[edwin_1980]

Hi all,

I want to buy a Pentax K10D

Here at the local store they sell the Pentax in different kits.

1st: Pentax K10D + AF 18-55DA + AF 50-200 DA
2nd: Pentax K10D + Sigma 18-200
3rd: Pentax K10D + Tamron 18-200

I did some searching on the lenses
I think i go for the 1st, or is that not a good idea?

All advise is welcome

Thanks

[Alvin]

Welcome Edwin,

The lens selection depends on what you like to shoot.

Personally, I like the first kit. Bolt on the telephoto for most of the shooting then when you need to go wider (ie. indoors or tighter rooms), switch. The other benefit of the 50-200 is slightly faster than the Sigma and Tamron at the long end, so you may be able to get away with a few more better exposed flash shots.

Of course, if you find yourself going through the entire range a lot, you may find switching lenses a pain. A lot of times, I switch from my kit lens to fisheye, to 80-200 and I don't find the switching a problem. I keep a dust blower in my lens bag, just in case too.

[Lowell Goudge]

Hi all,

I want to buy a Pentax K10D

Here at the local store they sell the Pentax in different kits.

1st: Pentax K10D + AF 18-55DA + AF 50-200 DA
2nd: Pentax K10D + Sigma 18-200
3rd: Pentax K10D + Tamron 18-200

I did some searching on the lenses
I think i go for the 1st, or is that not a good idea?

All advise is welcome

Thanks

As others have commented, it depends on shooting preferences.
I don't have any of these lenses and do not recall the speed of the lenses, but my preference would be to go for the fastest lenses. If there is no difference at 200 mm in speed, take the fastest in the range 18-55 mm since that will be a primary focal length range for indoor low light shots and the fastest lens will have the brightest view finder.

Note that if you want to do any serious landscape or archetecture, you will find 18mm is not wide enough, and you may wish to re-think that lens, although not in the kit the 12-24 may be a better selection.

When I took the K10 I opted for a sigma 10-20mm, but I have 50 pounds of other lenses and was looking specifically to get something I didn't have.

[davemdsn]

I don't have personal experience with the new super zooms but I do know that it is very difficult to make a zoom that has more than 3-5x and still maintain excellent clarity. These super zooms are a little more than 11x zooms. While there may be sweet spots where they perform very well, there are likely sour spots as well.

I would look at what you want to photograph and get the lens that will do that the best, then add other great lenses later on.

[WMBP]

Hi all,

1st: Pentax K10D + AF 18-55DA + AF 50-200 DA
2nd: Pentax K10D + Sigma 18-200
3rd: Pentax K10D + Tamron 18-200

I did some searching on the lenses
I think i go for the 1st, or is that not a good idea?

I came to the digital SLR world last fall after spending several years using a Canon PowerShot S-series camera, often called a "superzoom." (I had the S1, S2 and S3.) Those cameras were extremely versatile - pretty good wide angle, all the way to very good telephoto - so when I bought the K100D with the kit lens, I very quickly chafed at the fact that the lens stopped at 55mm.

Next lens I purchased was the Pentax 50-200. Excellent lens. Here is a photo I took at a school Christmas pageant with that lens a day or two after it arrived. It was a nice lens, I think, especially for the price. The problem was, I felt that my focal length options were breaking in just the wrong place, that is, what I really wanted was a lens that went from, oh, 30mm to about 120mm, for carrying around on the camera.

So I have the Tamron 18-200 now as my walking-around lens. I'm rather happy with it. I also have the Tamron 70-300. Here's a picture taken the other day at the lake with the 70-300; I think it's sharp enough.

As everybody else has said, it all depends on what you want to do. But I will add to that by saying that it's difficult for people who are new to digital SLR photography to know very well what they want - or how much they can spend to get it. If I were doing it over again, knowing what I know now (impossible, of course, but if...), I'd buy the camera with the body only, and my first lens would be the Tamron 18-200 or something similarly versatile (28-110 would also do). Just my two cents and not a recommendation regarding what YOU should do.

