Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-23-2010, 07:05 PM - 1 Like   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,935
I'm too lazy to make one of those talking cartoon videos...

New Customer: I want that Tampax kay dash ecks with the zoomey lens.
Saleman: You mean the Pentax K-x with the 18-55 kit lens.
New customer: Kit lens? No, I don't want to build it.
Saleman: The kit lens refers to this fully-assembled lens that comes with the camera. It is a little bit wide-angle to a little telephoto. Sort of general purpose.
New Customer: Oh. Is it good for taking pictures of my kid playing soccer?
Saleman: For that you would want a longer telephoto. Like this Tamron 70-200 f2.8.
New Customer: Wow, that looks professional! How much is it?
Saleman: Seven hundred and twenty nine dollars.
New Customer: Seven hundred and twenty nine dollars!
Saleman: Plus tax...
New Customer: But that's even more than this DRLS costs!
Saleman: True, but it is high-quality and produces very nice images. It is good in low-light, too.
New Customer: But it's not even made by Pentax.
Saleman: Ah, but Pentax does have similar high-quality telephoto zooms, such as the 50-135, or 60-250. The first one might be a tad short for soccer, and the other is a bit large. I'd recommend this carbon-fiber monopod with that one.
New Customer: Gee, those are pretty. How much are they?
Salesman: Well, the 50-135 goes for $$$, and the 60-250 goes for $$$$.
New Customer: WTF?
Saleman: Pentax is known for having high-quality "glass" as we like to call it.
New Customer: Holy cow! I think this whole DLRS thing is too much. How about this Nikon P100 superzoom?
Salesman chuckles.
Saleman: Those are fine for turkey dinner shots. However, Pentax does offer a choice of inexpensive telephotos with the camera - a twin-lens bundle. Sort of a starter set.
New Customer: Oh?
Saleman: Yep, this little 50-200 is light and small, or this slightly larger 55-300 which gives a bit better image and the added reach. Either is pretty light, so you won't need this Italian monopod, either.
New Customer: How much are they?
Saleman: The smaller package is $$, and the bigger one is $$.
New Customer: That's not bad. I would like one of those large bundled telephotos.
Saleman: Excellent choice. I do recommend a lens hood, however....


Last edited by SpecialK; 12-26-2010 at 08:56 PM.
12-23-2010, 07:42 PM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,503
The original question:

QuoteQuote:
I was wondering why DSLR-packages with two lenses almost always include a telephoto? Im looking to buy the k-r or k-x and Im not sure if I should get a cheap additional telephoto, they cant be that good quality? Is it a good opportunity to get some more glass or is it just a way for the sellers to earn more money?
seems to imply that it's reasonable for a dslr package to include two lenses, but questions that a telephoto zoom would be one of them.

What should the two lenses be, if not a wide/normal and tele zoom?

Paul
12-23-2010, 08:07 PM   #33
Pentaxian
amoringello's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,439
QuoteOriginally posted by J-D-G Quote
Hey

I was wondering why DSLR-packages with two lenses almost always include a telephoto?
Its actually being helpful.
The most popular reason for buying a camera? To photograph your kids playing soccer or recital. Soccer moms *need* the $8000 camera body but cannot necessarily afford a decent lens (poor things). They need a zoom lens to get up close, and the kit zoom lens is often good enough for them.

Yes, I've had more than one soccer mom ask me advice on buying a low cost zoom lens because she could not afford much after buying the $8000 body without one.
After that, I am also asked to help with what all those buttons and dials do.
Just makes me want to cry (or slap someone).
12-23-2010, 08:22 PM   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Minneapolis
Photos: Albums
Posts: 588
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
What should the two lenses be, if not a wide/normal and tele zoom?

