[Deiberson]

i posted this on a skiing thread.....i'm going to repost here for some "professional" opinions.

"i've wanted a dslr for a few years but never made the big step. i am looking for something simple, that can take quality photos and one that is inexpensive (realativelty speaking). i have a few questions so, i'm not expecting someone to answer all of them, but if you could give me a nugget here and there i'd appreciate it.

1. when my grandfather passed away i got a bunch of his camera gear wchich included 2 pentax bodies and maybe 7 or 8 lenses. they are old, but in very good shape, probelm is, only one is an auto focus. here's a few of them...keep in mind these numbers mean nothing to me.
vivitar 70-210mm f4.5 1:4x
pentax A50mm f1.4
ricoh 1:2.2 55mm
pentax 35-70mm f2.8 AF zoom
tele-astranar 1:6.3 f=400mm
pentax 1.2 50mm

i took these lenses to a ritz camera shop and had the guy look at them, he was surprised at how well kept they were and their overall condition. we also took these lenses, which are about 25 years old, and mounted them to a new pentax dslr. all but one fit. obviously i feel obligated to go with a pentax dslr with all of these lenses that i have. so my first question is...since these lenses are not auto focus, should i even consider them as part of the equation for a purchase or would i be better off going with a kt that provides 2 lenses in the package that are auto focus?

2. the pentax that kit (k2000 dslr) that i'm looking at comes with this
"18-55mm F3.5-5.6 and a 50-200mm F4.0-5.6" are these lenses sufficient and can they be used for skiing pics?

3. with these 2 lenses that come with the kit, would i even be using my older ones?

4. i noticed in the reveiw that it is not a weather sealed body. the k200d however is. does this make that much of a difference?

5. anyone using this camera?

/ "


the answers i received are here
:: View topic - entry level dslr question..pentax k2000

any suggestions?

meanwhile, i'll read some of the previously posted threads.

[Deiberson]

they seem to be using a 18-250. does this seem about right and what do they mean by "not the sharpest lens"?

[fccwpe]

Well, you really have some fantastic lenses. Check e-bay to see how REALLY desirable they are (AND THEY ARE!!!). I would go with a Pentax. My Dad is giving me a bunch of really beautiful Nikon lenses because they won't work on the new Nikon DSLR's. Pentax is totally backward compatible (some require a $30 adapter).

[paulelescoces]

While my opinion is certainly not that of a "professional" I do know enough to tell you that you have some nice lenses there (I enviously eye the 50 1.2) but you will likely need to get yourself into photograpy before you can appreciate how great they can be... using the kit lenses which come with the camera will be an easier start... I also think the kit lenses are better suited to skiing ( a keen skiier myself) due to relative lightweight and autofocus of the kit zooms... as you are skiing a weather resistant body and lens package could be a great option... with the K7 you get all of that in a relatively small package which will be more useful for skiing.
Also, the advantages that you have with some of the lenses you have is that they will function very well in low light (50 1.2, 50 1.4, 35-70 2.8) but when you are skiing you dont have this issue (everything is white... lots of light). If you start to use a DSLR outside of skiing these lenses are sure to be of great use.... and in reduced light... far more useful than the kit lenses.
At least make sure that if you were to sell them that you do your investigations to get a reasonable price (some of these are valuable items)

[paulelescoces]

aah, and to answer your second question...
The perfect lens does not exist... all that does exist is a balance of Price, Weight, Flexibility, Speed, Size, image quality......... and a lot more....
the 18-250 is very flexible... is not too large, reasonable price, image quality is "not the sharpest"... what I mean here is that it is a lens where the balance is weighted very firmly on flexibility...at the cost of the rest which includes image quality.
The manual fixed (non-zoom) lenses could be considered the opposite side of this balance... they are "inflexible"... but with a strength in another area. (e.g. low light, image quality).

[Deiberson]

so would the k2000 be sufficient for a beginner? i'm leaning towards just the 18-55 kit and picking up an additional 18-250 lens.

keep in mind, none of those lenses that i mentioned are auto focus.

i like the idea of a compact dslr for carrying in the woods when i ski. i'm guessing that the k2000 is pretty small. but i never held one.

[Ash]

The K2000 is more than enough for a beginner, and is as capable as many of the "pro" cameras around.
Buy you may want to consider getting the kit 18-55 and combine it with the 55-300 for even more range. The 55-300 is much better at giving good images at the long end than the Pentax 18-250.

[WMBP]

so my first question is...since these lenses are not auto focus, should i even consider them as part of the equation for a purchase or would i be better off going with a kt that provides 2 lenses in the package that are auto focus?

I think this is hard to answer. Auto-focus does make things easier. I use it myself 90% of the time, perhaps more than that. But you do not HAVE to auto-focus, not even to shoot moving targets. You just have to learn how to do it without auto-focus - the way everybody used to.

The one thing you might want to be aware of is that the Pentax dslrs don't come with a split focusing screen. The viewfinder (where you focus manually) is nice and bright and sharp. But the cameras don't originally come with any focusing help. You'll find that a number of the folks in this forum have decided to install a Katz Eye focusing screen, which will help you with manual focusing.

the pentax that kit (k2000 dslr) that i'm looking at comes with this
"18-55mm F3.5-5.6 and a 50-200mm F4.0-5.6" are these lenses sufficient and can they be used for skiing pics?

Sure, you can use anything for almost anything. I mean, these are not bad lenses, and together they cover the range from 18-200mm quite nicely. Don't know where you expect to stand but my guess is you'd be using the 50-200 most of the time.

3. with these 2 lenses that come with the kit, would i even be using my older ones?

That would be up to you. Those fast lenses you listed (the f/1.2 50, for example) will help you when the light's low, and will allow you to shoot with VERY narrow depth of field, which can be a nice effect. Does mean you have to get the focus exactly right.

