50mm 1.7 or 18-250mm for first new lens?

Ira · 08-04-2010, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Eruditass

Vote for cheap 50mm 1.7 or 1.4 then 18-250mm.

TOUGEFC is right, the 50 will make teach you a lot of things.

I agree with you for agreeing with TOUGEFC.

Zooms are great tools, but they can teach a beginner to be lazy.

**rparmar** · 08-04-2010, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by jremick

Hmm, thanks for the help everyone. I think I'll go ahead with the 18-250 and start looking at options for a manual 50 and a few others to play with if I can get them at good prices within my budget.

Any of the K/M/A/F/FA series 50mm lenses in either f/1.7 or f/1.4 max aperture are great. Check out the review section, but generally speaking the 1.7 models are slightly better IQ at fast apertures (about f/2) but the f/1.4 give you that extra bit of light.

With K/M/A you will be manually focussing. With K/M you will be using stop-down metering. Since I prefer auto-aperture but don't care so much about having the camera focus for me, I think the A 50/1.7 is the sweet spot. I have seen it go for as little as 40 pounds, so money is really not the issue.

For completeness I will mention the K/A 50/1.2 which are bigger and more expensive but have the ultimate in light-sucking power. And the FA43 Limited which is nowhere near as cheap but provides build quality, feel and IQ that is superlative, on par with Zeiss and Leica.

Going back in time there are also the Takumars that are full manual and require an M42 screw-mount adapter. They used to be a good deal but now are over-priced, IMO. Excellent manual focus feel however.

(By no means have I tried all of these. I currently own the K50/1.2, FA43 Limited and a grungy M50/1.7.)

hcc · 08-06-2010, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by jremick

Hmm, thanks for the help everyone. I think I'll go ahead with the 18-250 and start looking at options for a manual 50 and a few others to play with if I can get them at good prices within my budget. Lots more learning to do!

Good choice and happy shooting. Please post some shots once you get your lens(es)...

Jasvox · 08-11-2010, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

The 18-250 isn't a "better" zoom lens. It's a *longer* zoom lens, but quality-wise, it's basically exactly the same as the 18-55 - marginally better in certain respects, marginally worse in others.

How do you mean? In my experience owning these, I find the 18-250 produces a much better result overall than any of my 18-55's. Yes, it's longer, but I find it much "better" too. It's not as sharp as my Tamron 17-50 or my primes, but I can live with that based on the convenience factor and what kind of results I get with my 18-250 when using it.

Jason

Marc Sabatella · 08-11-2010, 02:54 PM

There is possibly some sample variation at play here, but in the posted comparisons I've seen over the years between the 18-250 and the newer version of th 18-55, the 18-55 looks as good or better at the short end and in the "normal" range but maybe suffers a bit at the longer end - plus it's slower there. But the differences are pretty small either way. To me, IQ doesn't even enter into it; it's basically much more length for the 18-250 versus much lighter weight and quick shift for the 18-55.

I'd be curious to see your image comparisons too, though.

Andi Lo · 08-11-2010, 03:07 PM

FA 50 is a 'fast' lens because it can open to a larger aperture. This matter for DOF and low light shooting, and not for 'fast paced' action, although it can be used for that as well. If you're shooting action outdoors, usually you want some decent DOF anyway (above f/4), so getting the 18-250 makes more sense for what you're trying to do right now. Go for it!

tibbitts · 08-11-2010, 07:24 PM

Although an 18-250 has an appeal, since you already have a 18-55 you might consider just adding a longer zoom. Everyone here likes the 55-300 DA but you could spend less for a Tamron 70-300, for example. I don't know that changing lenses is that big a deal unless you're in really bad conditions, and the difference between f5.6/5.8 and 6.3 might also be a consideration. Just a thought...

Paul

RioRico · 08-12-2010, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by tibbitts

Although an 18-250 has an appeal, since you already have a 18-55 you might consider just adding a longer zoom... I don't know that changing lenses is that big a deal unless you're in really bad conditions...

