much opportunity to use that, because it's almost permanently mounted on the K30! It's not too important though, cos I prefer primes anyway.

[Cosmin]

Someone wants to trade his Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 ( not the HSM version) for my tamron 28-300 . I think it is worth it .What do you guys think? Anyone with experience in this lens?

[Sliver-Surfer]

I like the suggestion of the two plastic fantastics 35mm and 50mm. However If I were your teacher and wanted you to really learn how to be the best street photographer. I would tell you to Buy a Pentax-A 1.4/50mm or 1.7/50mm and a shoot with it until you master it. A manual lense forces you to pay attention to your subject and composition.

[Cosmin]

I found a Pentax M f1.7 at 45 dollars . I think I will get it but now i really want to get that Sigma 17-70 and I want to ask you guys if it is worth to trade the Tamron 28-300 for it . It is the f2.8-4.5 version