[crewl1]

crewl1 - In the setting of getting a K-50 for instance. Would it make sense to NOT pay the $200 more for the 2 kit lenses? I am asking because they come at quite a discount compared to their regular price, but on the other hand,,,I think I will need to upgrade anyway to the Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 anyway. That is to catch reasonable sports and low light (without flash) photos.

If you are planning to get the Tamron 2.8 zooms I am sure you will not be happy with the image quality of the kit lenses and probably won't take them out much.
The only reason to consider them is for the smaller size, and if they happen to be WR then you will be able to use them to shoot in rainy weather which you cannot do with the non weather proof Tamrons.
A more versatile lens that I do use quite a bit and sometimes is available as a kit is the DA 18-135 - it is WR, has good image quality and is a useful lens for family outings. I would put the money towards that one instead if it is available.
It will not replace the 2.8 zooms, regardless.

[Pepe Le Pew]

All of my kids do indoor and outdoor sports. I just read the K-50 review on this site and in the conclusion they advised that it is not a good choice for sports. Is that also the opinion of the K-50 owners here?

I own a K-30........... It's a hit and miss with 18-55 Wr Lense

But yes it can do sports........

[BrianR]

How long does a body last for average (non-pro) users..3 yrs, 5 yrs, 10 yrs?
How long to the lenses last? When you say forever, I imagine you mean over 10 years, maybe 20, 30? If I was to buy a Tamron 70-200, isn't it realistic to think that in a couple of years or maybe a bit longer Tamron will come up with a better 70-200 with better low light performance and things that would make an upgrade desirable? Or does that just not happen that much?

Digital bodies can last 10+ years, there are people here still using *istD's. They tend to drop in value faster then lenses though. A $700 k5iis might be worth $300 (or less) in 4 or 5 years, but a $600 Tamron 70-200 may still fetch $500 after 4 or 5 years.

If they release a new, more, awesome 70-200, expect the price tag to rise. They recently released a new version for Nikon/Canon mounts that has new optics and adds shake reduction and a silent focusing motor. The price doubled.

Before jumping on the theoretical upgrade treadmill, remember whatever lens/camera you buy will still be just as capable 10 years from now as it is today. New stuff will come out, but that doesn't make the old stuff any less capable in absolute terms.

[seacapt]

As one who learned the hard way and spent too much money on the wrong equipment let me throw in my 2cents.
When shooting sunny outdoor sports any long lens will work OK but for indoor or night games or concerts you really need F2.8 or faster glass. The kit lenses would probably be a useless waste for your stated intentions.
Everyone has and will say the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 are great lenses and they are correct.
Couple one of these with a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and you've got most all situations covered from family snaps to playoffs at the county arena. You may want to buy other glass with more specific purposes later but these 2 lenses will give you a great start.
IMHO the Tamron SP glass is super quality and the best bang for the buck.
I'd recommend putting the bulk of your money into the lenses , as has already been stated good glass will be around to see many bodies over a lot of years.
One way to save on the package would be to consider a K-30 body. It has the same sensor as the K-5 but you can buy it new for about $400.

Regarding your question on longevity of equipment , Of the 3 Pentax digital bodies I've owned K20 , K200 and istDL , I still own 2 and the third I gave to a friend . All still work fine. Now as far as lenses go a lot of what I use was made in the '70s or 80's.

---

Last edited by seacapt; 03-16-2014 at 04:27 PM.

[nkull]

Just want to add that the kit lenses with the K-50 are DAL lenses vs. DA lenses --- They can be found for less than $100 if you look for them. I got them with my K-50 and I do still use them for less than perfect weather, but my primary lens now is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (which I just got with my K-5ii and I absolutely love it) - The Sigma 50-200 f2.8 is on my list as the next-have-to-have lens.

Two more cents, I have some manual lenses (A and M 50 1.7s and a M 50 2.0), I have used them on an old pentax film SLR I have and on the K-50 ... I can focus them quickly on the film SLR (nice split-prism view finder and all) but I get mostly out of focus shots when I try to use them on my DSLR. It's probably my lack of skill, but just wanted to point out that my MF lenses are generally not used because I struggle with them. I just don't think that current cameras are built with manual focus in mind, especially if compared to cameras that were designed with manual focus as their primary focusing method. I know I can replace the focus screen and get better results, but I have struggled with the idea that my metering can get messed with and that the VF becomes dimmer if I do... I am just not sure that using MF is worth it... Just my unskilled opinion

[DSims]

DSims - The k5iis is seeming like a better and better option to me. Do you have a battery grip recommendation that you can make? One thing that I keep on thinking about is upgrading $600 more and getting a lens that I would want to buy anyway and then also getting the newer camera and the grip. However, the crazy mirror flapping is scaring me away from the K-3.

