[wpg]

Pretty much a n00b around here and I have a question. I have the k7 with the DA 35 f 2.4 lens and the VIvitar Series 1 70-210mm. I'm still learning how to use those but obviously I need to add some more lenses to my kit. For starters I want to add a pretty good lens and go from there in the near future. Here's what I My interests are:

I like macro ie. flowers, insects, and telephoto ie. birds, animals, nature
Going to parks with the 3 and 8 yr old boys and out around town
Soccer/sports with the kids
I take a lot of pics of the kids inside and outside and often take the camera wherever I go.
Will be travelling to Wash. DC for a vacation soon-need walkaround lens
Start dabbling with portrait work.

Hence, I want something that's pretty fast to capture that spur of the moment shot and I want very good IQ. That's important for the most part.
it seems to me the 17-70mm would be a good start and I would add like a 70-300mm down the road. Is the 18-250mm a better way to go? Is there something else I should consider?
Thanks,
Bill

[liukaitc]

looks like you are interested in many area of photography. that is good.
but If you want to take photo of everything with one lens, only superzoom can do it.

[Bob from Aus]

The Sigma 17-70 does a respectable job is 2.8 at the wide angle and i am continually surprised at its capacity to take macro. I have had mine since the first batch about 6 years ago. Other than my K5 shots with this lens I would call ordinary.

I think the pentax F4 17-70 is a brilliant lens. I have only used it and was extremely impressed. If you intend to upgrade to the K5 or K3? at some stage and want a great zoom I would recommend it.

Sigma have and Tamron have17-50 F2.8 that constantly get rave reviews

The difference between a zoom from 17 -70 and 17 -50 is big, you will probably use the 70 end a lot.

I use primes for all my wide angle work. If I was to buy an all purpose zoom and wasn't worried about macro, I would own the pentax 17-70 without hesitation even though it is F4. In my opinion my Sigma 17-70 is good but not fantastic and the macro (really close up) capacity is really respectable (I have three dedicated macros and it is able to compete)

[jatrax]

Pretty much a n00b around here and I have a question. I have the k7 with the DA 35 f 2.4 lens and the VIvitar Series 1 70-210mm. I'm still learning how to use those but obviously I need to add some more lenses to my kit. For starters I want to add a pretty good lens and go from there in the near future. Here's what I My interests are:

I like macro ie. flowers, insects, and telephoto ie. birds, animals, nature
Going to parks with the 3 and 8 yr old boys and out around town
Soccer/sports with the kids
I take a lot of pics of the kids inside and outside and often take the camera wherever I go.
Will be travelling to Wash. DC for a vacation soon-need walkaround lens
Start dabbling with portrait work.

Hence, I want something that's pretty fast to capture that spur of the moment shot and I want very good IQ. That's important for the most part.
it seems to me the 17-70mm would be a good start and I would add like a 70-300mm down the road. Is the 18-250mm a better way to go? Is there something else I should consider?
Thanks,
Bill

Ok,
For Macro: DFA 100 f/2.8
Out with the boys: da 16-45, DA*16-50 or DA 17-70
Soccer sports: use the 70-210 or get a DA 55-300
Traveling to DC: DA 18-250 and either DA 12-24 or Sigma 10-20
Portrait: DA 70 ltd or FA 77 ltd

Pretty much a n00b around here and I have a question. I have the k7 with the DA 35 f 2.4 lens and the VIvitar Series 1 70-210mm. I'm still learning how to use those but obviously I need to add some more lenses to my kit. For starters I want to add a pretty good lens and go from there in the near future. Here's what I My interests are:

I like macro ie. flowers, insects, and telephoto ie. birds, animals, nature
Going to parks with the 3 and 8 yr old boys and out around town
Soccer/sports with the kids
I take a lot of pics of the kids inside and outside and often take the camera wherever I go.
Will be travelling to Wash. DC for a vacation soon-need walkaround lens
Start dabbling with portrait work.

Hence, I want something that's pretty fast to capture that spur of the moment shot and I want very good IQ. That's important for the most part.
it seems to me the 17-70mm would be a good start and I would add like a 70-300mm down the road. Is the 18-250mm a better way to go? Is there something else I should consider?
Thanks,
Bill

Why assume you need more lenses? What can't you do with what you've got? Think tripod, wired and /or wireless remote release, Bryan Petersen's Book "Understanding Exposure. You have two good lenses that if I were shooting an event, would be on separate bodies. Instead of more lenses, get another K-7 and walk about with both. Often, there isn't time to change lenses. Get a tripod. Find out what you can do with a $65 manual flash and a $20 wireless trigger. The 70-210 is great for parks, kids, DC and portraits. Can even do macro with tripod. 35/2.4 is wide and fast for inside and close. Get extra batteries and memory cards. Get a Spyder or Huey and calibrate your monitor. Buy a used copy of Real World Camera Raw and read it and you'll know more than most. LIghtroom. Shoot Raw. Make a lot of mistakes, take chances. Good glass is important but it won't make you a photographer.

[SpecialK]

I also have the older Sigma 17-70 that I got used here. Not quite the same IQ as the DA Ltds or the 12-24, but it is the right focal length for a flexible single-lens option.

17/18-50 is not long enough (sold it), and the 28-75 was not wide enough (sold it).

If you are thinking "70-300" in the future, consider the Pentax 55-300 instead, which is much better IQ than the Sigma or Tamron.

