Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 
Log in or register to remove ads.

Showing results 1 to 2 of 2 Search:
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-16-2011, 12:32 PM  
K-x / twin lens or k-r / 18-55mm?
Posted By GlennG
Replies: 38
Views: 10,234
Thanks, Vincent. I should take some photos for my own comparison like they did in the link you provided. That is a lot more difference than I thought I was seeing. One of the posters in the link above the car shots also stated that the difference between 200 and 300 was "insignificant". At any rate, the photos showed a notable difference.

I have also fought the "stage" problem when I've tried to shoot church plays and dance recitals. A long lens can't get wide enough and a shorter lens can't zoom to get individuals. To top it off it is often dark, and you the photographer are trying not to be noticed. Tough circumstances all the way around. And you are quite correct in noting that with enough MP's you can always crop. You did marvelously well with the Atlanta Jazz photos, though. Very nice! Thank you again. Glenn
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-16-2011, 08:48 AM  
K-x / twin lens or k-r / 18-55mm?
Posted By GlennG
Replies: 38
Views: 10,234
Well, LOL. I thought I was the only one to read this as "Unknown Vermont"!:D

I certainly agree that the photos are great, and thanks for sharing. They really do look nice and make me wish I was there.

I'm a little confused about 200 mm vs. 300 mm, as a lot of people talk about enjoying the "extra reach" of the 55-300mm lens. I have the 55-300 and like it (never had the 50-200, so cannot compare; size of it is attractive, though). When I compare the image I see at 300mm, it just does not look that much larger than the image I see when zoomed to 200 mm. I "expect" the image at 300 mm to look 50% larger than it does at 200 mm, but it does not. Am I seeing this wrong? Does focal length not translate into magnification? I realize that I'm not really interested in anything about focal length - it is magnification that I'm interested in. If 300 mm does not really get you much more magnification than 200 mm, then the 50-200 mm lens is really a great value and performer, especially if the 50 wide end gets you a little more scene than the 55 wide end. Thanks. Glenn
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 2 of 2

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:53 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