Getting a new lens. Suggestions please?

[stevey500]

Okay, well. I've been thru two pentax SLR's now and I've never gone further than the stock 18-55mm Stock AF lens.

I think I want to go up and beyond now. I love taking portraits of people, macro shots are also a good favorite, and I do a lot of sport/event action photography.

So basically I was thinking of maybe a 22-300mm lens from Tamron that would be quite a pretty penny but probably worth it, but those who have more experience with different verities of lenses, YOU tell ME...

I've seen combo kits out there for tamron lenses that go like 18-70mm AF lens that includes a 70mm-300mm for half the price of the 22-300mm AF Tamron lens I mentioned above, what's gonna be better?


thanks guys

-steve

 

[66217]

Super-zooms are never good. I didn't found the 22-300 you talk about, perhaps you meant the 28-300? If yes, then I wouldn't recommend it much. I haven't used it, but it is a slow lens and I don't think it has a good bokeh (which you would appreciate for portraiture work).

Since I don't know the line-up lenses of Tamron or other third-party companies, I'll just say what kind of lenses are supposed to be good for portraits, macro or sports.

Depending on what you want for macro photography, a fast telephoto (like the 70-200 f/2.8 from Nikon) could cover the needs you want for sports, portraiture and macro photography. Tho, as I said, it really depends how far you want to go with macro photography.

If you want 1:1 magnification, then you could go for something around 100mm f/2.8 Macro and that lens could serve you for macro and might also come in handy for portraiture and as a short telephoto.

If you give us some extra info. Like what macro work you want to do, what type of sports you'll do (indoors or outdoors, night or day) and if a pleasant bokeh is important for you in portraits. I think many in this forum would be able to give you very good recommendations.

 

[RaceTripper]

The super-zooms tend to be a bit soft, especially as you approach the ends of the range. They are a compromise. If you want to take your photography to the next level, consider buying a good dedicated lens for one of your shooting styles and save for lenses to do the others.

With that said, if Sigma makes their 150/2.8 Macro in a mount for your camera, that might be a good lens. It's a prime, but I had one and it worked as a portrait lens, macro, and for some sports action (racing in my case). I ended up getting rid of it to fund my 70-200/2.8 VR lens, but I was sad to see it go. It has a very high IQ -- sharp as a tack and with very nice bokeh.

 

[ChrisA]

I think I want to go up and beyond now. I love taking portraits of people, macro shots are also a good favorite, and I do a lot of sport/event action photography.

Stop thinking so much about millimeters and think about f-stops. For the subjects you listed above you want a wide aperture f/2.8 at least and for those portraits sometimes f/1.8 or f/1.4

If cost is an issue look for used lenses. Pentax is great in that even very old lenses still work with the newer bodies. One of the best low cost used lenses is the 135mm f/2.8 I bought a good Manual focus Nikon version of the 135 f/2.8 for $95. It takes images nearly identical to the new $1,700 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. I'd rather have that then a consumer grade f/5.6 zoom.

If you can't afford the 80-200 f/2.8 look at used primes. I use my 50mm f/1.4 quite a bit

 

[GoCubsGo]

It sounds to me like you're looking for three lenses. I'd second the recommendation for the 80-200 or even the 70-200. I would forgo trying to find a lens that covers both wide and tele, but that's just me.

 

[ButtUglyJeff]

I think this is going to be my next purchase:

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70200_di.asp


Product Overview

While overall dimensions are confined to the absolute minimum, the new SP AF70-200mm F/2.8 zoom lens is packed with features that allow stress-free photography: a versatile MFD of just 37.4" over the entire zoom range; best-in-class maximum macro magnification ratio of 1:3.1 at f=200mm; and an advantageous internal focusing (IF) system. The new tele-zoom lens covers a desirable focal length range of 70mm medium telephoto to 200mm telephoto when mounted on full-size format SLR cameras and a focal length range from 109mm to 310mm* ultra telephoto when mounted on a DSLR camera with an APS-C sized imager.



Price tag about $699

I'll most likely need o monopod too.

 

[Everythingisnt]

The 70-200 sounds ideal..

Don't get a monopod though - people using monopods look like fools..

Instead go all the way for a sturdy tripod. Your lens won't be able to take sharp pictures if the camera is shaking too much..

 

[RaceTripper]

Don't get a monopod though - people using monopods look like fools..

That's a pretty narrow-minded (and uninformed, IMHO) statement to make. Tripods don't lend themselves well to every situation, and there are those where monopods work well. And tripods aren't always practical to carry.