Sorry, I don't think I saw this post until now.

The BG I got was from here over a year ago - I think it's still the same one. Not quite as solid as the original from Pentax (I have 1 of each - 1 per camera) but good enough, and a great value. Mine's a nearly exact replica in slightly cheaper plastic - so close that I can actually exchange the battery drawers and they still work! The Pentax is still worth what it costs, but not the best buy if you could apply the money elsewhere for other much needed parts of your kit. Don't worry about the description - it fits everything in the "higher-end" line from the K-7 to the K-5 IIs.

Battery Grip For Pentax K7 K-7 DSRL D-BG4 - Newegg.com

I don't think I'd let the K-3 mirror flap scare me too much - they'll have to fix it eventually. But I'd be a little afraid of spending almost $600 in lens money on the price difference. Did I already mention I spent at least 5-7 times the price of my K-x (bought new for almost as much as the K-5 IIs today) on lenses before I ever "upgraded" to a K-5 (it was an upgrade, but the ROI in IQ was so much more with my lenses)? I wouldn't even "let" you entertain the thought of a K-3 right now if you weren't shooting sports (pretending I actually had any say). Sell the K-5 IIs in a year or three for about $400-500 and upgrade to the best new thing at that time. The K-3 will end up depreciating almost to the level of the K-5 IIs. Most lenses hold their value (if bought used - sometimes even go up). And many people end up needing 2 bodies anyway, so save your money right now.

[radman]

Just want to add that the kit lenses with the K-50 are DAL lenses vs. DA lenses --- They can be found for less than $100 if you look for them. I got them with my K-50 and I do still use them for less than perfect weather, but my primary lens now is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (which I just got with my K-5ii and I absolutely love it) - The Sigma 50-200 f2.8 is on my list as the next-have-to-have lens.

Two more cents, I have some manual lenses (A and M 50 1.7s and a M 50 2.0), I have used them on an old pentax film SLR I have and on the K-50 ... I can focus them quickly on the film SLR (nice split-prism view finder and all) but I get mostly out of focus shots when I try to use them on my DSLR. It's probably my lack of skill, but just wanted to point out that my MF lenses are generally not used because I struggle with them. I just don't think that current cameras are built with manual focus in mind, especially if compared to cameras that were designed with manual focus as their primary focusing method. I know I can replace the focus screen and get better results, but I have struggled with the idea that my metering can get messed with and that the VF becomes dimmer if I do... I am just not sure that using MF is worth it... Just my unskilled opinion

nkull,

I understand that the kits are DAL, but I read that they are the same optics but a plastic mount instead of metal. Is this your understanding also? Do I remember that correctly?
At least new the 18-55mm is $150 and the 50-200 is $200 ish as I recall. As a kit, they can be purchased new for $200 total. However, I am debating whether or not to get the 2 kit lenses mentioned or instead the 18-135
for about the same price.

I have also thought about not getting any of the kit lenses and saving the money for more expensive lenses right up front. Thereby, saving money on lenses that I may eventually not use or at most use rarely.

Thanks for the information,

radman

[nkull]

Also no hoods, no quick shift for focus, not sure of any other differences...

[radman]

Also no hoods, no quick shift for focus, not sure of any other differences...

Hi nkull,

Thanks for the information. I just read about quick shift. I do not fully understand it. However, from what I was able to gather, it would be pretty useful for a beginner like me.

Regards,

radman

---------- Post added 03-21-14 at 02:11 PM ----------

Digital bodies can last 10+ years, there are people here still using *istD's. They tend to drop in value faster then lenses though. A $700 k5iis might be worth $300 (or less) in 4 or 5 years, but a $600 Tamron 70-200 may still fetch $500 after 4 or 5 years.

If they release a new, more, awesome 70-200, expect the price tag to rise. They recently released a new version for Nikon/Canon mounts that has new optics and adds shake reduction and a silent focusing motor. The price doubled.

Before jumping on the theoretical upgrade treadmill, remember whatever lens/camera you buy will still be just as capable 10 years from now as it is today. New stuff will come out, but that doesn't make the old stuff any less capable in absolute terms.

Hi BrianR,

That's great information. I appreciate the explanation. Nice point at the end...just because there may be another newer and better camera,,,the original is still just as good as it ever was, it did not all of the sudden become a "worse" camera.

Best,

radman

---------- Post added 03-21-14 at 02:19 PM ----------

If you are planning to get the Tamron 2.8 zooms I am sure you will not be happy with the image quality of the kit lenses and probably won't take them out much.
The only reason to consider them is for the smaller size, and if they happen to be WR then you will be able to use them to shoot in rainy weather which you cannot do with the non weather proof Tamrons.
A more versatile lens that I do use quite a bit and sometimes is available as a kit is the DA 18-135 - it is WR, has good image quality and is a useful lens for family outings. I would put the money towards that one instead if it is available.
It will not replace the 2.8 zooms, regardless.

