Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-18-2006, 11:54 PM   #16
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6
Inexpensive primes...

QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
... does it make more sense for someone like myself to be spending money on glass or money on cameras?
The conventional wisdom is the good glass will get you further than a good body.

To answer the question in the context of the K100D/K10D, we really need a little more data. DPReview's review of the K10D, the first I have seen, suggests that JPGs produced in the camera are slightly soft and somewhat lacking in dynamic range. To get the best results, you would have to either shoot RAW or post-process. If you are not willing to do either, present indications are that you would not be using the K10D to best advantage, and your money might better be spent on lenses.

However, DPR's assessment of the K10D is disputed by many Pentax owners, and it will be interesting to see whether other reviewers, especially imaging-resource.com, find the same set of issues. If you are willing to shoot RAW, or if other reviewers disagree with DPR, or if Pentax produces a firmware update which addresses DPR's objections, the K10D would be more attractive. FWIW, I have the K100D and am saving for lenses, not the K10D.

Regardless lenses, I have the 50-200, the Sigma 18-125, and recently purchased a used Sigma 28mm F2.8 prime. At 28mm, the Sigma is clearly the best lens I have for image quality. It is very bright, capturing dark detail which the 18-125 would miss. It is noticeably sharper than the 18-125. The brightness has disadvantages, because colors are less rich in good light, especially at long range, and the depth of focus is really thin. Accurate focus is essential. But when the focus is right, the lens produces an image which is lighter, crisper than any other lens I have.

So I'm definitely seeing that primes produce better images. This doesn't necessarily mean expensive primes; my 28mm was under $30 on eBay. Would the $800 31mm limited produce a picture which is $770 better than my 28mm? At my level of photography skill, I'm inclined to doubt it, but like you I'm very interested in seeing comparison shots.

--Brett

12-19-2006, 01:33 AM   #17
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Edmonton, AB Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 28
Pentax lenses vs other brands

Here is my two cents.

I would purchase other brands if I found something I liked but could not afford in a Pentax DA.

Right now I only own 8 decent Pentax lenses.

2- DA Kits lenses
1- K mount 135mm
4- M42 Super-Takumar lenses...best pictures come from these!
1- M42 SMC Takumar

I love the older lenses a lot.
12-19-2006, 09:30 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
this is a two person and 15 or more lenses compare conclusion.. two 100ds.. two people

my lenses..

pentax smc 1.7 50mm manual prime 15 off ebay.. superb.. my "yardstick" lens.. overall not that much use thow.. poor light shallow dof still-lifes perhaps..

tamron 18 x 200 walk around.. far better than those who dont actually dont have one think.. better than the pentax kit lens at its lower end..

sigma 70 x 300 apo dg.. superb if u dont pixel peep the extreme corners.. i did have to send back a not so good one thow.. it lost its shaprness a little too much wide open.. my second copy just works well no problems..

sigma 50mm f2.8 macro prime.. image quality superb and as good as the old pentax prime..

sigma 28 x 80 cheapo macro.. remakarble for the money and better than pentax kit lens for image quality.. bought just for its 1:2 macro ability..

tokina 35 x 300 super zoom.. very soft but looks well made..

old petri F2 28mm prime.. superb.. nice landscape lens.. but the 18 x 200 is too good so it probably wont get used..

old sigma 135mm F3.5 prime.. not super sharp would make a nice portrait lens.. very cheap nobody seems to want these for some reason.. nicely made..

old sigma 200mm macro prime.. looks well made but soft..

my sons lenses..

pentax kit lens.. been ebayed cos his tamron 18 x 200 super zoom does a better job at its bottom end..

tamron 70 x 300.. takes over where the 18 x 200 leaves off.. nice and sharp and works well.. not super good for fringes thow..

sigma EX f2.8 28 to 70mm.. his camera had problems with auto focus when wide open.. mine seemed to handle it thow.. back on ebay because of the auto focus problems with his camera..

