[lovemehate]

Wow thats a lot to think about....I am getting a little loss when you start talking about the lenses, however am left with the impress that the prime lens kit and a manual focus 50 or 55mm (for indoors and people) is the best way to go, or...

Is the
55-300mm Zoom Lenses


that comes with the 2 lens kit good enough for that?

edit, am also thinking about spending a bit more for that canon T2i 18

edit 2. also how do I know what lenses are manual ? where should i look for those?

---

Last edited by lovemehate; 10-08-2010 at 11:55 AM.

[Nick Siebers]

LMH - I would get the Pentax k-x with the 18-55 and 55-300 zooms. The kit described above is a great bargain. You would be able to make a lot of nice pictures. You might at some point decide to pick up a different wide angle zoom : the DA16-45, FA 20-35, DA*16-50; or you might decide to get some prime lenses. But the kit is a great place to start.

I don't know anything about Canon.

[lovemehate]

yeah am pretty much sold on this kit either way, but I really want to fit into my budget that lens that was suggested for low light, and indoors that manual focus 50 or 55mm

[paperbag846]

In the lens review database, look up the Pentax SMC A 50 1.7 lens. You can use all of the modes, unlike the M and K lenses which are fully manual, and a bit trickier for a beginner. The only thing you have to do is manually focus, which will take a little while to get a hang of, but in the end, it's a good skill to develop anyways (even with autofocus, as autofocus is not 100%, especially in low light).

[lovemehate]

so what can you suggest for that indoors, low light lens? that I know ill use alot

[Ken T]

I vote for Pentax SMC A 50mm f/1.7 manual focus .

[lovemehate]

how good is the
50-200mm f/4-5.6 SMCP-DA ED Zoom Lens


for low light, taking peoples photos? Is It telephoto lens? I hear some people saying I need a telephoto lens....

[Flickeroo]

how good is the
50-200mm f/4-5.6 SMCP-DA ED Zoom Lens


for low light, taking peoples photos? Is It telephoto lens? I hear some people saying I need a telephoto lens....

There are a few things that you need to understand (please remember that I am also a newbie, so I'm just sharing the understanding I have of things):

one: Aperture
if you're talking about low light, you need a larger aperture. That's the "f" portion of the lens specs. The smaller the number, the bigger it opens up to let light in.
here's a visual example:

[IMG]file:///tmp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG]


So you need a lens that will give you more light. So the "f" portion must be a smaller number.
In my opinion, any lens with more than f:3.5 will be struggling indoors without a flash. Sure, it'll work, but you'll have to use the flash...otherwise it'll have to stay open for longer to get all the light it needs. Then both yourself and the subject have to be VERY stable to take a second-long or more exposure and come out sharp.

Your idea of using a lens of f4-5.6 at it's biggest aperture for low-light isn't a good one.

two: Focal lenght:
I can't explain the technical aspect of it, but here's my own understanding. The longer the lens, the more telescopic effect you'll have. An example would be to use a magnifying glass (which in itself is a simple lens). If you hold a magnifying glass very close to something, there's no magnifying effect. if you move it further, then it'll look bigger, but you'll have to move the distance between your eye (and in your camera's case, the sensor) and the magnifying glass accordingly to be in focus. That's for the zoom part, and why zoom lenses seem to change size significantly.

Another thing is how wide you'll go. if you take a tube a look though it against your eye, if the tube is short (let's say a 2cm or 1inch tube) you'll have a wider visual image. If you take a longer tube (such as looking through a 30 cm or 1ft tube) you'll see a lot less wide. you have to get closer to a window to see the sides after all.

Some people also use their hands and fingers. Spread both your hands with your arms outstretched, make the thumbs touch each other, and whatever spread you hands cover is approximately 50mm. One spread hand would be 100mm. your closed fingers would be 200mm. I still have to test these out myself against what I see in the viewfinder on my K-x, maybe I'm a bit off. But whatever the case may be, if you experiment, you'll find out and be able to use this to evaluate the width that your image wil have.

Now, camera lenses have multiple pieces of glass permitting you to adjust so the image is in focus on the camera's sensor and doesn't have the tube effect (Called vignetting), while keeping everything you've selected in view.

