Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 5, 2007, 9:08 PM   #1
Senior Member
lesmore49's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076

I've been playing around with my new K10D, learning (slowly) about it, thanking the fact that I have access to his website as already some of the operations that puzzled me..were readily solved by other posters experienced in the DSLR world.

I bought the body only and at present am just using my old favourite...my Pentax 35-105 (F 3.5) macro zoom, which I bought new around '84 or so.

This old film lens is great...the focusing is very clear (after I learned how to adjust the diopter) and I'm pleased with the clarity and sharpeness of the pictures...same quality as when this old zoom is on my ancient K1000.

Next question for the more experienced in digital lens...what Pentax digital lens should I get ?

I was considering the 16-45 lens but it seems to have mixed reviews....what do people think ?

I want to stay with Pentax, but the 12 to 24 Pentax seems out of my price range.

The Pentax 10 to 17 fisheye.....not sure of the quality and as it is a fisheye...wouldn't every picture have that distorted fisheye look ? Although as it is only about $ 100 more than the 16-45 I could probably swing it.

Any aftermarket lens that would keep all the K10D's features, stay in the price range of a 16-45 but have a better reputation than the 16 - 45 and be able to give me a wide angle from about 14 to 16 mm?
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 5, 2007, 9:25 PM   #2
Senior Member
Gumnut's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 1,259

i am no lens expert

but most of my lenses i have found in second hand shops and pawn brokers
i have picked up some for as little as $10
and a 35 - 70 ( i think, i am at work) on a camera (that still works) for $50

so its worth looking around if you have any in your area

i have a K1000 to, and had it a while and use the 50mm on my K10D too

good luck in your search
and have fun shooting
Gumnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2007, 10:12 PM   #3
Senior Member
mtngal's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,165

It really comes down to what you feel you are missing with your lovely 35-105 (it sounds like more than just AF). I personally have had excellent luck with my kit lens (the Pentax 18-55), it's light, fairly wide and very inexpensive (and often available on ebay for even less than what it costs new). The mixed reviews of the 16-45 tend to reflect how good the kit lens, making the 16-45 not a very good buy (quite a bit more money without adding a huge amount of quality gain).

I've been eyeing the 12-24 as my next lens. I'm not much of a wide-angle person and think that I'd have trouble making effective use of the 10-17 fish eye (I'm much more of a detail/long lens person). On the other hand, the 10-17 is another excellent value - good quality fora reasonable price. If you are interested, here's some comments Scott made when he first got his 10-17: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=80.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2007, 10:23 PM   #4
Senior Member
lesmore49's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076

Mtn. Gal,

Thanks for posting the link of the pictures taken with the 10-17 fisheye.....the pictures both as shot and then post processed have more distortion than I want. I know that is the goal of the lens and while I would like the occasional novelty of a fisheye picture...I think I have decided, after viewing those shots, that a typical wide angle is what I would like.

lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2007, 8:02 AM   #5
Senior Member
interested_observer's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381

I had a bonus last year, so I splurged and picked up the 16-45 and the 10-17 to complement my K100D with the kit lens. The kit is very good, such that it does tend to outshine the 16-45 especially when price is taken into account. I do like the 16-45 very much.

The 10-17 is a fisheye, however at 17 it is very rectlinear (and pretty hard pressed to guess that it was a FE). I also like it very much, however for a different set of reasons.

The 16-45 (or the kit for that matter), shoots like a regular lens. What do I mean by that - well, in you mind's eye, you can pretty much stand where ever and with any regular lens, you get the shot you expect. Now with the FE, I have found that for landscapes - it pushes things back WAY to far. If there is any distance involved it triples it. However for relative near objects, you really have to get CLOSE and you get a pretty standard image (this was VERY unexpected for me).


Thus the two lens tend to be used VERY differently, even at the 16 and 17 ends. The 10-17 FE tends to pull the entire surroundings in. I was taking an image of a cotten combine (farm equipment) and found that I needed to stand about 1 foot away from the unit and the image looked like I was maybe 15 feet away. For museums, it would be wonderfull, where by you could capture the overall feeling of the interior - especially the walls and ceilings. Also, in areas with large crowds, in that - say to take a picture of a statue, you would essentially be immediately in front of it, thus eliminating the crowds between you and the object.


I know what you mean about the 12-24 as I am saving my lunch money (need to loose some pounds).

Hope that helps....

interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2007, 9:40 AM   #6
Senior Member
jachol's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW. England
Posts: 1,202

Well no expert here either, but I'm old enough to know how to use a SLR manually from my film days with the Praktica Super TL, In fact I'm still using 2 or 3 M42 screwfit lenses which were old in the early 60s when I acquired them, and I'm very happy with the results I get, the only fully auto lens I have is the 18-55mm kit lens, I've got a few others reasonably on Ebay, and I think the next one I may aspire too is the Zenitar 16mm fisheye, I've certainly been inspired by Daniels results using that piece of kit ... in fact if my family asks what I'd like for Xmas I'll very likely mention the Zenitar. ... Jack.

Edit... Took me a while to find this, but it shows very well what I mean by Daniels use of the Zenitar 16mm

jachol 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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 PM.