But it's ultimately going to be up to you and your personal prefs. I started using a number of zooms. Last year I decided that I would switch to using prime (fixed focal-length) lenses most of the time.

If you decided that you don't like using the older lenses, you can sell them.

4. i noticed in the reveiw that it is not a weather sealed body. the k200d however is. does this make that much of a difference?

Well, maybe, maybe not. If I were shooting outside in the snow, I think I'd be happier with a sealed body (and preferably a sealed lens, too). But it's not essential. Lots of photographers - including some pros - shoot without sealed bodies. You learn what not to do, how to protect the camera, etc.


Will

[blu3ness]

A50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2 are amazing lenses......

[arbib]

Well, as others has said, the K2000 is great camera to start with. The lens choice is the normal kit lens DA 18-55 AL-II, the tele choice just depends on your need of extra reach..the 50-200 and the 50-300 either is a good choice.
Keepers: Pentax A 50mm f/1.4 AND the 50mm f/1.2 for primes. (great indoor/outdoor at night no flash lenses), and the Pentax 35-70 f/2.8 AF Zoom. Don't sell them until you have done some research on "Current" used market prices..Hint..They're going up in value as I type as very desirable lenses. Those 3 lenses are TOP SHELVE lenses from Pentax!
Welcome to the Pentax Forum.

[Deiberson]

i'll post some pics of these things so you guys can help me out. i have no idea what i have or what's worth keeping.

if i went with this as an additional lens on top of the 18-55....
Pentax SMC DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED (21720)

is it considered "slow"....i'm assuming by these replies that the 50mm f1.2 is considered "fast" so f.4 is slow?

also, what does prime mean? i know i still have a lot of research to do on this stuff. if there are better threads for me to read...throw them my way. i don't want to clutter the forum.

out of curiosity, what is a 50mm f1.2 and a50mm1.4 worth? keep in mind..manual focus.

[Peter Zack]

1) a prime lens is a fixed length lens. I can not zoom like a lens such as the 55-300 where you can "zoom in" on a subject to get closer or "zoom out" to get a wider shot. A prime's advantage is the optics are better (sharper) and the lens is normally 'faster'. Plus you have normally more creative control with a fast prime.

Faster means the ablitity of the lens in low light. So a lens that is f1.4 is 3 "stops" faster than an f4 lens. This means you can use faster shutter speeds when shooting in any given scene. It could easily make the difference between getting a clear shot in a dark situation and a blurry shot.

Post close up photos of the lenses that shows the data printed around the front ring or the side. We need to see stuff like Pentax SMC f50mm f1:1.2. (I'm gonna bet that this is actually an f1:2 lens and not an f1:1.2)

The 55-300mm is a "slower" lens but there are worse. Unless you plan to take close ups indoors at night, this will be fine. It's primary application would be outdoor daylight shooting and it does a fine job at that.

[Ash]

There are no autofocus f/1.2 lenses for Pentax cams AFAIK, so the value of your "1.2" lens would be in the hundreds if it really was a 1:1.2 lens, whereas if our suspicions are true and you really have a "1:2" lens, then it is worth only tens of dollars.

[Deiberson]

here are some pics of the lenses that i took this morning. after looking at them in the photo's, it looks like they are dusty. funny, you can't see that when you look at them with the naked eye. anyway, tell me what you think i should do. the price on the one lens box says 600 bucks? can that be correct? the lens is at least 15-20 years old.















i guess its worth noting that i also have 2 bodies that he left behind too. a k1000 is one of them. not sure if that's worth anything.
after checking out the b and h site, it looks like i could pull of (price wise) a kx with the 18-55 and 50-300mm lenses. i'm hoping that, in addition to what i have, would make a good beginner set-up. unless of course you guys recommend that i stick with the k2000.
is there anything weather sealed that i could get with those 2 lenses for around 800 bucks?

thanks for the help, i appreciate all of it.

[Peter Zack]

Well feature for feature the KX is the better buy. That's the model I'd suggest. The KX has the additional movie capability and it has an upgraded sensor with much better low light sensitivity.

As for the lenses above, all should be good performers. The MEF 35-70mm f2.8 is a fast lens. It was the very first auto focus lens and is expensive. In fact a similar lens from today (say a Sigma 28-70mm lens would still run you $400 or so).

It will feel a little cumbersome because the motor is large under the lens barrel. But as far as I know, it will mount on the camera and Works very well. I've seen a few that were modified to have the motor removed, but that's a bit messy and ugly. If it fits fine, i'd use it as is.

The other lenses are good starters and one is exceptional. That 50mm f1.4 is a gem. You will love what can be done with that lens. From the photos, I can not tell what most of the rest are. You did menthion that one did not fit the Pentax camera. Which one is that?

Also a good working K1000 is worth around $50 used these days and the MEF is hard to price. It's a bit of a collectors camera but probably not worth more than $100 I guess.

Sadly I win the bet. The other 50mm is indeed the SMC M 50mm f1:2 and not the f1:1.2 The former is worth $20.00 and the latter would have been worth $350-400 for an "M" version and $500-575.00 for and "A" version (like the other 50mm you have ).

Dust is not a huge issue unless it nearly blocks the light. Fungus and haze are much worse. Haze looks like cloudy glass and reduces contrast and sharpness in a lens. Fungus looks like "tree branches" growing out from a central spore. It can be throughout a lens or tiny spots. But with a magnifying glass, you can tell it clearly from dust. Bad fungus and toss the lens. Mild fungus and if the lens has value, get it cleaned. Average cleaning would be $50-60.00 and if needed we can recomend a lace for that.

From these shots, it would appear you don't have that issue, at least the ones I can see the glass clearly.