Paul
Wide/Normal zoom and portrait length macro

12-23-2010, 08:38 PM   #35
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,195
Entry level systems come with a full range of lenses because (drum roll) people buy them. But think about it folks. Say you've become proficient with a high end point and shoot with say a 15-1 or 20-1 zoom range, why would you accept less than that in your DSLR? You want to expand your horizons with a DSLR, not shrink them. I haven't heard one person say " I'm going to buy a DSLR with a 35mm lens because I want less flexibility in a camera and all those point and shoots have zoom lenses." Well wait, I'm wrong, I think one person further back up the thread did pretty much say that, but most of us are going the other way. Some of us are really concerened about the minute of image quality. Some of us might actually say, I'm going to a DSLR so I can spend a fortune on better lenses than you can get on point and shoots. And that's great. But most people buying entry level systems aren't those guys. If you're going to drop 10 grand on great lenses, what would you be doing with an entry level package in the first place? Good lens, good sensor, it's a package deal.If you want technical perfection in your equipment you have to have both. One without the other doesn't make sense.
12-23-2010, 11:48 PM   #36
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
Sorry normhead, but I don't agree with your last statement. Simply because an entry level camera is (technically) capable of taking the same perfect shot as a top level camera (in my opinion). So a Kx deserves good lenses as much as a K5 does. Or a K100D as a K10D.
12-24-2010, 12:19 AM - 1 Like   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 834
QuoteOriginally posted by J-D-G Quote
Hey

I was wondering why DSLR-packages with two lenses almost always include a telephoto? Im looking to buy the k-r or k-x and Im not sure if I should get a cheap additional telephoto, they cant be that good quality? Is it a good opportunity to get some more glass or is it just a way for the sellers to earn more money?
My take is get the twin lens kit. If you look at the difference between body only, single lens and twin lens kits the kit lenses are pretty close to being given away.

OK, I gather they don't come with lens hoods, but you can get perfectly satisfactory ones quite cheaply. And the optical quality isn't of the best - but do you want to spend on your camera and then on a lens?

The kit lenses give you something to get going, to get into SLRs, that will work in a lot of situations.

In time you might find you want better glass / a better body - or you might not. The biggest obstacle to great images with most cameras is the brain behind the finger on the shutter, not the camera or lens itself, as a flick through Flickr will quickly show. (it also shows the horrible results of getting carried away with post-processing)

edit: I should make it clear that image quality alone doesn't make a great image. If the camera isn't pointed at the right thing at the right time with appropriate settings (a whole new minefield) you won't get a great image whatever the camera, glass and post-processing.

Last edited by cats_five; 12-24-2010 at 12:25 AM.
12-24-2010, 06:33 AM   #38
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by cats_five Quote

The kit lenses give you something to get going, to get into SLRs, that will work in a lot of situations.

In time you might find you want better glass / a better body - or you might not. The biggest obstacle to great images with most cameras is the brain behind the finger on the shutter, not the camera or lens itself, as a flick through Flickr will quickly show. (it also shows the horrible results of getting carried away with post-processing)

edit: I should make it clear that image quality alone doesn't make a great image. If the camera isn't pointed at the right thing at the right time with appropriate settings (a whole new minefield) you won't get a great image whatever the camera, glass and post-processing.
Exactly, the camera is a tool, it can't make the decisions for you. that comes with experience, and at minimum a modicum of talent. I've seen some deadly dull shots taken with a leica m9 and a 50 summicron (god I'd love one though i'll never own one unless the lottery gods are kind)
get the twin lens kit shoot and learn, then invest in more expensive glass once you really know what you will need.
have a great christmas everyone


Last edited by eddie1960; 12-24-2010 at 06:43 AM.
12-24-2010, 08:09 AM   #39
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,173
A camera kit marketed marketed as entry level and with a 2 lens kit covering the range from 18mm to 300mm makes sense to me. I would guess that the majority of SLR/DSLR owners would be quite happy with that range. Ask anybody who works in a camera store and they will tell you that the first extra lens the overwhelming majority of new owners buy is a tele zoom. The Pentax deal with the 18-55 and 55-300 will give a new owner 2 very nice lenses to start out with. The 18-55 is rated as one of the best kit lenses out there and the 55-300 is sharper than the consumer 70-300's from Sigma or Tamron, although those 2 are capable of some fine images also. Many stores will bundle one of those lenses as a kit with a new camera.

