Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 2, 2006, 8:43 PM   #21
Posts: n/a

wife, needs a cam??? you have no prob...
12 step??? not a chance!!!!!!!

  Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2006, 10:24 PM   #22
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 373

Speaking of Sigma 24-135mm lens: does anyone have any experience with it on K100D? Does the same problem occur as on *ist DL body?
I am in search for a longer zoom than the kit lens and since I avoid using it below 24mm due to vignetting, the Sigma sounds very attractive at $99 on eBay.

DigitalAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2006, 10:27 PM   #23
Senior Member
philneast's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hobart Tasmania
Posts: 489

I have two favourites, both Vivitar.

I have one of the first Series 1 lenses, the 200mm f3, tha i sconsiderd by some to be a cult classic.

The other is a 400mm f5.6 prime, only slightly newer and it is not designated as a Series 1 but still it provided an excellent value for money sports lens. Especialy with the sensor mangnification factor making it effectively a 600mm lens.

philneast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 5:28 AM   #24
Senior Member
Peacekeeper's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,024


You might find this of some help


Usually a prime lens is considered a better lens because it is designed to perfctly aligned and with the smallest distortion at the specified focal length.

A zoom lens has to compromise to be able to achieve good results over a variety of focal lengths.

A simple analogy is a race car versus a family car. Race car is designed to one thing and one thing very well, don't try to tow a boat with it or take the family camping in it. (no zooming)

But at the same time the family car can do both but you won't get race results in the performace of it either.

Lenses with f stops like f/2.8 and f/1.7 are considered fast lenses in that they can allow a lot of light in and therefore very fast shutter speeds can be obtained. The down side is the lower the f stop number the shallower the depth of field (refer to the the link above.) so be careful.

F/4 on a 300mm lens is not the same as f/4 on a 50mm lens. Aperture is a fraction based on the amount of opening in relatin to focal length, read here to get the easy explanation.


Hope this helps.

Peacekeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 6:55 AM   #25
Senior Member
nhmom's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Posts: 5,202

Thanks, Crash. Good analogy.

I quickly looked at the links you sent and it puts it all in a nutshell for me. I just have to ingrain it into my head again now. When I was taking a roll of slides a week for class it was easy. But, the class was only 8 weeks long and a few years ago.

I am finding that I get better shots with the K100D when I shoot manually than on auto. Although, haven't tried it yet at Program mode. That's my next thing. If I'm out with my husband, he gets antsy that it's taking me so long to get a shot because I'm trying to think through the settings.

I'll just have to go out more often without him. :lol:
nhmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 8:22 AM   #26
Senior Member
bobinoz's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 189

I have 3 lenses....

Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 bought with K100D as a kit. Very convenient zoom range and takes nice photos. Here are some recent ones...


Pentax SMC A 50mm f1.7 bought second hand on ebay. Cheap as chips but amazing quality, particularly for portraits. I need lots of practice on the manual focus and correct aperture / shutter speed. Here's one I like....


Sigma 100-300mm F4 + Sigma 1.4x tele. Got a bit carried away with this one. Takes beautiful shots with or without tele but I didn't realise quite how big it was going to be! Needs a tripod and would be brilliant for wildlife but I've not had much opportunity so far. Here is a sample...


So far I've found most of my shots are taken between 28-50mm so considering getting a 28-70/75 F2.8. Sigma or Tamron to choose between. Neither really wide angle or macro really grab me at this stage. Suspect the wife will lose patience with me using her camera soon so will probably have to buy one of those myself too....

Lots of talk about this new K10D body but to be honest I think the K100D is more than enough camera for me so will probably get another of those.

bobinoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 10:14 AM   #27
Senior Member
TDN's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288

Right now the Tamron f3.8-5.6 28-200mm XR (IF) is one my camera almost all the time. Very nice allround performer if you ask me, especially for the price. Not too heavy and still a nice grip.

I use the kit 18-55mm lens too for wider shots.

Other than that, I have a MF Tokina 70-210, but it hardly gets used now that I have the Tamron...


A nice SMC-A 50mm, for concert shots & portraits. currently looking for a bargain on ebay.

edit: found the SMC-A 50mm f1.7 in the meantime. Great lens! This little one is absolutely my favourite atm.

In the very far future: a fast 28-70mm do get more flexibility indoors and at concerts.
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 12:06 PM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 104

For detailed work: F100 2.8. It's a monster lens that takes wonderful pictures of the sex life of flowers (e.g., a bee in a blossom) as well asexcellent portraits. (I just have to be very careful when focusing for portraits - it can show every detail, which might no be the sitter's choice)

For less detail in portraits, now I use my old M42 50 1.4. I've had it for almost 40 years and it's still a better lens than I am a photographer.

For general carry-around I like a troika of zooms: FA20-35 f4 (which the 1.5 DSLR factor forced me into) is probably my best zoom; FA28-105 f4.5-5.6 (usually mounted on the D) only it's no longer as wide as I'd like; FA80-320 f4.5-5.6 (replaced 100-300) when I need a l-o-n-g reach.

I used to use an F17-28 f3.5-4.5 Fish-Eye for fun on film SLRs. It's still a great lens, but the fish-eye aspect is much more subdued on a DSLR.

Larry in Dallas
Heathglen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2006, 3:57 PM   #29
Junior Member
dam59's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milan, Italy
Posts: 20

I've been using a Tamron 28-300 (first serie) for a long time now, on my *istDS. A bit too soft at 300 and not extremely fast (f 6.3 at 300) but overalla good "walkaround" lens if you shoot below 200/250 mm. The new XR is lighter but not as good on the optical side (read on a serious magazine but not personally tested).

When I need more sharpness, the 28-105 4.0/5.6is a good alternative. I got it with the MZ5n film reflex some years ago and it proved to be surprisingly ok on the digital.

The 18-55 kit lens is not bad and is probably the cheapest alternative if you need a wideangle.

As I often shoot in natural (low)light, I'm considering the possibility to buy a fast zoom. The Sigma 24-70 DG f 2.8 proved to be overall a good choice in sometests I read.

Suggestions, anyway,are most welcome.
dam59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2006, 12:49 AM   #30
SelrahCharleS's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 72

Of the lenses I actually own... I can list them in order from most used to least used.

1. SMC-M 50mm f/1.4
2. Zenitar 16mm FE
3. SMC-M 28mm f/2.8

Another lens I think is actually pretty decent is my dads old Sears 60-300mm zoom, even though it got stuck on my camera until I removed the extra pin. Its sharper than you would expect for a zoom like that.
SelrahCharleS is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:53 AM.