I have been looking at the Pentax K10D recently. I know that there are going to be announcements from Pentax late this month, but I feel that I can get a great price on a K10D and not desire the new things that the new cameras might have. My main question is this: Would the 50mm f/1.4 lens be sufficient to replace the kit lens? I know that it is fixed at 50mm, etc...but if I could save money by buying a body only, then this lens, that would be wonderful.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
DSLR Lenses
- Thread starter techie4life
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a fantastic lens, I own one myself and highly recommend it. However; it can't realistically replace the kit lens, simply because the kit lens is a zoom with a relatively wide end that the 50 mm just won't be able to replace. That's not to say that you will get much use out of the kit lens, I think you would but maybe you would be just as pleased with a 50 mm prime.
If you wanted to try it out I don't think it would hurt, you can always go back and order the 18-55 mm kit lens later for about $80. You could also get the Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 which would be even better since it has a fast constant F/2.8 aperture. Another option (for considerably more money however) would be the Pentax or Tamron 18-250 mm lens, they are both identical so it doesn't really matter which of those two you choose.
I say do what you want, the 50 mm lens is a great lens and very fast, but I think that you may soon realize that having a modest zoom lens can be invaluable.
SLC
By the way: excellent camera choice you won't be disappointed!
If you wanted to try it out I don't think it would hurt, you can always go back and order the 18-55 mm kit lens later for about $80. You could also get the Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 which would be even better since it has a fast constant F/2.8 aperture. Another option (for considerably more money however) would be the Pentax or Tamron 18-250 mm lens, they are both identical so it doesn't really matter which of those two you choose.
I say do what you want, the 50 mm lens is a great lens and very fast, but I think that you may soon realize that having a modest zoom lens can be invaluable.
SLC
By the way: excellent camera choice you won't be disappointed!
a 50mm 1.4 is a super lens to have in your bag, regardless of anything else you get. Depending on your experience and needs, though, the kit lenses are a pretty good bargain to allow for a lot of shooting options. A decent short to mid-range zoom is never a waste of money. I'm still amazed at how good some of my shots with a kit 18-55 come out.
It's a tough call, really, you have to decide how much you want to capture, and how much you're willing to "zoom with your feet" to get the shot you want.
It's a tough call, really, you have to decide how much you want to capture, and how much you're willing to "zoom with your feet" to get the shot you want.
In my opinion, everyone with an SLR should have a fast 50mm prime.
Even with all the lenses I have, my 50 f/1.2L is my favorite.
Even with all the lenses I have, my 50 f/1.2L is my favorite.
The advantage to the 50mm lenses is they're somewhat less expensive than other focal lengths due to economies of scale. But for the same reason people recommended 50mm lenses for film SLRs, if you're looking at primes I'd suggest considering 30-35mm primes instead for your dSLR (if the price is within your budget).
If your zoom is of a high quality, though, I don't think a prime is a necessity. It's worth checking out the reviews on Photozone to get a feel for the relative merits of the various lenses. Sometimes the subjective opinions you get from other folks need to be taken with a grain of salt; especially since some people seem to only note center sharpness when they evaluate their "sharp as a tack" primes.
Addendum: Looking at Photozone's reviews of Pentax' 50mm ($200) and 35mm ($300) lenses is a good case in point. The 50mm goes to f/1.4, while the 35mm is "only" f/2 - however the 50mm is less than stellar (even in the center) until you get to f/2.8, while the 35mm is pretty darn good even wide open. The consumer zooms appear to be pretty sharp in the center (and okay, but not great, at the borders); and like most consumer zooms from most manufacturers have some issues with vignetting.
If your zoom is of a high quality, though, I don't think a prime is a necessity. It's worth checking out the reviews on Photozone to get a feel for the relative merits of the various lenses. Sometimes the subjective opinions you get from other folks need to be taken with a grain of salt; especially since some people seem to only note center sharpness when they evaluate their "sharp as a tack" primes.
Addendum: Looking at Photozone's reviews of Pentax' 50mm ($200) and 35mm ($300) lenses is a good case in point. The 50mm goes to f/1.4, while the 35mm is "only" f/2 - however the 50mm is less than stellar (even in the center) until you get to f/2.8, while the 35mm is pretty darn good even wide open. The consumer zooms appear to be pretty sharp in the center (and okay, but not great, at the borders); and like most consumer zooms from most manufacturers have some issues with vignetting.