Why do entry-level DSLRs often come with a telephoto?

clockwork247 · 12-22-2010, 11:52 PM

yep, i would never want that huge ass lens, who's gonna use it? if I'm going to a football game or w/e then maybe (also depends on how far i sit), and often is that? not very.

as some one pointed out, the optimal lens for walk around is a decently fast (18-100+) so like an 18-105, or 18-135, then it's perfect, normally you'll see 24-105 or 24-135 though lol. And you don't even get good speed, around f/3.5 to 5+, some version are around f/4, the f/2.8 ones are quite expensive.

xjjohnno · 12-23-2010, 12:34 AM

For my first DSLR buy I opted for a pair of zooms as the kit, nothing fancy but it helped me get to know what I like taking pics of as well as versatility of focal lengths, an ideal situation for the novice photographer. An upside of the purchase was that when I sold the kit lenses I made a tiny profit which helped fund some nice primes. So I suppose the philosophy is to let the novice photographer get their feet and figure out their preferred photography style. Not a bad thing in my eyes and quite cost effective.

DaveHolmes · 12-23-2010, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by xjjohnno

So I suppose the philosophy is to let the novice photographer get their feet and figure out their preferred photography style.

This works for me too! I got a 2 lens kit and am now looking to replace the 18-55mm with a faster Tamron 17-50 f2 and looking at wider lenses in general (Samyang 8mm fish is calling me...) I've not used the 50-200mm for well over 2 months now (except for the odd Hockey game...) so know I don't want a new telezoom... All about wide for me now...

J-D-G · 12-23-2010, 06:20 AM

Thanks a lot, that was helpful!

I think ill skip the telephoto unless I find it as a steal in a bundle

Ill go for a fast lens for reportage shots instead. I love the 40mm on my old olympus but a 50mm will do as well so here is the next dumb question: Are the focal lengths on the Pentax lenses equal to 35mm or do I have to multiply with the 1.5 crop factor and how with m42 lenses via an adapter?

Kitty · 12-23-2010, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

It should be forbidden

Entry level cameras should come with a prime lens in the 30mm to 35mm range.

LOL. I say let the companies make money from newbies

sterretje · 12-23-2010, 07:33 AM

Focal length is focal length DOT

That building across the road is e.g. 16mm high on the sensor when using a given lens (let's say 100mm). On a APSc, that is the height of the sensor (16mm); on FF/35mm that's only 66% of the height of the sensor.

Viewing both images, the building on the APSc one looks bigger (as it fills the frame) than the building on the FF/35mm one.

How much bigger? 1.5 times.
How to achieve that on FF/35mm? By using a lens with a FL that is 50% more (e.g. 150mm instead of 100mm).

grainbelt · 12-23-2010, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by J-D-G

Are the focal lengths on the Pentax lenses equal to 35mm or do I have to multiply with the 1.5 crop factor and how with m42 lenses via an adapter?

Short answer: Yes, the images are cropped 1.5x. A 35mm lens is effectively a 52mm lens on digital. Yes, you need an adapter to use M42 lenses.

eddie1960 · 12-23-2010, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by grainbelt

From a marketing perspective, I think the telephoto kits are a hedge against the superzoom buyer - why go DSLR when I can get this 12X superzoom? Well, we can bundle your DSLR with a telephoto to cover the same range.

Beat me to it

As the 2 lens kits are almost always entry level DSLR models (Kx and Kr in pentax land) they go up against the super zooms for one, also a lot of step up buyers may have has an older super zoom and want more reach.
I'm actually surprised the ads for these don't read comes with 16x zoom (actually a little more at 18-300)
My wife's Olympus E300 (it was a complete steal what can i say) has the 35mm equivalent of 28-300 kitted with it and the lenses aren't bad at all
for basic kit lens the 18-55 Pentax has always been highly regarded (the canon ones are just bloody awful in my experience), and as mentioned the 55-300 is also excellent for it's class. For a lot of casual shooters and familyy shooters this may be all they eve need, for the beginner it lets them learn what focal lengths they use most and then invest in higher quality lenses appropriately when funds allow
It sure would have been nice to have this when i started out (1973). for the longest time all i had was a 50mm, then i got a teleconverter, and finally a 135. I never had the reach you get with a 2 lens kit ever. (still don't as my biggest lens is 200mm, though i do get wider at 14mm)

eddie1960 · 12-23-2010, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

It should be forbidden

Entry level cameras should come with a prime lens in the 30mm to 35mm range.