Hi crewl1,

What you are saying makes a lot of sense to me. Especially now that I realize that the kit lenses are NOT even as good as their corresponding non-kit options.

That being said, I was considering these kit lenses becauuse of the WR capabilities. You mentioned the 18-135 as a better option in comp to the 18-55 and 50-200. I think that one may not even have a DAL option.
Please comment on this thought - instead of a Tamron 70-200 mm (which I understand is an excellent option for indoor sports),,,instead I purchase a Pentax DA* 60-250.

Please tell me your thoughts on the 60-250 for indoor sports.
I imagine being able to get this WR lens for not much more than the Tamron 70-200 + the 18-135.
Obviously the Pentax has more range, but it is an F4.

Thanks again,

radman

[TER-OR]

If you're looking at the more expensive faster lenses like the Tamron 70-200 I'd consider the 18-135 as an all-around lens - useful for those rainy days. In this case I'd skip the 2-lens kit set and start with the two above lenses.

Recently Adam ran a comparison of the 55-300 HD vs. the 60-250. What I found most concerning was the slowness of the 60-250 when trying to follow action. From what I've read, that Tammy 70-200 is the go-to choice for sports etc. at moderate distance.

HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR Review - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

[crewl1]

Please comment on this thought - instead of a Tamron 70-200 mm (which I understand is an excellent option for indoor sports),,,instead I purchase a Pentax DA* 60-250.

Please tell me your thoughts on the 60-250 for indoor sports.
I imagine being able to get this WR lens for not much more than the Tamron 70-200 + the 18-135.
Obviously the Pentax has more range, but it is an F4.

Thanks again,

radman

I have not used the 60-250 so can't comment on its applicability for indoor sports.
Image quality is supposed to be great.

I have the 18-135 for a compact all purpose outdoor daylight lens with WR.
I do not use it for indoor sports, my indoor wide angle lens is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens.

[crewl1]

Quite honestly any current Pentax camera will do OK, with some models having extra benefits, but the key is the lens.

I wanted to make sure I backed up this statement with some recent testing, so I took the K-30 along with K-5 and K-3 to a dance competition this weekend.

The lighting was really bad. The gym bulbs had an effect of showing a different color cast every other shot, very hard to set white balance.

DSims was there as well and he was shooting his K-5II and K-5 at around 10,000 ISO, while I topped my gear out at ISO6400 so I used a slightly lower shutter speed than Dave.

In any case I put the Sigma 70-200OS on my K-30, and I felt the shots were of equal quality to the K-5 and K-3. Biggest difference was the slower continuous shooting FPS.
(And actually in the unprocessed shots the K-3 seems to show a bit more grain at matching ISO.)

These shots have been post processed with Lightroom 4: adjusted white balance, added noise reduction, and bumped exposure.

K-30, ISO 5000, F3.2, 1/400


K-3, ISO 5000, F3.2, 1/400

[nort]

Hi,

I am interested in a DSLR for family photos primarily.

All of my kids do indoor and outdoor sports. I just read the K-50 review on this site and in the conclusion they advised that it is not a good choice for sports.
Is that also the opinion of the K-50 owners here? ----Here is the quote from the forum's review: "If you're interested in sports photography or filmmaking, then the K-50 would not be the ideal choice"

The sports I am hoping to get better shots of are indoor and outdoor field hockey and soccer and indoor gymnastics. I would also consider the K-5iis and the
K-3, but since this will be my first SLR ever, I thought I might save some cash and start out with the K-50 and work my way up. On the other hand, I do not want
to sell or "buy" myself short and get a camera that will not be good for sports.

I am on a budget such that I am not planning on getting "expensive" lenses at the time of my camera purchase. I need to save up for lenses later.
The K-50 I saw for $700 came with 18-55 and 50-200 kit lenses. I was planning on adding a 50mm f/1.8 "telephoto" for indoor shooting and then cropping photos - I know not ideal, but what I can afford for right now.
I think that compared to my Panasonic zoom point and shoot camera; I will be able to get better (but not ideal) pics with this set up while saving up money for better lenses.

Please send me your thoughts on the K-50 vs K-5iis vs K-3...I know they are all on sale and I really want to buy the right one the first time.

Sincerely,

Brian

Hi nort here
I bought the k-50fie a family camera . I paid 715 taxes paid with aa batty pack and remote. I found a used lens for what I cal a good dad lens or holiday lens hoping it will cove basic Ned's with beter photos than my point and shoot cameras in the past there were not consist. It would be nice to compare keep I touch weather or not we made the right choice and can take good family photos ... Lol