Good luck,

Will

[Mallee Boy]

G'day Edwin,
Stay with the first kit, assuming the two lens are Pentax products...?
However, what I would be asking about is the Pentax 16-45 or the Sigma 17-70 f2.8. Also if money was not an issue I would also be asking about the new DA 16-50.

I do not own the K10, my DS is ok for now, but what I am picking up from reading comments by K10 owners is that those who shoot with a better quality lens seem to be happier with the results in general.

My 2 cents worth.
Cheers
Grant

[RiceHigh]

Go for the first choice.

Forget about 3rd party lens and/or superzooms, they only produce inferior results (to the original make and/or shorter range zooms).

Hi all,

I want to buy a Pentax K10D

Here at the local store they sell the Pentax in different kits.

1st: Pentax K10D + AF 18-55DA + AF 50-200 DA
2nd: Pentax K10D + Sigma 18-200
3rd: Pentax K10D + Tamron 18-200

I did some searching on the lenses
I think i go for the 1st, or is that not a good idea?

All advise is welcome

Thanks

[SupremeMoFo]

Of what you've got there, I'd go the 1st option - BUT I had a similar choice and went the 16-45 instead. Yes that means you've only got 1 lens - but this is why I chose it...
Comparison Samples of 18-55/16-45/A50 f/1.4: News Discussion Forum: Digital Photography Review

[WMBP]

Forget about 3rd party lens and/or superzooms, they only produce inferior results (to the original make and/or shorter range zooms).

Sigh.

I'm sorry, RiceHigh, I try to be courteous here and I generally ignore it when someone says something stupid to me personally, but with all due respect to your estimate of your own authority, I have to say that it is irresponsible to make generalizations like this when you're talking to someone who has admitted they are trying to learn.

I think the "best" lens I own and use now is the Pentax 16-45. I put "best" in quotation marks as it's only best in some sort of geeky, college sophomore meaning of the word "best". Good as it is, for shooting birds at a distance, it's worthless, so it's not "best" in a general way. Anyway, while I acknowledge the excellence of Pentax's better lenses and wish I owned more of them, I'm not such a Pentax chauvinist as to think nobody else in the world can build a decent lens. In fact, if you're going to forget about third party zoom lenses (meaning Sigma and Tamron), then you might very well want to consider forgetting about Pentax altogether, as Sigma and Tamron fill in a lot of holes in the Pentax lens lineup. It's simply wrong to condemn these lenses in such a sweeping fashion.

In addition to the 16-45 (which is not cheap), I have owned three very reasonably priced Pentax zooms - the 18-55, the 50-200 and the 75-300. Decent lenses, all of them. But the Tamron 70-300's pictures are at least as good as the Pentax 75-300's. I think either the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 in its midrange especially is superior to the Pentax kit lens or at least its equal - and the Sigma and Tamron lenses are more versatile lens, offering macro capability and a modest telephoto capability.

I might add that there's no such thing as simply superior or simply inferior. The photographer's goals matter, as do his (or her) budget. If I wanted to shoot snapshots and had a budget of absolutely no more than $650, well, the kit lens would have been perfect. But it was simply useless to me when I started shooting indoor sports and needed a faster lens.

To the original poster: All three of your options are intelligent and viable. Nobody else can really tell you what you should do. If you go with the first option, well, that's a perfectly good way to start. I started that way. I no longer own either of those lenses, having sold them for lenses that I think are better suited to my needs. But the Pentax 50-200 is a very decent lens FOR THE PRICE especially. Let me say again, the fact that I bought the kit lens, then added the 50-200 and the 75-300 and then sold them all, doesn't mean that I made a mistake in the first place. Learning involves making these choices and seeing FOR YOURSELF if you like how they work out. There are folks here who will tell you that they picked up a used lens for $50 that's excellent. But don't take their word for it - see if they are willing to show you some photos that they've taken.

One final point. Your second and third options are the same, except that one uses a Sigma lens, the other, the Tamron. NEITHER of these is a GREAT lens - that's why they're basically giving them away with the camera. But the Tamron 18-200 is a perfectly usable lens, and much more versatile than the Pentax kit lens. I have a bit of experience now both with Sigma and Tamron. I've grown a bit partial to Tamron, in part because I like their lens caps better (really). As far as their lenses are concerned, I think they both make some good stuff, and some very good stuff, and so far as I can tell, nothing they make is junk. I'm only familiar with their recent for-digital offerings.