I have both the 18-250 (which I bought first) and the 18-55; also a DA10-17, and an A-type 60-300. Switching from one zoom to another is always bothersome, and always interrupts some continuity of thought. With the 18-55 and 60-300 pair, or the 10-17 and either 18-xxx, it's a question of what range to be limited to in the near future. The transition is a breaking point. I also have a Lil'Bigma 175-500, and shifting to it is easier because its range is clearly beyond but overlapping the shorter zooms. But I find I do a lot of shooting in the 40-80mm range. Switching from the 18-55 to the 60-300 obviously interrupts that flow. So I'm most likely to leave the 18-250 on most of the time. What I really need is a good 10-500/2.8 -- right.

Finger · 08-12-2010, 08:13 AM

When I bought my Kx, I quickly bought a FA50 because I believed that was what everyone was doing. And then a 18-250. The FA50 was quickly kicked by a DA40mm and was sold. The 18-250 was used 3 times since Christmas.

My DA40 on my Kx 80% of the time. The rest is shared between a M135mm 3.5 and a Tamron 17-50mm.

Muse · 08-12-2010, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

I have both the 18-250 (which I bought first) and the 18-55; also a DA10-17, and an A-type 60-300. Switching from one zoom to another is always bothersome, and always interrupts some continuity of thought. With the 18-55 and 60-300 pair, or the 10-17 and either 18-xxx, it's a question of what range to be limited to in the near future. The transition is a breaking point. I also have a Lil'Bigma 175-500, and shifting to it is easier because its range is clearly beyond but overlapping the shorter zooms. But I find I do a lot of shooting in the 40-80mm range. Switching from the 18-55 to the 60-300 obviously interrupts that flow. So I'm most likely to leave the 18-250 on most of the time. What I really need is a good 10-500/2.8 -- right.

RioRico, it's your posts about the 18-250mm that have me eyeing it as my next lens. I have the 18-55mm and 55-300mm kit lenses, will keep my eyes open for some stellar not too expensive primes but for zooms these look attractive to me right now:

18-250mm for it's great versatility, as you very will describe:

Quote:

Switching from one zoom to another is always bothersome...

28-75mm f2.8 Tamron (for it's reputed great sharpness and its speed, plus considerable versatility)

Andi Lo · 08-12-2010, 02:56 PM

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but 50mm for general shooting IMHO is quite the PITA since it's very unflexible compared to its shorter cousins. Of course this is case by case as i know alot of people love the 50mm range on APS-C. I find 28-40mm to be the best for versatility. Just glue your kitlens to 50mm and shoot for a day to see if you'll like it. I keep my 50 only for extreme lowlight and film shooting these days... (and even then, I seem to prefer my 50mm Tak).

**rparmar** · 08-12-2010, 07:55 PM

Actually I use the 77mm for daily shooting but if I think I need wider carry a 24mm in my pocket. Further I did the last World Photo Walk with only a 105mm. Makes you think about things differently but I can't say I felt limited.

P.S. I wouldn't compare the kit lens at 50mm with a fast 50.

RioRico · 08-13-2010, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

P.S. I wouldn't compare the kit lens at 50mm with a fast 50.

Quite right. On the DA18-55, 50mm is f/5.6. On the DA18-250, it's f/4.5. On the a28-80 it's f/4. Prime 50's around f/2.8-4 tend to be... nice. But faster than f/2, they can be spectacular. Even my FA50/1.4 is a bit neglected since I have some 50-55/1.7-2's to play with. Manual fast 50's are still cheap and indispensable.

My goal for a carry-kit is ultrawide (my DA10-17 and Zen 16/2.8 fit there), the 18-250 superzoom, and fast glass around 28-50-85mm. I've got 50-55 and 85/2 covered; if my Viv 24/2 worked, I'd be clam-happy. Oh yeah, all it takes is money... Anyway, I just see the ultrawide/fisheye, superzoom, and a few choice fast primes, as being the minimal versatile kit. Maybe throw in a 135/2.5 for dim distances.

