Does anyone know of a good lens compatible with the Pentax K10D that is 18-55mm with a better maximum aperture than the kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6? Or 18-200mm with a better than average aperture?
Thanks!
Thanks!
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.
Good lenses for Pentax K10D??
- Thread starter SolracSelbor
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm guessing that you're speaking specifically about the 18-55 kit lens. No, it's not spectacular, but it's not horrible, either. An alternative might be to skip the kit and buy the Pentax 50mm 1.4 for about $100 or so more. Or if you wanted to spend about $250-300 more than the kit lens, the 18-250mm would give a zoom ratio closer to what you're used to with a P&S.
I just bought my K10D a couple weeks ago knowing that there's an update early next year. I chose getting a great price over getting the latest model. Decide for yourself which is more important to you.
If you were to do a search, you'd find a lot more about the K10D.
I just bought my K10D a couple weeks ago knowing that there's an update early next year. I chose getting a great price over getting the latest model. Decide for yourself which is more important to you.
If you were to do a search, you'd find a lot more about the K10D.
The 50 mm F/1.4 is incredible, also the DA 16-45 is nice too. The DA 21, 40, and 70 mm pancake lenses are second to none. And the FA 43, 31, and 77 mm limiteds are also very sought after lenses.
Sigma and Tamron make some nice lenses for the Pentax mount, and there are a line of Carl Zeiss lenses that are only available in Pentax and Nikon mounts that are supposed to be spectacular.
SLC
Sigma and Tamron make some nice lenses for the Pentax mount, and there are a line of Carl Zeiss lenses that are only available in Pentax and Nikon mounts that are supposed to be spectacular.
SLC
Also, the massive update to the K10D will likely be priced at about double what you can expect to pay for a K10D right now. I'd spend the difference on nice glass and the K10D rather than the new camera body, high quality glass on the K10D will outperform standard glass on whatever new camera they put out there without a doubt.
SLC
SLC
For a k10d, I'd recommend Pentax's 35mm f/2 for a first lens. That becomes the equivalent of a 53mm 'normal' lens, and it's a very nice lens at a reasonable price.
Your other option in that focal length area is the 31mm f/1.8, though I've never actually seen one in the wild. More expensive, slightly wider field of view (equiv. to ~46mm) and about three times as expensive as the 35mm.
Your other option in that focal length area is the 31mm f/1.8, though I've never actually seen one in the wild. More expensive, slightly wider field of view (equiv. to ~46mm) and about three times as expensive as the 35mm.
Second to none? At what?
They are cool lenses, and certainly great in that they are tiny and high quality. But they are second to many many lenses in that they have small maximum apertures (3.2, 2.8, and 2.4 respectively) and, being APS-C-only lenses, have relatively high distortion and vignetting for prime lenses.
Not sure I follow you... The only one of the above I have is the 40/2.8, but I can say I haven't noticed any distortion or vignetting with it. Not any, not at all.
I DO wish they were faster, but then, I suppose if they were, they wouldn't be so small. I have an old Konica 40mm f/1.8 pancake, but it's bigger than the DA40 and not autofocus. Same with my Minolta 45mm f/2.
Regarding the original question:
I would recommend either the DA 16-45mm f/4 or the DA* 16-50mm f/2.8. They are around $400.00 and $900.00, respectively. Obviously the 16-45 is slower at the wide end, but not by any amount that matters, and it stays at f/4 when zoomed in at 45mm. Plus, it is quite sharp and renders colours very nicely.
The Tamron 18-250mm seems to be garnering some nice reviews, too.
The best lenses that will be similar to the kit lens are probably in this order:
DA* 16-50
Sigma 17-70, if you're willing to go 3rd party/DA 16-45, I feel it's about the same as the Sigma, but lacks a bit of the range the Sigma does. Sharp as a tack, though.
DA 18-250
That's at least what I see as far as the optical quality and usability from other people's pictures and more importantly using them in the store.
The only thing is, even when I was trying out all these lenses (besides the DA* and DA 18-250 which I was just trying out for fun) I went with a telephoto. You know why? Because I still see the kit lens as one hell of a performer. It may not be the fastest, but I already know my next lens is the 50 f/1.4, because not only is that lens one of the sharpest I've tried out, it's also one of the fastest. And for $200? It couldn't be a better bargain. So when I need a faster shot, I can use that lens.
I wouldn't be saying anything if I didn't show anything. So as a show of how sharp the kit lens truly is here you go. Just a couple shots, not at top quality, mind you, since I'm pulling them off my non-pro flickr, but it will give you an idea:
Feel free to look through more at my flickr:
http://flickr.com/photos/ejb0015/
DA* 16-50
Sigma 17-70, if you're willing to go 3rd party/DA 16-45, I feel it's about the same as the Sigma, but lacks a bit of the range the Sigma does. Sharp as a tack, though.