For example, I would never carry around a tripod at an auto race. And FYI - all the pros at the races I shoot use monopods, or nothing at all...I have not seen a tripod that I can recall. In fact a tripod would make little sense for panning shots, where a monopod makes all the sense in the world, since it helps support the weight of a larger lens.

 

[termina3]

Don't get a monopod though - people using monopods look like fools..

That is remarkably ignorant.

Have you ever been to a sporting event? How many people are using tripods? How many of them are pros?

 

[Everythingisnt]

How is that ignorant? I didn't say people don't use them - I just said that they look like fools when they use them (And imho, they do).

While sporting events do present an important use for monopods, landscape, nature and architecture work is easier with a tripod. In fact, tripods trump monopods for everything except action shots, and even then sometimes they are better (they have much more controlled heads).

I also don't think that you can say tripods are 'too big' or 'too heavy' to take with you for what you are doing. There are many tripods with minimal design but a very good head and sturdy feet, which in lots of cases weigh less then a camera and a couple lenses.

 

[RaceTripper]

I just said that they look like fools when they use them (And imho, they do).

And that's what makes your statement ignorant.

I also don't think that you can say tripods are 'too big' or 'too heavy' to take with you for what you are doing. There are many tripods with minimal design but a very good head and sturdy feet, which in lots of cases weigh less then a camera and a couple lenses.

I'd like to see you cover an endurance race (6-12 hours) carrying a tripod. I would never do it. Way too big and cumbersome, plus you probably would look like a fool carrying a tripod for an event where it does little or no good.

You want to be as efficient as possible with gear when you cover a long sports event that requires you move around.

 

[Everythingisnt]

I went and looked up 'ignorance' on wikipedia to find a better definition for you:
"Ignorance is the condition of being uninformed or uneducated, lacking knowledge or information."


Since personal opinion never falls under the realm of fact, my statement isn't 'ignorant'.. A better term for my statement might have been 'narrow minded' (which has already been used), 'frank', 'bigoted', or 'rude'. YOU are being ignorant by mis-using a word.

Also I already said that using a monopod for a sporting event was one exception. But are there many others?

 

[ButtUglyJeff]

BTW, I already have a tripod. I want a monopod for my son's indoor and outdoor sporting events.

I hate to see a lense thread turn into "monopods are for dorks" threads. At least without me doing it.

 

[RaceTripper]

I went and looked up 'ignorance' on wikipedia to find a better definition for you:
"Ignorance is the condition of being uninformed or uneducated, lacking knowledge or information."

OK, fair enough. I should have stated it more accurately, so allow me to correct myself.

Your comment about people with monopods looking like fools is childish and immature. There, now we got it straight.

 

[Everythingisnt]

I'm a childish person by nature . But my original comments were made in a semi-joking state.

 

[termina3]

to the OP:

I don't want to come off as an elitist here, but you may want to be careful about saying that a Tamron would "cost a pretty penny." While I understand each financial situation is different (ergo different relative scale), if a Tamron costs a pretty penny then the equivalent Nikkor/Canon would cost a really, really, really shiny quarter.

I've always told my friends that photography is a terrible hobby because it's monstrously expensive, time consuming, and addictive. In that sense, it shares a lot of traits with cocaine addiction. And just like a coke addict, I'm not stopping until someone throws me in jail.

 

[jpfisher]

I think I want to go up and beyond now. I love taking portraits of people, macro shots are also a good favorite, and I do a lot of sport/event action photography.

Assuming you are still on the Pentax system -- for portraits the FA 50 f/1.4 is an excellent option on the shorter end, the DA 70mm f/2.4 or FA 77mm f/1.8 on the longer end.

You have dedicated macro options with the DA 35mm Macro, the DFA 50mm Macro, and DFA 100mm Macro, all f/2.8. You might also want to consider picking up an older, manual focus, A-series Macro lens. The Vivitar Series One are highly regarded, and should be available second hand.

You may also want to take a look at the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 -- it's great for portraiture, fantastic optically even wide open, and a good option for sports photography.

 

[greg555]

For portraits you want the background blurred with a nice bokeh (quality of the out of focus areas). So I'd also vote for a fast prime (non-zoom) lens such as the Limited 70 mm or 77 mm lenses.

Pentax also has a 55mm f1.4 coming out. That's an equivalent field of view to what 85mm portrait lenses had on film (or full frame digital). With luck it will come out this year.

Greg