08-04-2010, 06:19 AM	#17
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	a few words about fast fifties Originally posted by jremick Hmm, thanks for the help everyone. I think I'll go ahead with the 18-250 and start looking at options for a manual 50 and a few others to play with if I can get them at good prices within my budget. Any of the K/M/A/F/FA series 50mm lenses in either f/1.7 or f/1.4 max aperture are great. Check out the review section, but generally speaking the 1.7 models are slightly better IQ at fast apertures (about f/2) but the f/1.4 give you that extra bit of light. With K/M/A you will be manually focussing. With K/M you will be using stop-down metering. Since I prefer auto-aperture but don't care so much about having the camera focus for me, I think the A 50/1.7 is the sweet spot. I have seen it go for as little as 40 pounds, so money is really not the issue. For completeness I will mention the K/A 50/1.2 which are bigger and more expensive but have the ultimate in light-sucking power. And the FA43 Limited which is nowhere near as cheap but provides build quality, feel and IQ that is superlative, on par with Zeiss and Leica. Going back in time there are also the Takumars that are full manual and require an M42 screw-mount adapter. They used to be a good deal but now are over-priced, IMO. Excellent manual focus feel however. (By no means have I tried all of these. I currently own the K50/1.2, FA43 Limited and a grungy M50/1.7.)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which Zoom Lens? "Tamron AF 18-250mm", "Pentax-DA 18-250mm" or "Sigma 18-250mm"	hoomanshb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	07-30-2010 09:50 AM
For Sale - Sold: K10D body, DA 18-55mm kit lens, Tamron DiII AF18-250mm lens; Tamrac Velocity 8	gimmepizza	Sold Items	9	12-01-2009 05:26 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K10D Body, DA 18-250mm and FA 50mm 1.4 lenses	iDHawk	Sold Items	4	01-29-2009 09:14 PM
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 vs Pentax 18-250mm	malabito	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	11-27-2008 08:20 PM
For Sale - Sold: K10d + D-BG2 + Tamron 18-250mm + Pentax 50mm/1.4 and more	zer0sum	Sold Items	19	09-01-2008 11:47 AM

08-04-2010, 05:47 AM	#16
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by Eruditass Vote for cheap 50mm 1.7 or 1.4 then 18-250mm. TOUGEFC is right, the 50 will make teach you a lot of things. I agree with you for agreeing with TOUGEFC. Zooms are great tools, but they can teach a beginner to be lazy.

08-06-2010, 12:19 AM	#18
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,004	Originally posted by jremick Hmm, thanks for the help everyone. I think I'll go ahead with the 18-250 and start looking at options for a manual 50 and a few others to play with if I can get them at good prices within my budget. Lots more learning to do! Good choice and happy shooting. Please post some shots once you get your lens(es)...

08-11-2010, 12:56 AM	#19
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella The 18-250 isn't a "better" zoom lens. It's a longer zoom lens, but quality-wise, it's basically exactly the same as the 18-55 - marginally better in certain respects, marginally worse in others. How do you mean? In my experience owning these, I find the 18-250 produces a much better result overall than any of my 18-55's. Yes, it's longer, but I find it much "better" too. It's not as sharp as my Tamron 17-50 or my primes, but I can live with that based on the convenience factor and what kind of results I get with my 18-250 when using it. Jason

08-11-2010, 02:54 PM	#20
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	There is possibly some sample variation at play here, but in the posted comparisons I've seen over the years between the 18-250 and the newer version of th 18-55, the 18-55 looks as good or better at the short end and in the "normal" range but maybe suffers a bit at the longer end - plus it's slower there. But the differences are pretty small either way. To me, IQ doesn't even enter into it; it's basically much more length for the 18-250 versus much lighter weight and quick shift for the 18-55. I'd be curious to see your image comparisons too, though.

08-11-2010, 03:07 PM	#21
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	FA 50 is a 'fast' lens because it can open to a larger aperture. This matter for DOF and low light shooting, and not for 'fast paced' action, although it can be used for that as well. If you're shooting action outdoors, usually you want some decent DOF anyway (above f/4), so getting the 18-250 makes more sense for what you're trying to do right now. Go for it!