Good luck.

Will

[Rolly]

Will,

IMNSHO ricehigh's opinions are simply not worth reading. Indeed they can be positively counterproductive for any neophyte.
I believe that it would be better for all of us if we simply ignored his postings and did not honour them with replies.

This is a great forum and a source of valuable information for all who take part in it and a lot of credit must go to the non-censorious attitudes of Mo and the moderators.

OK, we lose a bit in the writing; lacking body language, facial and vocal expression, and being subject to regional variations in meaning, but, with continuing tolerance and goodwill (including good Will ) and a refusal to let our individual sensibilities get in the way of effective communication, this board can continue to thrive in a way that it justly deserves.

[SpecialK]

Sigh.

I'm sorry, RiceHigh, I try to be courteous here and I generally ignore it when someone says something stupid

Well put, Will, but it gets harder every day.

To Edwin --- go with #1, and see what you can get in trade for the kit lens :-) I bought a THIRD PARTY LENS (Sigma 18-50) right from the git-go that was "the sharpest lens" a photo website had ever tested (I think it was Photodo). And, I've seen it as low as $300 (now since there is a newer "macro" version), which rivals the rebate price for the Pentax 16-45 and is a stop faster, though not quite as wide.

I agree with Will that the Pentax 50-200 can't be beat for the price. and I find I use it in place of the Sigma 70-300 most of the time unless I have to be at 300mm.

[edwin_1980]

Thanks everybody for the advise,

I go for the 1st kit with the Pentax Lenses.

[RiceHigh]

Nope. I can't agree with you in your feedback.

My opinions are simple, just for two points made-:

1. Pentax can make better glass than the 3rd party makres. Pentax do have mastered better technology and techniques in designing and manufacturing so that the lenses can be superior in flare control, color rendition/accuracy, bokeh and better micro contrast and 3d feel and so on. Whether they put these elements in a Pentax lens is another problem. Of course, that depends on the grade of the lens.

Not even to mention original makers provide better compatibility as well as the lenses should be more accurate than the 3rd parties, in exposure etc.

I have more than twenty years of experience for what I could see the results from 3rd party and the renowned original brands, like the Japanese big 4 and germany lenses, I do not particularly have seen much evidence in changing my conclusion of the above. E.g., especially come to flare control, Pentax is second than NONE!

2. Superzooms are inferior than shorter zoom. Zooms are inferior to primes, in optical terms. (I don't think we should have any dis-agreement on this).

As you can see, I can easily make up the conclusions and I do believe these do hold true in general, undoubtedly. Still, the best lens from Pentax is still better than the best lens from any 3rd party. And, the worst lens from Pentax is still better than the worst lens from the 3rd parties.

Sigh.

I'm sorry, RiceHigh, I try to be courteous here and I generally ignore it when someone says something stupid to me personally, but with all due respect to your estimate of your own authority, I have to say that it is irresponsible to make generalizations like this when you're talking to someone who has admitted they are trying to learn.

I think the "best" lens I own and use now is the Pentax 16-45. I put "best" in quotation marks as it's only best in some sort of geeky, college sophomore meaning of the word "best". Good as it is, for shooting birds at a distance, it's worthless, so it's not "best" in a general way. Anyway, while I acknowledge the excellence of Pentax's better lenses and wish I owned more of them, I'm not such a Pentax chauvinist as to think nobody else in the world can build a decent lens. In fact, if you're going to forget about third party zoom lenses (meaning Sigma and Tamron), then you might very well want to consider forgetting about Pentax altogether, as Sigma and Tamron fill in a lot of holes in the Pentax lens lineup. It's simply wrong to condemn these lenses in such a sweeping fashion.

In addition to the 16-45 (which is not cheap), I have owned three very reasonably priced Pentax zooms - the 18-55, the 50-200 and the 75-300. Decent lenses, all of them. But the Tamron 70-300's pictures are at least as good as the Pentax 75-300's. I think either the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 in its midrange especially is superior to the Pentax kit lens or at least its equal - and the Sigma and Tamron lenses are more versatile lens, offering macro capability and a modest telephoto capability.