And the only controls should be full manual no fancy stuff

It should be just as hard for kids today as it was for me

I do think there should be an alternate kit and now there is the Kr w/35 finally

but most consumers will see more value in the big zooms (right or wrong) and the poor salesperson who tries to talk them out of that idea will make less money (and likely not stay employed long)
we forget the bulk of people are not like forum users. they take snapshots. plain and simple....its always been this way

**boriscleto** · 12-23-2010, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by grainbelt

Short answer: Yes, the images are cropped 1.5x. A 35mm lens is effectively a 52mm lens on digital. Yes, you need an adapter to use M42 lenses.

Long answer, no. If you take identical pictures with a 35mm lens, one on APS-C one on 135, and you crop the 135 picture by 1.5 it will be identical to the APC-C picture. So a 35mm lens on APS-C is not the same as a 52mm lens on 135. It just has a cropped FOV. A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens.

gebco · 12-23-2010, 08:55 AM

My Kx actually came only with the 18-55 so I bought the 55-300 on eBay. Like others have said, it has been a cost effective way of determining what focal lengths I mostly shoot at. I am now closer to figuring out what my lens upgrade will be based on my shooting style. That being said, I don't think I'll part with my 55-300. Kit lens or not, it gives me great results.

sterretje · 12-23-2010, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

And the only controls should be full manual no fancy stuff

It should be just as hard for kids today as it was for me

I do think there should be an alternate kit and now there is the Kr w/35 finally

but most consumers will see more value in the big zooms (right or wrong) and the poor salesperson who tries to talk them out of that idea will make less money (and likely not stay employed long)
we forget the bulk of people are not like forum users. they take snapshots. plain and simple....its always been this way

The worst thing for you, me and lots of others was the waiting to see if they came out right

I'm a happy snapper and happily snapped away with a 50mm on film (before I got a 28mm/2.8 and a 70-210mm/4). I'm currently happily snapping away with the kit lens but I have a new years resolution regarding photography: happily snap with the K5/FA31 combo for general photography (there where I would usually take the kit lens).

I will miss shots and I will get other shots; wish me luck.

Impartial · 12-23-2010, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

The worst thing for you, me and lots of others was the waiting to see if they came out right

I'm a happy snapper and happily snapped away with a 50mm on film (before I got a 28mm/2.8 and a 70-210mm/4). I'm currently happily snapping away with the kit lens but I have a new years resolution regarding photography: happily snap with the K5/FA31 combo for general photography (there where I would usually take the kit lens).

I will miss shots and I will get other shots; wish me luck.

Before I moved to digital (in 2005) I had K1000 SE + 50/2, and worked harder -- producing better pictures -- than with the first Optio I used. (Ironically, I have a much more versatile and higher-quality selection of film-era manual-focus primes than I had in the film era.)

On the other hand, at the moment I feel that without all three of my 15/24/35 AF prime kit for digital, I might "miss something". On the other hand, teles are all optional. :-p

grainbelt · 12-23-2010, 10:32 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by boriscleto

Long answer, no. If you take identical pictures with a 35mm lens, one on APS-C one on 135, and you crop the 135 picture by 1.5 it will be identical to the APC-C picture. So a 35mm lens on APS-C is not the same as a 52mm lens on 135. It just has a cropped FOV. A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens.

This is absolutely true, yet no one really cares. The OP clearly has these lenses already and is wondering about their effective FOV on a DSLR. I see these verbose explanations of crop factor all the time and they drive me nuts.

People just want to know if they stand on one end of a room with four people standing against the other wall, will they fit in the frame? They did with the 30mm lens on film. They won't on a pentax DLSR. End of story.

RioRico · 12-23-2010, 05:37 PM

Nuts, eh? Here's my favorite example: Cut a picture from a magazine. Draw a 60x45mm rectangle on it. That's about the size of a 645 MF frame. Inside that, draw a 36x24mm rectangle. That's the size of a 135/FF (35mm) frame. Inside that, draw a 24x18mm U. That's about the size of an APS-C frame. In each rectangle, THE PICTURE REMAINS THE SAME, but smaller frames just see less of it, that's all. How MUCH less, is the crap factor.

So a frame-filling shot taken with a 150mm lens on a 135/FF camera, would require a 100mm lens on an APS-C camera to fill its frame. Putting the 100mm lens onto an APS-C cam does *NOT* turn it into a 150mm lens -- those lenses just give the same field of view (FOV) on their respective cameras.