[RioRico]

I have the k7 with the DA 35 f 2.4 lens and the VIvitar Series 1 70-210mm. I'm still learning how to use those but obviously I need to add some more lenses to my kit. For starters I want to add a pretty good lens and go from there in the near future. Here's what I My interests are:

I like macro ie. flowers, insects, and telephoto ie. birds, animals, nature
Going to parks with the 3 and 8 yr old boys and out around town
Soccer/sports with the kids
I take a lot of pics of the kids inside and outside and often take the camera wherever I go.
Will be travelling to Wash. DC for a vacation soon-need walkaround lens
Start dabbling with portrait work.

Hence, I want something that's pretty fast to capture that spur of the moment shot and I want very good IQ. That's important for the most part.
it seems to me the 17-70mm would be a good start and I would add like a 70-300mm down the road. Is the 18-250mm a better way to go? Is there something else I should consider?

Whew, that's a lot of ground to cover! Here are a few points and suggestions:

* The DA18-250 or its Tamron twin are just the most flexible zooms around -- in decent light. I can do much of my shooting with my DA18-250 -- during the day. It's my basic walk- and drive-around lens. In lower light, you'll need to boost ISO on your K7. High-ISO noise can be fixed in PP, but motion-blur can't.

* The fast (and heavy) f/2.8 zooms in the ~17-50 or -70 range are popular. I'll have to try one someday. I do use slower 28-80 and 35-70 lenses to good effect. There are a couple kinds of speed: wide aperture, and fast AF. The most agile lens I know is the F35-70: VERY fast AF, sharp as a bag of primes, good for close (almost macro) work, and CHEAP.

* Fast sports and not-close action and wildlife|birding take either long fast heavy costly (if AF) lenses, or boosted IQ. My only glass in that area is the same as yours, Vivitar Series 1 70-210. (I have a f/3.5 version 1 and a f/2.8-4 version 3.) With careful use, and some Catch-In-Focus help, I almost don't care they're not AF.

* Even 15-16-17-18mm won't be wide enough for many situations. I had the option to get either Sigma 10-20, the DA12-24, or the Tamron 10-24. For reasons of IQ, range, cost, warranty, and QC, I chose the Tamron.

* My gotta-get-the-shot lens is the FA50/1.4, almost as agile as the F35-70. For low light, action, DOF control, a Fast Fifty is hard to beat. For a bit more reach with no speed loss, I'll screw a Sony 1.5x tele adapter onto its front. (NOT a rear-mounted TC, which eats light.) Similar glass by Olympus, Canon, Kowa etc is available, usually cheap. With or without an add-on, the FA50 is good for portraiture.

* For shooting squirmin' vermin (my grandkids) indoors, I use fast manual primes, especially the Vivitar-Kiron 24/2 and the slightly fishy Zenitar 16/2.8, as well as the FA50/1.4. Also the F35-70 with an ISO boost, because sometimes its agility is more important than a wide aperture. But wider lenses offer a unique advantage: you can shoot at slower shutter speeds and still stop motion.

* Macros -- a huge subject. Allow me to plug my article: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-b...lose-work.html

So, a 17-70/2.8 would probably be a good lens to have, but I don't personally know it. To supplement what you have, I *would* recommend obtaining some subset of:

* AF DA18-250 for utility. It's my basic lens; all my 235 others are specialty items.
* AF Tamron 10-24 for tight situations; and MF Zenitar 16/2.8 where speed matters.
* MF Vivitar-Kiron 24/2 for speed; and AF FA50/1.4 for speed, DOF control, portraits.
* AF F35-70 for fast reaction or near-macro; and see my CHEAP MACRO article.

Hope this helps. Have fun!

---

Last edited by RioRico; 05-18-2012 at 01:40 AM.

[sam-joseph]

I have a K7 as well, along with a Sigma 17-70 and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO (one of the early versions).
That's not a bad kit so far, and I really only want to add a Sigma 30mm f1.4, and maybe a Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro.
Then again, the Samyang 85mm f1.4 and 8mm lenses are looking good. Must go now and take my LBA pill.

Regards

[calicojack]

The simple answer is, "Yes, you do".
Sigma 17-70, 2.8-4.5, older version is my "kit" lens (replaced the original Vivitar 28-105 Series 1).

[mysticcowboy]

I have a Pentax 18-250 that I haven't used in a year. I should probably sell it. It's not a bad lens but isn't as sharp as using 2 higher quality lenses over that focal length. There will always be the tradeoff between the convenience of a super zoom and the sharpness and speed of shorter range zooms. There are times I've missed a shot when changing lenses. There have been other times that I've gotten poor photos because the 18-250 has such a small aperture.

I have a Tamron 17-50 and a Pentax 55-300. Those covers a lot of bases, and the same focal range as a 17-70 + a 70-300. The Pentax is a better lens than the Tamron 70-300, though it's also more expensive.

The funny thing is that my 35mm 2.4 lives on my K-5 most of the time now. I guess it's not funny. I started Pentax cameras with the K-1000 and a 50mm, so spent years with that focal length. My next lens will be the Sigma 24mm 1.8. Then I'll have the modern equivalent of my two old standbys a 50mm and a 35, or close enough.

If you want to get serious about closeups, you'll probably want to consider a dedicate macro lens. General purpose lenses don't do great macro shots and macro lenses are very slow focusing for general purpose work, especially with moving targets, like kids.