08-11-2010, 07:24 PM	#22
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	Although an 18-250 has an appeal, since you already have a 18-55 you might consider just adding a longer zoom. Everyone here likes the 55-300 DA but you could spend less for a Tamron 70-300, for example. I don't know that changing lenses is that big a deal unless you're in really bad conditions, and the difference between f5.6/5.8 and 6.3 might also be a consideration. Just a thought... Paul

08-12-2010, 06:17 AM	#23
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by tibbitts Although an 18-250 has an appeal, since you already have a 18-55 you might consider just adding a longer zoom... I don't know that changing lenses is that big a deal unless you're in really bad conditions... I have both the 18-250 (which I bought first) and the 18-55; also a DA10-17, and an A-type 60-300. Switching from one zoom to another is always bothersome, and always interrupts some continuity of thought. With the 18-55 and 60-300 pair, or the 10-17 and either 18-xxx, it's a question of what range to be limited to in the near future. The transition is a breaking point. I also have a Lil'Bigma 175-500, and shifting to it is easier because its range is clearly beyond but overlapping the shorter zooms. But I find I do a lot of shooting in the 40-80mm range. Switching from the 18-55 to the 60-300 obviously interrupts that flow. So I'm most likely to leave the 18-250 on most of the time. What I really need is a good 10-500/2.8 -- right.

08-12-2010, 08:13 AM	#24
Finger Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Québec Posts: 121	When I bought my Kx, I quickly bought a FA50 because I believed that was what everyone was doing. And then a 18-250. The FA50 was quickly kicked by a DA40mm and was sold. The 18-250 was used 3 times since Christmas. My DA40 on my Kx 80% of the time. The rest is shared between a M135mm 3.5 and a Tamron 17-50mm.

08-12-2010, 11:50 AM	#25
Muse Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: SF Bay Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 211	Originally posted by RioRico I have both the 18-250 (which I bought first) and the 18-55; also a DA10-17, and an A-type 60-300. Switching from one zoom to another is always bothersome, and always interrupts some continuity of thought. With the 18-55 and 60-300 pair, or the 10-17 and either 18-xxx, it's a question of what range to be limited to in the near future. The transition is a breaking point. I also have a Lil'Bigma 175-500, and shifting to it is easier because its range is clearly beyond but overlapping the shorter zooms. But I find I do a lot of shooting in the 40-80mm range. Switching from the 18-55 to the 60-300 obviously interrupts that flow. So I'm most likely to leave the 18-250 on most of the time. What I really need is a good 10-500/2.8 -- right. RioRico, it's your posts about the 18-250mm that have me eyeing it as my next lens. I have the 18-55mm and 55-300mm kit lenses, will keep my eyes open for some stellar not too expensive primes but for zooms these look attractive to me right now: 18-250mm for it's great versatility, as you very will describe: Quote: Switching from one zoom to another is always bothersome... 28-75mm f2.8 Tamron (for it's reputed great sharpness and its speed, plus considerable versatility)

08-12-2010, 02:56 PM	#26
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but 50mm for general shooting IMHO is quite the PITA since it's very unflexible compared to its shorter cousins. Of course this is case by case as i know alot of people love the 50mm range on APS-C. I find 28-40mm to be the best for versatility. Just glue your kitlens to 50mm and shoot for a day to see if you'll like it. I keep my 50 only for extreme lowlight and film shooting these days... (and even then, I seem to prefer my 50mm Tak).

08-12-2010, 07:55 PM	#27
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Actually I use the 77mm for daily shooting but if I think I need wider carry a 24mm in my pocket. Further I did the last World Photo Walk with only a 105mm. Makes you think about things differently but I can't say I felt limited. P.S. I wouldn't compare the kit lens at 50mm with a fast 50.

08-13-2010, 12:15 AM	#28
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by rparmar P.S. I wouldn't compare the kit lens at 50mm with a fast 50. Quite right. On the DA18-55, 50mm is f/5.6. On the DA18-250, it's f/4.5. On the a28-80 it's f/4. Prime 50's around f/2.8-4 tend to be... nice. But faster than f/2, they can be spectacular. Even my FA50/1.4 is a bit neglected since I have some 50-55/1.7-2's to play with. Manual fast 50's are still cheap and indispensable. My goal for a carry-kit is ultrawide (my DA10-17 and Zen 16/2.8 fit there), the 18-250 superzoom, and fast glass around 28-50-85mm. I've got 50-55 and 85/2 covered; if my Viv 24/2 worked, I'd be clam-happy. Oh yeah, all it takes is money... Anyway, I just see the ultrawide/fisheye, superzoom, and a few choice fast primes, as being the minimal versatile kit. Maybe throw in a 135/2.5 for dim distances.