[pakuchn]

Twitch,

Last question for you. you listed 1.9, 2.8 and 2.4 lenses, dont you think those would not be good enough for low light?

That i might need something like 1.4??

[pakuchn]

Lens question for you all.
The K-x kit comes with 16-55 and 55-300

So, why would someone want 18-55mm 2.8 for $700 if kit 18-55 is much less money and is it only because I'm paying for the f2.8?

Also, Da 15mm 4.0 is $500, again a kit 18-55 is less money and 3.5 at 18mm.

Lens question for you all.
The K-x kit comes with 16-55 and 55-300

So, why would someone want 18-55mm 2.8 for $700 if kit 18-55 is much less money and is it only because I'm paying for the f2.8?

Also, Da 15mm 4.0 is $500, again a kit 18-55 is less money and 3.5 at 18mm.

You're not just paying for the 2.8, you're paying for 2.8 through the entire focal range of the lens, that's a huge benefit. You are also getting better build quality.

[wedgetail]

Hi mate , I have just gone through the whole process of comparing the D90 to the Kx I found a website that I could compair up to 5 cameras side by side with their specs.
In my budget were d3000,d5000,d90 and Kx, the Kx won the specs comparison.

I had previously owned a Programme A Pentax SLR my shooting is indoors available light and sports (Judo) the Kx has performed well with the kit lens, my personal favourite lens is a smc 50mm 1:4 I bought on the forum for 50.00 this is a manual lens what I am trying to say with the Kx you have choice you can save the money, you can spend the 1000 plus on new lenses or go the vintage glass root and save even more money and get more bang for your buck.

Its your choice. as you can see by the number of posts here I am a newby to the forum and under stand what you are going through

Cheers Mark

[Rondec]

You have to understand that the kit lens is good for what it is. Anything else with autofocus is guaranteed to be more expensive. That said, the kit lens needs to be stopped down to f8 to be really sharp. In comparison, the limited primes and the DA * lenses tend to be sharp wide open. As to whether or not you need an f1.4 lens, only you can answer that question. Just remember that f1.4 will give you a really narrow depth of field. This is the sort of photo where the left eye is in focus and the right eye is blurry. I own a 50 f1.4 and I seldom shoot wider than f2 for exactly that reason.

Anyway, you get what you pay for, it is more a question of what you really want. Get the kit lenses and shoot for awhile and then decide. There is really no rush.

[pakuchn]

Thank you everyone for your time to post so much information.

Thanks again.

[er1kksen]

Er1kksen,

Which lense would you get? I want something for indoor such as dinners, kids running around, indoor auto shows, etc.

I would throw in an FA 50mm f1.4, since that is in a sense "the" affordable pentax low-light lens. Aside from that, you're probably going to want something a little wider, but still reasonably fast. The Tamron 18-50 f2.8 is a good value and very well regarded (read here). That still leaves a few hundred dollars, so you could use that for a flash or a tele lens or something depending on your preferences... or you could treat yourself by swapping out the FA 50+cash for something special like the 31mm Limited. :-D

[pakuchn]

Why get Tamron 18-50 f2.8 if the kit 18-55 comes with the K-x?

[er1kksen]

Why get Tamron 18-50 f2.8 if the kit 18-55 comes with the K-x?

It's a half a stop faster on the wide end and two stops faster on the wide end, and you've stated that low-light indoor use is a big deal for you. It also has significantly better optical performance (the 18-55 is good for a kit lens but I still keep it at f8 ALL the time). It's also 1mm wider on the wide end... which is honestly enough to make a noticeable difference for indoors shooting. Getting the K-x for low light and then using it with a slow lens like the 18-55 just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially when you could save $50 by getting it body-only and pick up the 17-50 for relatively little money.

[pakuchn]

Makes sense.

Thanks

[Rondec]

I would get the Kx with the lens combo of the 55-300 and 18-55. If you decide you want to upgrade, you can always sell the 18-55, but it is an awfully light lens and if you buy those two lenses on their own, you will pay 300 dollars easily. I think I would really wait to buy anything "upscale" until you are familiar with the camera. As mentioned above, there are a lot of lenses out there that are "better" than the kit lens, but I would still start with that.

Interestingly I just popped on Amazon and the FA 50 is there for 211 dollars with 6 dollar shipping from an Amazon reseller. This is pretty amazing, but not sure how long it will last. Here.

[johnmflores]

While the K-x is very good in low light, also consider getting a flash with a pivoting head and bouncing the light off the ceiling. It will help considerably and shouldn't disturb your daughter.

[Jewelltrail]

Newarts: The best deal I know of is at amazon.com - $645 for a K-X, 18-55mm zoom & 55-300mm zoom. A superb set indeed.

Dave, that is an absolutely incredible deal! I am completely happy with my K20d, but still feel impelled to stop in at Amazon and buy this kit.

[Boris]

Also, 99.9% of the pictures will be taken hand held. Again, I’m not a pro, just someone who loves to take pictures of vacations, my family, etc, who is looking to invest time and money into the right system. Boris gave me his input, but I will be honest with you, I have no idea what he is trying to say and he is taking about K-7 which I was asking about D90 and K-x.

I apologize for having misread your original question. For some reason I thought you were asking about K-7 and D90. Newarts indicated that 'The strength of a chain is equal to the strength of its weakest link.' In principle this is correct. However, without any intent to offend you, I maintain that the weakest link is going to be you, sir, for quite a while until you work through your learning curve and generally get good understanding of your photography. Further, I put the chain components in this very order (of importance): photographer > light > lens > camera. To that end, camera is in fact the least important link.

You mentioned that you're going to be shooting a lot of your child. It was the same very event, the birth of my older daughter, that started me on my Pentax way some 8+ years ago. I am going to repeat the most important and most useful advise I got at the time from my Nikonian friend: buy fast 50 mm prime. Well, it was film era thence, so it was 50 mm.

So I do recommend that you either buy a K-x or D90 but do buy yourself an autofocus 50/1.4 lens. It will do wonderful things for you when you'd be taking pictures of your kid(s).

Finally, although you might steer away from using flash initially, you could very well end up using it a lot. Here Nikon bests Pentax. Simply put, Nikon flash system and the way they integrate camera, lens and flash is more advanced and more reliable. It does not mean that the same cannot be done in Pentax terms, but Nikon strikes me as the best flash system out there.

So, given your budget, I reckon you could afford D90/K-x double kit (just so that you cover more focal lengths) and a 50/1.4 lens. I believe it will set up back by order of USD 1000 and you'll have some money to spare.

I humbly suggest that you don't run into buying the best of the best and the most expensive gear. There will be a process during which you will encounter great many things that you would want to try and eventually you will arrive to what suits you best. Likely it is the optimal way to proceed and it is also the most fascinating one.

Let your hunt be successful and let light be with you.

[buliwyf]

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is nice. The price is also very nice. 2.8 across the entire zoom range is good. It's also relatively sharper than most kit zooms.

50mm @ F5.6 wide open is not very "versatile" indoors, as with the kit zooms.