2nd lens for K100D

[wmmk]

Hey, I just switched from my grandma's full nikon film SLR system (that had almost become mine, I had it for like 20 months of the past 2 years) to a Pentax K100D. Anyway, the kit 18-55mm is perfectly nice, but I need some thing that will go up to a focal length of 200 or 300mm. It'd also be nice if it came down to around 55, so that I don't have too much of a gap in focal length possibilities. I'll almost definitely buy from Ritz, simply for the convenience of having one 5 minutes away by car or a 20 minute walk.

Anyway, here's everything in my price range:
Sigma 28-80mm F 3.5-5.6 and 70-300 F 4-5.6 $207
Pentax 75-300 mm F4.5-5.8 SMCP-FA J AL $200
Pentax 50-200 mm F4-5.6 ED AF smc P-DA $200 after rebate
Tamron 28-200 mm AF Super II $290

Thanks in advance for the advice,
wmmk

 

[kwajo.com]

I'd personally go with the DA 50-200. It's a very solid lens for the money, I've only heard good things about it, most people say it's worth more than the price they charge for it. Plus it compliments the kit DA 18-55 very well, has a nice lens hood, and is a light lens for travel or walk-around


EDIT: also, since there aren't many Pentax users here, check out the forum on dpreview where the Pentax guys are always friendly and helpful

 

[Abstract]

Just a suggestion.

When buying a lens, you don't need to fill every focal range. Some people say you don't even need the medium range, and that owning a 10-20/12-24 mm lens and a 70-200 or similar telephoto is good enough. Yes, there's a gap between 24-70 mm, but that difference is really just a step forwards or backwards --- "foot zoom", as they say.

I'm not saying "Don't fill in all the gaps." I'm just saying it's not really necessary for everyone people. Getting that 50-200 mm sounds like a good idea, though.

 

[wmmk]

Just a suggestion.

When buying a lens, you don't need to fill every focal range. Some people say you don't even need the medium range, and that owning a 10-20/12-24 mm lens and a 70-200 or similar telephoto is good enough. Yes, there's a gap between 24-70 mm, but that difference is really just a step forwards or backwards --- "foot zoom", as they say.

I'm not saying "Don't fill in all the gaps." I'm just saying it's not really necessary for everyone people. Getting that 50-200 mm sounds like a good idea, though.

so, do you think 55-75mm is very vital? then again, is it worth it to sacrafice that for the 200-300mm range? also, will the DA lense suit my K100D better than the F lense? I have also heard wonderful things about the tamron lense. Is it worth the extra 90 bucks? BTW, I also noticed this Tamron page. Interesting. Best of all, I could still do this through my local Ritz!
Thanks again for the help

 

[Abstract]

so, do you think 55-75mm is very vital?

No way. Set your kit lens at 55 mm and lean forward. Yep, that's what 75 looks like.

Is it worth it to sacrafice that for the 200-300mm range?

I have almost never needed a lens that required so much reach (maybe 2 or 3 times this year), and even then, I certainly didn't need 300 mm of length. I think most new photographers never use their telephoto as much as they think they will. Well, it's true unless you want to shot your kids soccer games.

I have also heard wonderful things about the tamron lense. Is it worth the extra 90 bucks?

I don't know about the Tamron, but usually zoom lenses that go from 70-200 or something will produce less distortion and bad effects than a lens that has to be able to go from 28-200 mm. That's a large range to cover, with a lot of glass moving around in a precise manner. Of course there's going to be more of a negative effect with a 28-200 mm lens. I wouldn't get it unless it truly produced results comparable to a 70-200 mm or something.

I'd go with the 55-200 or 75-300 mm, whichever performs better.

 

[wmmk]

No way. Set your kit lens at 55 mm and lean forward. Yep, that's what 75 looks like.
I have almost never needed a lens that required so much reach (maybe 2 or 3 times this year), and even then, I certainly didn't need 300 mm of length. I think most new photographers never use their telephoto as much as they think they will. Well, it's true unless you want to shot your kids soccer games.




I don't know about the Tamron, but usually zoom lenses that go from 70-200 or something will produce less distortion and bad effects than a lens that has to be able to go from 28-200 mm. That's a large range to cover, with a lot of glass moving around in a precise manner. Of course there's going to be more of a negative effect with a 28-200 mm lens. I wouldn't get it unless it truly produced results comparable to a 70-200 mm or something.