various sigma and older shorter primes.. his latest F2.8 28mm prime produces similar image quality at 28mm as the tamron 18 x 200 does he cant really tell the pics apart..

overall.. the cheaper zooms are way better than common opinion leads one to believe.. not perfect thruout their entire range but very close to expensive glass quality at their sweetspots.. 50mm is usually a sweet spot..

i think at the end of all this pixel peeping.. i would be happy with the tamron 18 x 200 for general usage.. the sigma 70 x 300 macro for a different kind of general usage.. the sigma 50mm macro for table top macro and possibly a decent 2x tele converter to give a better working range for live stuff..

the faster primes.. well more novelty than anything else but possibly low light usage where the cheaper zooms just wont go..

so its zooms for me except for specalist use.. and the cheaper third party ones at that.. but if money was no object i think i would still go for the third party stuff its cheaper but not inferior.. and there is more choice..

i have a pentax camera but not many pentax lenses.. at 400 for a pentax 50mm macro no way..

trog

ps.. missed one off the list i shouldnt have.. older sigma 28 x 300 super zoom.. remarkably good with pirme like quality mostly but struggling a bit at its extreme 300mm end..

Last edited by trog100; 12-19-2006 at 09:51 AM.
12-19-2006, 10:04 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
mind u giving it some thought..

280 for the tamrom 18 x 200..

160 for sigma 70 to 300mm..

200 for the sigma 50mm prime macro..

640.. for what i consider a basic lense kit aint exactly cheap.. just cheap compared to what could be spent for similar coverage..

who is kidding who when they say an entry level dslr is in the same price range as a decent compact.. hmmm..

trog

12-19-2006, 10:29 AM   #20
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Brett Turner Quote
The conventional wisdom is the good glass will get you further than a good body.
Brett,

Thanks for that statement. Makes sense to me, and is also a bit reassuring.

Will
12-19-2006, 10:57 AM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,611
Will: unless there is a specific feature of the K10D that you need (or want a LOT) I'd stick with the K100D. Build up your lens collection. Here's why. Bodies come and go but good lenses stick around. Look at what all the posters who talk about their beloved old glass are taking pictures with. A 10 to 20 year old lens attached to a 4 year old body at the most! (I think the D came out 4 years ago). Basically lenses don't wear out very quickly, if you buy a good lens today, and take good care of it, most likely you will be shoothng with it loooooonnnnng after you K100D has gone by the wayside. Pentax's main claim to fame as far as I'm concerned is that their bodies and lenses are compatible with each other, especially new bodies and old lenses. I doubt that will change.
Many of the "old timers" are now saying that it's getting harder and harder to find "inexpensive old glass" I think that trend will continue as the K100D and the K10D both gain in popularity. I pretty much have the same choice as you except I shoot with the K100D's older brother the ist DS. I can either afford some nice glass or the K10D but not both. I've decided that my Xmas present to me will be a nice new FA* 77mm ltd, not the K10D!

east(for me, it's the glass, not the body)saltwater
12-19-2006, 11:08 AM   #22
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
Will: unless there is a specific feature of the K10D that you need (or want a LOT) I'd stick with the K100D. Build up your lens collection. ...

Saltwater,

Thanks for adding your observations. This is making a lot of sense now - and it's making me feel pretty good about where I am. Wish I'd had the $$ to get into the game with a more expensive camera. Some of those features on the 10D are pretty sweet. But I'm content to stick with the K100D and start collecting lenses.

Thanks to everybody who's responded in this thread. I've learned a lot from all of you.

Will
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, costs, dslr, lens, lenses, lenses vs, photography, sigma
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Old lenses getting rare... and expensive mediaslinky Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 35 09-18-2011 09:51 AM
Cheap Lenses, why is it. Oscar1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 02-19-2010 10:34 AM
So you thought Pentax Star lenses were expensive? SOldBear General Talk 8 08-20-2009 10:19 PM
Fixing (expensive) old lenses pentaxkat Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 11-05-2007 06:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:08 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