|
Forum: Sold Items
01-14-2011, 10:55 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-10-2011, 01:26 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the quick help... I guess those of us former Panasonic FZ-ers just always have to be a little different, and can see beyond the name on the front of the camera.
Sorry, lavascript, I meant is the Tamron 28-75 wide enough for me? 42mm vs the 35mm I am used to.
I think I'm leaning to the Tamron 28-75 at this point, I'll always have the kit 18-55 for the wide end if needed, and a wide prime may be first. Speaking of primes, having held a 12x zoom for so long, will I ever come around to using my feet for framing pics? I keep reaching for the zoom on the 50mm to get in tight on a portrait. Maybe I'm just not used to being as close to the subjects... With a main Pentax allure being the primes, I've got to figure it out.
Perhaps if I had a k5 and could easily go to 1600 or 3200 ISO I could live with the 17-70 on the long end, but I think it's off the list now. Thanks again for the input!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-10-2011, 12:21 PM
|
| |
I need some advice as I prepare to purchase a good solid walk-around lens. I'm new to Pentax and DSLR, having only recently purchased a k20d with an older kit (Samsung-label) 18-55 lens. I also purchased a M 50 1.7 and am slowly learning about manual focusing. I am moving up from a Panasonic FZ50 ultrazoom (35-420mm equivalent) and analyzing my pictures, I took a lot wide open at 35mm and many of my best "portraits" and people shots were taken around 100mm. I did use the long end some, and I plan to get a DA (L or not) 55-300 at some point to cover longer telephoto.
I think I've read every review here on the following lenses:
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4
Sigma 24-60 2.8
as well as the Pentax 16-50 and 18-135
As I do take a lot of indoor shots, I think I need the 2.8 aperture with my k20 to keep in reasonable ISO range. The Sigma 17-70 range seems ideal, but I worry that the long end won't be fast enough for indoor portraits, etc. On the flipside, everyone loves the Tamron 28-75 and the upper end would be fine, but is 42mm equivalent too wide? Is the Sigma 24-60 the middle-ground?
Seems like absolute IQ-wise, everyone would choose the Tamron 28-75 of this group, how much of a dropoff are we talking about to the Sigma 17-70? Undoubtedly I am over-analyzing this purchase, but I know I am on the beginning crest of LBA and want to make the right decision. After these two zoom purchases, I can see some primes coming my way (as $$ allow), perhaps the FA77, 35mm macro, 21mm, or 15mm - so I'd like to be "covered" in FL via zooms for the future. All opinions and recommendations appreciated, and thanks for all the great info here!
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
01-03-2011, 08:06 AM
|
| |
PM on the way.... in line I guess
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
12-24-2010, 06:45 AM
|
| |
I am interested in the k20 if available. I think this is my #3 post so I will now be able to PM. Thanks!
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
12-18-2010, 11:34 AM
|
| |
I'm very interested in the K-X. Can you post a shot of the crack? Is it actually missing part of the housing or just a fracture that may move when flexed? I'm interested in getting my first DSLR and morre $$ for glass would be great! (I only have 1 post to date so i can't PM yet). Thanks!
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
12-02-2010, 10:18 AM
|
| |
I am preparing to purchase my first DSLR and am in a quandary over which way to go. I’ve been using a bridge camera, the Panasonic FZ50 for the last 3-4 years, and it has served me well… as long as I leave it on 100 ISO! As I have an external flash, I’ve been able to manage most indoor situations but clearly I’ve reached the point where I would like more options with my photography. In addition to many shots of my young children and family (playing sports, school activities, vacations, etc) I enjoy taking landscape shots, abstracts, and pics of old abandoned structures. The FZ50 spans 35-420mm equivalent, I ran the ExposurePlot program and found that while I took some long telephoto shots, the vast majority were taken near 35mm, with a good number also around 100mm (portraits mostly). The vast majority of my best shots were from around these focal lengths (35mm & 100mm equivalent, guess I need the 21 & 77 :p).
I’ve had “k-x” in my head for months, but recently I’m thinking about other options. I do understand that it’s ultimately all about the glass, and I’m looking forward to acquiring quality lenses in my needed areas. I recognize that a body upgrade every few years will be needed; however, I’m comfortable being a little behind the crest of technology to find that sweet spot of value. Seeing the used k20’s and k-7's here have made we wonder if I may be better served by one of them for the next couple of years. Why?
versatility of controls – ease of changing settings
weather resistance – beach 3-4 times yearly, peace of mind in weather
potential use of external flash sync
grip possibility – I have fairly large hands
As I see it, I’m sacrificing:
High ISO performance – at least a stop improvement? (remember I can really only use ISO100 at this point).
Burst rate
Better AF? - how much are we talking
“New” factor & warranty
As I see it, I could plan on spending $400-500 on a body every few years, K20d now, K-5 in 3 or 4 years, etc… and always be using a true “semi-pro” body, albeit an “older” model. That leaves me with more $ to spend on glass in the meantime.
Thanks for any advice; I’ve learned so much from this forum. I know there’s not really a right/wrong answer here, I need to stop thinking and BUY! |