It's kind of like buying a tool kit. You may not use every wrench or socket but it is cheaper to buy the set and if you need it, its there. On the other side of the coin, a friend who recently bought her first DSLR asked me why camera stores sell just camera bodies without lenses? I mentioned that if you already owned a bag full of glass, why buy another lens you already have? Her answer was another question. Why buy another DSLR if you already own one? A true noob. I think a large chunk of the consumer DSLR buyers buy a basic kit and nothing more.
12-24-2010, 08:33 AM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,503
QuoteOriginally posted by sterretje Quote
Sorry normhead, but I don't agree with your last statement. Simply because an entry level camera is (technically) capable of taking the same perfect shot as a top level camera (in my opinion). So a Kx deserves good lenses as much as a K5 does. Or a K100D as a K10D.
I don't think this is true at all in the post-film world. Even if you disregard the size argument, which you always had with 35mm vs. larger formats (and still have today with digital), there is very little argument that a photo made with a k5 sensor would be better than one made with my k100 or k200 sensor. In the 35mm world, entry-level cameras truly were capable of the exact same results for an average subject as the very best cameras (motor drive speed, flash sync, 100% viewfinders, the Contax film-flatness argument, and a few other features excluded, of course.)

Paul
12-24-2010, 09:01 AM   #41
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
...
there is very little argument that a photo made with a k5 sensor would be better than one made with my k100 or k200 sensor...
I'm confused; isn't that what I said
12-24-2010, 09:52 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 834
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
<snip>there is very little argument that a photo made with a k5 sensor would be better than one made with my k100 or k200 sensor.<snip>
The image quality would be better assuming it was correctly exposed, but would be be a better photo? Maybe, maybe not. All those arty-farty things start to come into play, and unless there is a horrible technical flaw those for me are what makes an image rather than a snap shot. BTW I have plenty of snapshots, took some more today, but I have some that are a lot better as well.
12-24-2010, 10:29 AM   #43
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by cats_five Quote
The image quality would be better assuming it was correctly exposed, but would be be a better photo? Maybe, maybe not. All those arty-farty things start to come into play, and unless there is a horrible technical flaw those for me are what makes an image rather than a snap shot. BTW I have plenty of snapshots, took some more today, but I have some that are a lot better as well.
It's the arty farty stuff that makes the best images for me, i don't care what the gear was used to achieve it (lots of my favourite photos were achieved with very primitive gear compared to even a basic 2 lens kit. the ability to compose and take a stunning shot has more to do with unmeasurables than does the ability to take a well exposed snapshot
one of the reasons i "settle" for old MF lenses is aside from the ability to auto focus they serve the need just as well as the newer lenses do (mind you I don't chase sharpness above all else either)
12-24-2010, 12:28 PM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 834
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
It's the arty farty stuff that makes the best images for me, i don't care what the gear was used to achieve it (lots of my favourite photos were achieved with very primitive gear compared to even a basic 2 lens kit. the ability to compose and take a stunning shot has more to do with unmeasurables than does the ability to take a well exposed snapshot
one of the reasons i "settle" for old MF lenses is aside from the ability to auto focus they serve the need just as well as the newer lenses do (mind you I don't chase sharpness above all else either)
So that's two of us who aren't gear freaks and believe in the arty farty stuff! (didn't manage it today but I did get cold enough and hungry enough to feel I deserved a bit supper)

However without changing the focussing screen for one with a split image I would lose too many images with manual focus lenses - a shame as the old Sigma 70-210 I have seemed to produce lovely sharp images when I did manage to get the focus right. I never had focussing problems on my ME Super, and the different screen was why.
12-25-2010, 06:47 PM   #45
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,195
QuoteQuote:
So a Kx deserves good lenses as much as a K5 does.
The K5 gives you 14 Evs dynamic range as opposed to 12 in a k-x, and 14 bits depth instead of 12- according to the sensor testers. Does one "deserve' a better lens than the other? No, but as Clint Easwood said "Deserve has nothing to do with it." If you are not a pro, trying to sell your images, you don't need a good lens or a good sensor, or a pro level camera. If you want your images to be technically superior, you do. Why pay $1,500 dollars for a great lens and then get inferior images to someone with the same lens, and a better sensor? I'm not saying don't buy a great lens for your low entry level camera, if you have the bucks. Buy whatever you want. I don't care, but the fact is, you can get by with a couple zooms, which aren't nearly as bad as a lot make out, and unless you're doing prints larger than 8x10, you're probably getting little for your money buying great lenses. You can put a great lens on my old D *ist, but at that resolution, I wouldn't print anything larger than 11x14 no matter how sharp the lens and how crisp the image. The limitations of the sensor wouldn't justify it.
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!
camera, entry-level dslrs, im, pentax help, photography, telephoto
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Sony entry-level DSLRs - A290 / A390 jhaji Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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