I might add that there's no such thing as simply superior or simply inferior. The photographer's goals matter, as do his (or her) budget. If I wanted to shoot snapshots and had a budget of absolutely no more than $650, well, the kit lens would have been perfect. But it was simply useless to me when I started shooting indoor sports and needed a faster lens.

To the original poster: All three of your options are intelligent and viable. Nobody else can really tell you what you should do. If you go with the first option, well, that's a perfectly good way to start. I started that way. I no longer own either of those lenses, having sold them for lenses that I think are better suited to my needs. But the Pentax 50-200 is a very decent lens FOR THE PRICE especially. Let me say again, the fact that I bought the kit lens, then added the 50-200 and the 75-300 and then sold them all, doesn't mean that I made a mistake in the first place. Learning involves making these choices and seeing FOR YOURSELF if you like how they work out. There are folks here who will tell you that they picked up a used lens for $50 that's excellent. But don't take their word for it - see if they are willing to show you some photos that they've taken.

One final point. Your second and third options are the same, except that one uses a Sigma lens, the other, the Tamron. NEITHER of these is a GREAT lens - that's why they're basically giving them away with the camera. But the Tamron 18-200 is a perfectly usable lens, and much more versatile than the Pentax kit lens. I have a bit of experience now both with Sigma and Tamron. I've grown a bit partial to Tamron, in part because I like their lens caps better (really). As far as their lenses are concerned, I think they both make some good stuff, and some very good stuff, and so far as I can tell, nothing they make is junk. I'm only familiar with their recent for-digital offerings.

Good luck.

Will

[Richard3550]

My opinions are simple

I guess that's your problem

[Alvin]

RH,

Not a complaint, but I have some constructive critisicm for you. Please don't take this as me being rude or me making an attempt to flame you.

You have an air of arrogance in a lot of your postings on this forum. I respect that you may have 20+ years of experience, but you don't have to act as if you are a "know it all" to prove it. Your response to Will, as if you always want to have the final say, is a case in point.

I acknowledge that some of your findings are useful and thought provoking. Please title your postings in a way that doesn't sensationalize or trivialize the findings. Additionally, you don't have to come out offending a brand in the title of your post. Your latest example outlining the terrible Tokina sample photos could have been titled differently. You could have put down "What do you think of the latest Tokina lenses?" You could have then said, "Here's what I thought..." placed your link in there and that would have opened the door for other opinions to be heard, then leave it at that. If you get some critisicm about your post, don't continue fueling it by flaming back. A simple "Thank-you, point taken" would do it.

To say the least, you do add some colour to this forum by outlining niggles with Pentax and Pentax related products. If you can do this in a less offensive/arrogant manner, I'm sure that you will realize that your voice, and articles in your blog, will be heard and read more often.

Thanks.

Nope. I can't agree with you in your feedback.

My opinions are simple, just for two points made-:

1. Pentax can make better glass than the 3rd party makres. Pentax do have mastered better technology and techniques in designing and manufacturing so that the lenses can be superior in flare control, color rendition/accuracy, bokeh and better micro contrast and 3d feel and so on. Whether they put these elements in a Pentax lens is another problem. Of course, that depends on the grade of the lens.

Not even to mention original makers provide better compatibility as well as the lenses should be more accurate than the 3rd parties, in exposure etc.

I have more than twenty years of experience for what I could see the results from 3rd party and the renowned original brands, like the Japanese big 4 and germany lenses, I do not particularly have seen much evidence in changing my conclusion of the above. E.g., especially come to flare control, Pentax is second than NONE!

2. Superzooms are inferior than shorter zoom. Zooms are inferior to primes, in optical terms. (I don't think we should have any dis-agreement on this).

As you can see, I can easily make up the conclusions and I do believe these do hold true in general, undoubtedly. Still, the best lens from Pentax is still better than the best lens from any 3rd party. And, the worst lens from Pentax is still better than the worst lens from the 3rd parties.