So your idea of using a 50-200mm lens for indoor people photography isn't a good one unless the room you're in is really big. In my living room: 100mm will be the face only, 50mm will be the face and torso. If I wish to photograph multiple people, I'm on the wider end (shorter lenght) on my zoom.

three: depth of field
I won't go deep into depth of field. Just know that the bigger the aperture, the less depth your focus zone will have (focal length also has an effect on depth of field, but I still don't understand it fully). People that have a lens of extreme aperture such as the A f1.2 and use it wide-open (at f1.2) might have people who's eyes are in focus, but the tip of the nose (in front) and the ears (in back) are out of focus. Using the same lens at f2.8 makes the person in focus but the background wall (or other people in the background) out of focus. Using that same lens at f8 makes the subject and the wall behind then become in focus.
But having zones out of focus is often a desired effect. It makes whatever you have in focus "pop out" more, and removes clutter on your picture.

In summary:
if you want low-light, indoor photography, the 50-200mm f/4-5.6 SMCP-DA ED Zoom Lens will not be suitable.

Sorry for the lengthy post. I hope this helps!

[Flickeroo]

We'll probably have a few of the more advanced users go and correct whatever I wrote in the previous post.
But that's my understanding so far. I might have a few things that require adjustments. It's a learning experience for me as well!

[uccemebug]

I vote for Pentax SMC A 50mm f/1.7 manual focus .

It's a fine lens, bright and good optics. Another plus is the tiny size, not bad to carry around just in case.

That said, the kit lens and camera sound like such a great deal I don't know how you'll beat it, especially given the excellent quality of images that the Kx can produce.

You might do well to get the body and one kit lens combo, and perhaps you'll want to look into a photography course before buying too much gear. It sounds like you've got questions on some of the basic equipment concepts that could be sorted out fairly quickly if you start taking a class.

[lovemehate]

that was some great Info, thanks for that.
I totally agree I need to start some photography classes..normally I wouldent ask such .."noob" questions but am trying to figure out what lens I should be looking for so that I make the right buy, before I start classes.

the 2 lens kit is a great deal, but I dont think that second lens Is what I need

and I have no way of telling what lenses are what I do need, even when i look at a list of them on amazon or ebay I dont know what am looking for

[Flickeroo]

Well, for the second lens (the 50-300), it might not be what you immediately need, but it's always good to have around in case you do go out and wish to expand your photography.
Plus at the cost it is as a kit, you cannot lose.
if you don't use it you can resell it for at least what you paid for.

[lovemehate]

yeah..well thats true.

When looking at lenses I notice some say "Vivitar" or something else, then FOR pentax, this Is very confusing when looking at lenses

I was checking this one out cause it had the specs i think am looking for

Vivitar | 28/2.8 F/Pentax-K | | Tri-State Camera, Video, and Computer

Duz that just mean its made by another company for pentax?

[tomtor]

I hear some people saying I need a telephoto lens....

the 2 lens kit is a great deal, but I dont think that second lens Is what I need

You don't really NEED a telephoto lens, but as others suggested, if you really plan to use your SLR camera a lot for photographing people, then you'll regret not buying the 55-300 later.

Either the 50-200 or the 55-300 are excellent for photographing people. With just the 18-55 lens you'll be often too far away, people will be too small to fill the image. For really low light photography (eg in a room without windows or when it's dark outside) you'll need another type of lens as the 50mm manual focus like suggested by the others or a flash.

However, it's better to take it easy on buying equipment until you experience yourself that you miss something. The 50-200 or 55-300 lenses are exceptions, because they are much cheaper when part of a kit. A big flash or a 50mm low light lens can always be bought later.

You asked about the Canon kit, that's a more or less similar camera as the K-X, with slightly differing features. It will not have a better image quality, but it can produce videos with a higher resolution. But also the K-X produces videos which are already much better than DVD resolution.

Finally some examples to show you that you'll need either the 50-200 or 55-300, beside the 18-55.

These images are taken about 15 feet away:

75mm (F7.1):


90mm (F4):


135mm:

[lovemehate]

wow some great photos, I was pretty much sold on that kit either way.
I guess the first thing Ill be doing with It Is taking peoples photos, in mostly low light. thats why am really trying to figure out what lens would be inexpensive and right for that situation