I'd go with the 55-200 or 75-300 mm, whichever performs better.

cool. so all that leaves is this question:
is a DA lense better than an F lense? also, the 50-200 comes with a hood, which the 75-300 doesn't. also, the 50-200 is really a $250 lense, it just happens to have a nice rebate. so right now, i'm thinking i'll go with that.

 

[Clix Pix]

For shooting birds and wildlife, the longer the lens, the better, but of course much of the time this is going to be an expensive proposition. Some people buy a lens like Sigma's "Bigma," which reaches from 50-500mm, while others buy various primes and zooms to get to where they want.

I recently have been shooting more birds and wildlife and just this week obtained a Tamron 200-500mm lens for that purpose since I'm not ready to plunk out $6000 or $7000 for a prime 400mm, 500mm or 600mm Nikon lens. There are definitely situations where you need the long reach, where "foot zoom" just won't work. For instance, if you're shooting across a field, a marsh or wetlands area or even a small lake....

By way of example, this is at 200mm:

From the same position (my deck) I then was able to shoot this at 500mm:

A friend has and uses the Bigma, but to me that is just too large, heavy and unwieldy a lens with too vast a range difference....when I had a chance to get the Tamron 200-500mm, I snapped it up because I think it will fit my needs better. I just feel more comfortable about a lens that goes from 200-500 rather than one which goes from 50-500....

This is a situation where it is good to identify your shooting patterns and what you might need in a lens. A good 200mm lens with a teleconverter will get you pretty far, too, as will a 300mm lens with a teleconverter. I use my 70-200mm VR with and without a converter a lot, and it does well.

Covering the mid-range is important, too, though, if you are going to be doing a lot of shooting there, and certainly Nikon offers a lot of lenses, both primes and zooms, which do that, and I would imagine that in the Pentax line there are some good choices as well.

Bottom line here: figure out what you want to shoot and then from there figure out which lens(es) will serve that purpose....

 

[Abstract]

^^What was wrong with your 80-400 mm? Does the extra 100 mm reach give you a lot back at that range?

 

[balofagus]

I don't think that the F is either "better" or "worse" than the DA. The F lenses were designed with the last generation of film cameras and all feature autofocus. The DA lenses are supposedly designed for the digital cameras. Apparently the image circle is smaller to compensate for the APS-C sensor. If used on the film cameras they will almost certainly produce vignetting. The 40mm (I think) is an exception and will work on either type even though labelled DA. I plan on getting the 50-200mm before I go to Italy in March. It's $200 here in Canada and the rebate isn't valid for us.

On a side note, they will be releasing a DA 70-300 next year some time.

 

[Abstract]

Well generally speaking, using lenses that fit on 35 mm cameras (the F lenses?) results in sharper photos. Well, it's sort of true. The idea is that lenses are sharpest along the centre and get softer as you move away from the center (ie: corners are usually rather soft), especially at low f-number (wide apertures). Using bigger, non-DA lenses will result in sharper photos since only the light coming from the centre of the lens is projected on the APS sized sensor, as APS is smaller than 35 mm film. Basically, the small APS sensor only picks up the light from the sharpest part of the lens, while the light from the edge of the lens never hits the sensor because it's too small to pick up light from the softer edges.

The smaller lenses are smaller (duh!) and lighter than full sized lenses, as they don't need to be as large to perfectly fill a smaller sensor. However, this means that most of the light from the lens is picked up from the sensor, resulting in softer edges. It makes sense to scale lenses down appropriately, in a way. Plus, think of it this way: Nobody seemed to have a huge issue with using a lens designed for a 35 mm film camera, with 35 mm film. Using a DA lens on your Pentax would be the same thing.

I don't think it really matters which one you get if you're talking about image quality.

 

[Clix Pix]

^^What was wrong with your 80-400 mm? Does the extra 100 mm reach give you a lot back at that range?

Not a thing wrong with my 80-400mm! Actually, what I probably will do is to put the 200-500mm on the tripod and have the 80-400mm around my neck so that I will have the flexibility to quickly move if a bird flies to land in a nearby tree. This happened to us last week; I had the 300mm f/4 on the tripod and then used the 80-400mm for handheld shots and a couple of times the bald eagle would fly over our heads and land in a tree nearby. I was able to quickly get to a good spot to shoot the photo with the 80-400mm while leaving the other lens on the tripod ready to go facing the water....

