Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-12-2013, 08:13 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Merts's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 131
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
We've never to date sold a lens… because we can never agree on what should go, except , by now we should have sold one of our 3 DA 18-55s.
Lol.

Nobody needs one DA18-55 let alone three!

11-12-2013, 08:18 PM   #17
Site Supporter
bigted's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere on the Banks of the Red River
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,165
My favourite lens for the money has to be DA 35,MM F2.4. Some of my best shots have been made with this lens.
11-12-2013, 08:25 PM   #18
Site Supporter
Merts's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 131
The SMC Pentax-DA 35mm F2.4 AL is the next lens on my wish list.
Very reasonably priced and the reviews are excellent.

11-12-2013, 08:43 PM   #19
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 15
I couldn't agree more with those who have said a fast 50. You don't know what you're missing until you try one.

11-12-2013, 09:01 PM - 1 Like   #20
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,937
I don't understand why so many are recommending a 50mm or at least a short tele.

The 50mm lens was a good choice on an FF camera. It was a so-called "normal" lens, providing no perspective distortion for normal image viewing distances.

You get the same property on an APS-C camera with a 28mm lens. Note that the normal crop factor (1.5) conversion suggests that the focal length on APS-C should be 33mm but that's because a 50mm wasn't a perfect "normal" lens on FF either. A true normal lens on FF has 43mm (hence the FA 43/1.9).

For certain types of photography short teles are great and I love using my FA 43/1.9 on APC-S, but in terms of versatility, I'd recommend a 28mm. Since it does not offer any effect in terms of "angle exaggeration" (wide-angle) or "compression" (telephoto) it will teach you how to get a good image by composition and subject isolation alone.

A great 28mm for Pentax is the Sigma 28/1.8 EX DG Macro. It isn't a true 1:1 macro but has excellent close focusing abilities. It is also "fast" (f/1.8) and has very nice bokeh. Sharp as a tack as well and is future proof since it has an FF image circle, i.e., should you ever get a Pentax FF camera, you'll be able to use it as a classic 28mm wide-angle or normal lens (by cropping).
11-13-2013, 02:11 AM   #21
Yos
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 533
Another vote for the Pentax DA 35mm F2.4
Lightweight, good IQ, nice bokeh, good value for money, perfect walk around lens/street lens.
11-13-2013, 03:18 AM   #22
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fly-over, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,171
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I don't understand why so many are recommending a 50mm or at least a short tele.

The 50mm lens was a good choice on an FF camera. It was a so-called "normal" lens, providing no perspective distortion for normal image viewing distances.

You get the same property on an APS-C camera with a 28mm lens. Note that the normal crop factor (1.5) conversion suggests that the focal length on APS-C should be 33mm...

A great 28mm for Pentax...
+1 on a 28mm lens for APS-C...

I suggest you consider:

SMC Pentax-F 28mm F2.8 Reviews - F Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Works great as a 'go-to' indoor-outdoor prime paired with my K-5IIs. I'll be surprised if it disappoints.

Cheers... M
11-13-2013, 06:15 AM   #23
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,146
For the most part, I would agree with making your next purchase a prime lens, but it really depends upon what you like to shoot, your level of interest in photography, how you like to work, and your budget. If you think photography is something you'll stick with, then buy the best lens you can afford because chances are it will outlast your camera body, plus if you ever decide you want to get out of photography, it'll hold its resale value better. For me, a fast normal lens would get very little use because it just doesn't fit what I see and what I like to shoot. I like close-ups and landscapes, so if I were buying this for me, I would get a macro lens of some sort...probably something in the 90-100 mm range since that's a focal length that's not covered by my kit lens. But your interests may be different and that's why I don't think there's any single right answer folks can give you without knowing a bit more. I work with a guy who knows I'm into photography and he's constantly telling me, "I need to get with you one of these days and get your advice on buying a new camera. We need a good one at the house and I want something really nice that will take different lenses and get great pictures. And I'm willing to spend a lot for it. I'm talking even as much as $300." Something's gotta give there. lol

11-13-2013, 06:39 AM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
wizofoz's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Outer east.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,646
You don't give any indication of budget, so, at the risk of dissenting from the very, very good advice you have received about a lens in the 35-50ish mm range (and I'm not really arguing against that advice) If you want to find out how much better a lens can be, I suggest a 'portrait' lens.

Ranging from a fully manual everything wonder like a screw mount (plus adapter) 85mm F1.9 and others of it's ilk, through something like the variously badged Samyung 85mm f/1.4. to the ne plus ultra FA77 f/1.8 which is quite possibly the best portrait lens ever made, by anyone. And lets not forget the more modern equivalent, the DA 70mm (but I have no no personal experience with this lens)

Any of these lenses will give you a totally different way of looking at the world through your lens that a kit 18-55 cannot

Food for thought
11-13-2013, 07:15 AM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
What do YOU want to do? If you're looking to do some casual birding or wildlife pictures the DA55-300 lenses are a great choice.

If you're looking to increase your "photography-fu" then a prime "normal" lens is worth evaluating. The 35 or 28mm range will give this. I have a Sigma 28mm f1.8 which is really nice, but the DA35 f2.4 is much more affordable if you don't need macro capability.

If you're looking to really learn manual, then get an M or A series lens, they're not expensive and will teach you a lot.