12-23-2010, 06:20 AM	#19
J-D-G New Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 5 Original Poster	Thanks and a new question Thanks a lot, that was helpful! I think ill skip the telephoto unless I find it as a steal in a bundle Ill go for a fast lens for reportage shots instead. I love the 40mm on my old olympus but a 50mm will do as well so here is the next dumb question: Are the focal lengths on the Pentax lenses equal to 35mm or do I have to multiply with the 1.5 crop factor and how with m42 lenses via an adapter?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Sony entry-level DSLRs - A290 / A390	jhaji	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	6	06-14-2010 10:21 AM
KX entry level?	Racing Widow	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	11-18-2009 01:22 PM
new entry level body will be..	miriya	Pentax News and Rumors	25	09-06-2008 09:34 PM
Entry level Pentax 67?	germar	Pentax Medium Format	13	06-30-2008 08:17 AM
Entry level pricing better than ever	regken	Pentax News and Rumors	5	10-21-2007 08:28 AM

12-22-2010, 11:52 PM	#16
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	yep, i would never want that huge ass lens, who's gonna use it? if I'm going to a football game or w/e then maybe (also depends on how far i sit), and often is that? not very. as some one pointed out, the optimal lens for walk around is a decently fast (18-100+) so like an 18-105, or 18-135, then it's perfect, normally you'll see 24-105 or 24-135 though lol. And you don't even get good speed, around f/3.5 to 5+, some version are around f/4, the f/2.8 ones are quite expensive.

12-23-2010, 12:34 AM	#17
xjjohnno Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,115	For my first DSLR buy I opted for a pair of zooms as the kit, nothing fancy but it helped me get to know what I like taking pics of as well as versatility of focal lengths, an ideal situation for the novice photographer. An upside of the purchase was that when I sold the kit lenses I made a tiny profit which helped fund some nice primes. So I suppose the philosophy is to let the novice photographer get their feet and figure out their preferred photography style. Not a bad thing in my eyes and quite cost effective.

12-23-2010, 03:25 AM	#18
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	Originally posted by xjjohnno So I suppose the philosophy is to let the novice photographer get their feet and figure out their preferred photography style. This works for me too! I got a 2 lens kit and am now looking to replace the 18-55mm with a faster Tamron 17-50 f2 and looking at wider lenses in general (Samyang 8mm fish is calling me...) I've not used the 50-200mm for well over 2 months now (except for the odd Hockey game...) so know I don't want a new telezoom... All about wide for me now...

12-23-2010, 06:51 AM	#20
Kitty Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 102	Originally posted by sterretje It should be forbidden Entry level cameras should come with a prime lens in the 30mm to 35mm range. LOL. I say let the companies make money from newbies

12-23-2010, 07:33 AM	#21
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Focal length is focal length DOT That building across the road is e.g. 16mm high on the sensor when using a given lens (let's say 100mm). On a APSc, that is the height of the sensor (16mm); on FF/35mm that's only 66% of the height of the sensor. Viewing both images, the building on the APSc one looks bigger (as it fills the frame) than the building on the FF/35mm one. How much bigger? 1.5 times. How to achieve that on FF/35mm? By using a lens with a FL that is 50% more (e.g. 150mm instead of 100mm).

12-23-2010, 08:11 AM	#22
grainbelt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Albums Posts: 587	Originally posted by J-D-G Are the focal lengths on the Pentax lenses equal to 35mm or do I have to multiply with the 1.5 crop factor and how with m42 lenses via an adapter? Short answer: Yes, the images are cropped 1.5x. A 35mm lens is effectively a 52mm lens on digital. Yes, you need an adapter to use M42 lenses.

12-23-2010, 08:30 AM	#23
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,667	Originally posted by grainbelt From a marketing perspective, I think the telephoto kits are a hedge against the superzoom buyer - why go DSLR when I can get this 12X superzoom? Well, we can bundle your DSLR with a telephoto to cover the same range. Beat me to it As the 2 lens kits are almost always entry level DSLR models (Kx and Kr in pentax land) they go up against the super zooms for one, also a lot of step up buyers may have has an older super zoom and want more reach. I'm actually surprised the ads for these don't read comes with 16x zoom (actually a little more at 18-300) My wife's Olympus E300 (it was a complete steal what can i say) has the 35mm equivalent of 28-300 kitted with it and the lenses aren't bad at all for basic kit lens the 18-55 Pentax has always been highly regarded (the canon ones are just bloody awful in my experience), and as mentioned the 55-300 is also excellent for it's class. For a lot of casual shooters and familyy shooters this may be all they eve need, for the beginner it lets them learn what focal lengths they use most and then invest in higher quality lenses appropriately when funds allow It sure would have been nice to have this when i started out (1973). for the longest time all i had was a 50mm, then i got a teleconverter, and finally a 135. I never had the reach you get with a 2 lens kit ever. (still don't as my biggest lens is 200mm, though i do get wider at 14mm)