DA 18-250
That's at least what I see as far as the optical quality and usability from other people's pictures and more importantly using them in the store.
The only thing is, even when I was trying out all these lenses (besides the DA* and DA 18-250 which I was just trying out for fun) I went with a telephoto. You know why? Because I still see the kit lens as one hell of a performer. It may not be the fastest, but I already know my next lens is the 50 f/1.4, because not only is that lens one of the sharpest I've tried out, it's also one of the fastest. And for $200? It couldn't be a better bargain. So when I need a faster shot, I can use that lens.
I wouldn't be saying anything if I didn't show anything. So as a show of how sharp the kit lens truly is here you go. Just a couple shots, not at top quality, mind you, since I'm pulling them off my non-pro flickr, but it will give you an idea:
Feel free to look through more at my flickr:
http://flickr.com/photos/ejb0015/
The best lenses that will be similar to the kit lens are probably in this order:
DA* 16-50
Sigma 17-70, if you're willing to go 3rd party/DA 16-45, I feel it's about the same as the Sigma, but lacks a bit of the range the Sigma does. Sharp as a tack, though.
DA 18-250
That's at least what I see as far as the optical quality and usability from other people's pictures and more importantly using them in the store.
The only thing is, even when I was trying out all these lenses (besides the DA* and DA 18-250 which I was just trying out for fun) I went with a telephoto. You know why? Because I still see the kit lens as one hell of a performer. It may not be the fastest, but I already know my next lens is the 50 f/1.4, because not only is that lens one of the sharpest I've tried out, it's also one of the fastest. And for $200? It couldn't be a better bargain. So when I need a faster shot, I can use that lens.
I wouldn't be saying anything if I didn't show anything. So as a show of how sharp the kit lens truly is here you go. Just a couple shots, not at top quality, mind you, since I'm pulling them off my non-pro flickr, but it will give you an idea:
Feel free to look through more at my flickr:
http://flickr.com/photos/ejb0015/
You convinced me.
Good! Save your money and get the 50mm f/1.4, or fill more of your focal lengths and get a zoom telephoto like the 50-200 or a 70-300.
There are not words enough to describe my love for the 50mm f/1.4 prime. I have it and love it.
The Tamron 18-250 (aka DA 18-250) is a stellar walkabout lens. A tad slow, but very nice quality. Minor purple fringing issue.
Also I have a 28mm prime, f/2.8, manual focus. It's decent. The focus is a pain without the proper screen, but nice pictures.
Check my Flickr page out; see for yourself! Linkety
The Tamron 18-250 (aka DA 18-250) is a stellar walkabout lens. A tad slow, but very nice quality. Minor purple fringing issue.
Also I have a 28mm prime, f/2.8, manual focus. It's decent. The focus is a pain without the proper screen, but nice pictures.
Check my Flickr page out; see for yourself! Linkety
The Pentax FA 50mm F/1.4 is one of those 3D lenses, it imparts a 3D look to a lot of the images you shoot with it. It's very cool and not as strange looking as it sounds, I'll scrounge around and fid a good example in my library. But that rose that buschmaster posted is a pretty good example.
SLC
SLC
How about Sigma EX 18-50mm f/2.8 DC for Pentax mount? It's not full-frame but I think the Pentax isn't either.
EDIT: here's a review
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4118/lens-test-sigma-18-50mm-f28-ex-dc-macro.html
Good catch!
It's a flopped picture.
Pentax also has a lens very similar, in the DA* 16-50. DA* is pretty much equivalent to Sigma EX. However, the DA* has HSM, where as the Pentax mount of EX doesn't.
Just a minute. These are low-res copies of the image. You can't tell if the lens is sharp or not. ANY lens is good enough to do this level of work. If you want to see how good the lens is you need the full size image.
Also what is "good enough". That depends entirly on how you intend to use the mages. If you want to publish on the web or will only be viewing the images on an electronic screen then almost any lens on the market is sharp enough. Electronic screens are very undemending. On the other hand if you like to make large sized prints
Don't get me wrong, I like these images but because of there small size they tell you nothing about the lens
If only I had the money, I'd own those DA* lenses. They are beautiful pieces of glass...
I do mine in Aperture. Usually from a RAW image, but that's optional.
For me, little to no purple fringing- that stuff will ruin a picture beyond recovery. Also, good build quality... no plastic crap! The DA 50mm feels like it will outlast me so long as I take care of it. I also check that it will fill in the focal range that I need; my next lens will be ~17-50mm f/2.8, giving me good wide-angle low-light pictures. The 28mm prime would be sold to help finance that. My 18-250 will become a telephoto lens, unless I can sell it for something in the ~150-250 range, but I have yet to decide that far in advance.