 

[wmmk]

hmmm...
never used a teleconverter. so if I got a 50-200, it'd also be able to do 100-400 with a 2x converter and 150-600 with a 3x converter? wow! what would this do to image quality? if it wouldn't affect it negatively, that looks like the best option!

 

[bousozoku]

hmmm...
never used a teleconverter. so if I got a 50-200, it'd also be able to do 100-400 with a 2x converter and 150-600 with a 3x converter? wow! what would this do to image quality? if it wouldn't affect it negatively, that looks like the best option!

Some tele-converters used to be terrible. The lower cost models aren't great. Generally, you'll lose 1 or 2 f-stops, depending on the quality but they're often worth it, especially when used with a bright prime lens.

 

[wmmk]

Some tele-converters used to be terrible. The lower cost models aren't great. Generally, you'll lose 1 or 2 f-stops, depending on the quality but they're often worth it, especially when used with a bright prime lens.

well,i'll be using this with a tele zoom (and those don't tend to let in a ton of light either. maybe i'll just have to buy a tripod.

 

[sjl]

hmmm...
never used a teleconverter. so if I got a 50-200, it'd also be able to do 100-400 with a 2x converter and 150-600 with a 3x converter? wow! what would this do to image quality? if it wouldn't affect it negatively, that looks like the best option!

Two points to remember with teleconverters. First: you lose light. With a 1.4x converter, your f/2.8 lens becomes an f/4 lens; f/5.6 lenses become f/8. Second: you lose image quality. High quality lenses are expensive because they're (a) hard to design, and (b) expensive to manufacture. Do you really think that companies like Canon and Nikon would pass up the opportunity for a relatively cheap 140-400mm f/5.6 constant aperture lens if it were possible?

The most common use of a teleconverter is a 1.4x converter with the 70-200 f/2.8, making it a 98-280mm f/4 lens. It turns an excellent lens into a good one. Throw a 2x converter at the 70-200, and you get a mediocre 140-400; you'll do better buying the 100-400mm lens, and it'll be cheaper, too (unless you have a need for the 70-200mm f/2.8 range.)

 

[nbs2]

Just a couple of thoughts. When I picked up my K100 kit, I also picked up the 50-200. I got it from Penn Camera - you may want to check out their site since they are reputable and I got mine for $200 before the rebate, $150 after. That Chip works for them was good for any trust issues that crossed my mind.

Anyhow, back to the lens. Like Abstract mentioned, I don't use it as much as I thought I would. I did go crazy with it while in Appalachia, but that was only because I was trying to make sure I didn't fall of the side of a mountain. Normally, the kit is good enough for simple me. As a big bonus, it is really light - I looked at the Tamron when I got the camera as a solution over the two others, and it was just too heavy for regular use. The 50-200 is also light, but I tend to prefer the wider shots over the tighter.

kwajo suggested a dpreview, which has the most active forums. You may also want to look at dcresource and pentaxforums. They are not so busy, but the latter especially is nice for a wide bit of info.

 

[wmmk]

Just a couple of thoughts. When I picked up my K100 kit, I also picked up the 50-200. I got it from Penn Camera - you may want to check out their site since they are reputable and I got mine for $200 before the rebate, $150 after. That Chip works for them was good for any trust issues that crossed my mind.

Anyhow, back to the lens. Like Abstract mentioned, I don't use it as much as I thought I would. I did go crazy with it while in Appalachia, but that was only because I was trying to make sure I didn't fall of the side of a mountain. Normally, the kit is good enough for simple me. As a big bonus, it is really light - I looked at the Tamron when I got the camera as a solution over the two others, and it was just too heavy for regular use. The 50-200 is also light, but I tend to prefer the wider shots over the tighter.

kwajo suggested a dpreview, which has the most active forums. You may also want to look at dcresource and pentaxforums. They are not so busy, but the latter especially is nice for a wide bit of info.

well, firsthand experience is good. i do think ii'll end up going with either of the pentax lenses, as I'm not exactly Mr. moneybags