12-23-2010, 08:37 AM	#24
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,667	Originally posted by sterretje It should be forbidden Entry level cameras should come with a prime lens in the 30mm to 35mm range. And the only controls should be full manual no fancy stuff It should be just as hard for kids today as it was for me I do think there should be an alternate kit and now there is the Kr w/35 finally but most consumers will see more value in the big zooms (right or wrong) and the poor salesperson who tries to talk them out of that idea will make less money (and likely not stay employed long) we forget the bulk of people are not like forum users. they take snapshots. plain and simple....its always been this way

12-23-2010, 08:42 AM	#25
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477	Originally posted by grainbelt Short answer: Yes, the images are cropped 1.5x. A 35mm lens is effectively a 52mm lens on digital. Yes, you need an adapter to use M42 lenses. Long answer, no. If you take identical pictures with a 35mm lens, one on APS-C one on 135, and you crop the 135 picture by 1.5 it will be identical to the APC-C picture. So a 35mm lens on APS-C is not the same as a 52mm lens on 135. It just has a cropped FOV. A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens.

12-23-2010, 08:55 AM	#26
gebco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Winnipeg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 329	My Kx actually came only with the 18-55 so I bought the 55-300 on eBay. Like others have said, it has been a cost effective way of determining what focal lengths I mostly shoot at. I am now closer to figuring out what my lens upgrade will be based on my shooting style. That being said, I don't think I'll part with my 55-300. Kit lens or not, it gives me great results.

12-23-2010, 09:27 AM	#27
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by eddie1960 And the only controls should be full manual no fancy stuff It should be just as hard for kids today as it was for me I do think there should be an alternate kit and now there is the Kr w/35 finally but most consumers will see more value in the big zooms (right or wrong) and the poor salesperson who tries to talk them out of that idea will make less money (and likely not stay employed long) we forget the bulk of people are not like forum users. they take snapshots. plain and simple....its always been this way The worst thing for you, me and lots of others was the waiting to see if they came out right I'm a happy snapper and happily snapped away with a 50mm on film (before I got a 28mm/2.8 and a 70-210mm/4). I'm currently happily snapping away with the kit lens but I have a new years resolution regarding photography: happily snap with the K5/FA31 combo for general photography (there where I would usually take the kit lens). I will miss shots and I will get other shots; wish me luck.

12-23-2010, 10:11 AM	#28
Impartial Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 208	Originally posted by sterretje The worst thing for you, me and lots of others was the waiting to see if they came out right I'm a happy snapper and happily snapped away with a 50mm on film (before I got a 28mm/2.8 and a 70-210mm/4). I'm currently happily snapping away with the kit lens but I have a new years resolution regarding photography: happily snap with the K5/FA31 combo for general photography (there where I would usually take the kit lens). I will miss shots and I will get other shots; wish me luck. Before I moved to digital (in 2005) I had K1000 SE + 50/2, and worked harder -- producing better pictures -- than with the first Optio I used. (Ironically, I have a much more versatile and higher-quality selection of film-era manual-focus primes than I had in the film era.) On the other hand, at the moment I feel that without all three of my 15/24/35 AF prime kit for digital, I might "miss something". On the other hand, teles are all optional. :-p

12-23-2010, 10:32 AM - 1 Like	#29
grainbelt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Albums Posts: 587	Originally posted by boriscleto Long answer, no. If you take identical pictures with a 35mm lens, one on APS-C one on 135, and you crop the 135 picture by 1.5 it will be identical to the APC-C picture. So a 35mm lens on APS-C is not the same as a 52mm lens on 135. It just has a cropped FOV. A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens. This is absolutely true, yet no one really cares. The OP clearly has these lenses already and is wondering about their effective FOV on a DSLR. I see these verbose explanations of crop factor all the time and they drive me nuts. People just want to know if they stand on one end of a room with four people standing against the other wall, will they fit in the frame? They did with the 30mm lens on film. They won't on a pentax DLSR. End of story.

12-23-2010, 05:37 PM	#30
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Nuts, eh? Here's my favorite example: Cut a picture from a magazine. Draw a 60x45mm rectangle on it. That's about the size of a 645 MF frame. Inside that, draw a 36x24mm rectangle. That's the size of a 135/FF (35mm) frame. Inside that, draw a 24x18mm U. That's about the size of an APS-C frame. In each rectangle, THE PICTURE REMAINS THE SAME, but smaller frames just see less of it, that's all. How MUCH less, is the crap factor. So a frame-filling shot taken with a 150mm lens on a 135/FF camera, would require a 100mm lens on an APS-C camera to fill its frame. Putting the 100mm lens onto an APS-C cam does NOT turn it into a 150mm lens -- those lenses just give the same field of view (FOV) on their respective cameras.