Take your time acquiring lenses, and get lenses for the work you want to do.
11-13-2013, 08:07 AM   #26
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
TER-OR beats me to it but it totally depends on your needs. And your needs are probably not the same as mine.

When I started with photography in the 80s (Minolta X700), the kit lens was a 50/1.7. Due to my interests, the first need was something wider so I added a 28/2.8. The next need was a flash and that was added. The last need was a telezoom (70-210) and that was added.

When I switched to digital (K10D + DA18-55), my first priority was to cover the focal range and I added the DA55-300. The next priority was low-light and it should have been a choice between a fast 50 (in ff terms) and a flash; fortunately some funds came along and I could buy both at the same time.

When the need arises, I will add a UWA zoom like Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-14.

Hope this helps.
11-13-2013, 08:38 AM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,416
When I started with the K10, my first was a 16-45 and then quickly the Tamron 70-300. A big reason for me to go DSLR was macro, and I had decided on the FA100mm. After that I rented a few lenses and fell for the 10-17 Fisheye. My wife loved the pictures, so the money was approved!

It was a while before any other lenses of note. Really, that kit kept me until getting the K-5.
11-13-2013, 10:04 AM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,417
QuoteOriginally posted by TER-OR Quote
What do YOU want to do? Take your time acquiring lenses, and get lenses for the work you want to do.
I completely agree with this sentiment. To advocate one lens over another, or a prime over a zoom isn't necessarily the best advice.
My first thought upon reading your question was "I don't have enough info to adequately answer your query."

My kit has gone through many evolutions, most of it budget driven, some of it style driven.

I personally dislike the concept of buying any lens manual, prime etc "to make you a better photographer". You get better by taking pictures and having reputable people critique them in a constructive manner. You take classes, go on field seminars. Having the best prime in the world won't make you a better photographer if you don't know what your doing. And which prime? 50mm? Too long if you love landscapes. 28mm? Maybe good for landscapes, but still a bit narrow, and horrible for animals. 15-20mm? great for landscapes but useless for anything else 70/77mm? too short for animals, but great for portraits. Maybe a macro? but then would it be a bug macro (100-150mm) or a flower macro (35 or 50mm)

And then there's the hassle of changing lenses because, despite contrary snarky opinions, you can't always zoom with your feet. At one point I had the DA15, DA21, FA28, FA35, DA40, F50, and Sigma 50-500 lenses in my bag. I got really really tired of sticking three lenses in my pocket and changing them while perched precariously on a rock in the middle of a stream, creek or river. And if it was summer, often I didn't have enough pockets anyway, so I'd have to rock hop back to my bag to get a lens. What a pain in the butt! Also, every time you change lenses, you are inviting dust to your sensor. When I was almost all prime, I was constantly dealing with dust.

I have now gone back to mainly zooms. I don't have to rock hop as much, I have better in camera composition control (ie less post production cropping) and I have much less dust problems because I'm not constantly changing lenses as I run through the perspectives of each shoot.

So, I guess my answer is that I don't have an answer until I know are you a landscape photog? waterfalls or open spaces? people and portraits? street? architecture? wildlife? large game or small game? and what is your budget? and what are you plans for these photos? are you going to try and sell them or just put them on facebook? will they every see a 16x20 print?

Without answers to those questions, touting one lens over another will only lead you down the wrong path, cause confusion, and/or cost you money
11-13-2013, 11:05 AM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 392
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
A great 28mm for Pentax is the Sigma 28/1.8 EX DG Macro. It isn't a true 1:1 macro but has excellent close focusing abilities. It is also "fast" (f/1.8) and has very nice bokeh. Sharp as a tack as well and is future proof since it has an FF image circle, i.e., should you ever get a Pentax FF camera, you'll be able to use it as a classic 28mm wide-angle or normal lens (by cropping).
Class A, I've seen you recommend the Sigma 28mm a few times in different posts. I assume you have one and I'd love to see some of your shots taken with it that you think really show off it's strengths.

I keep finding myself looking at the 24mm sigma but I also keep getting put off of it by the photos I find on the net that were taken with it. On the other hand, I rented the 28mm sigma a while ago and a few of my test shots with it are quite nice.
11-13-2013, 12:46 PM   #30
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,815
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I don't understand why so many are recommending a 50mm or at least a short tele.
Because 50mm is the best focal length ever!

OK, maybe the focal length is not for everyone. But you can get any flavor of 50 from Horus-Bennu to Zeiss, manual focus to HSM, new or six decades old, etc. If you like 28mm instead, there are a lot of them but a lot of crappy ones, not many Pentaxes or autofocus or cheap but good.

They also have uses. They make great portrait lenses, with a broad choice of bokeh styles. An f1.4 50mm is four stops faster than the DA 18-55 at 50mm, which is handy. Narrow depth of field is really easy.

There's a strong case for making it a first non-kit lens, even if later you move on to something else.
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, lens, non-kit, pentax help, photography, purchase
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can't decide! what would you choose/suggest? chaude Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 11-28-2011 03:28 PM
bad ebay purchase, what would you do? ripit General Talk 43 07-18-2011 10:31 PM
What would you suggest? stepvdh Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 12-27-2008 11:40 AM
What would you suggest for a crop for this BPT Post Your Photos! 2 10-27-2008 08:00 PM
Montreal visiting (end of september) what would you suggest? fortis Photographic Technique 11 08-22-2008 11:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:28 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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