Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 30, 2011, 7:15 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 22
Default New Lens for K-x

I am about to upgrade from a P&S to the K-x.

Currently, I am looking for another lens other than the included 18-55mm kit lens. When would I use the 55-300mm lens if I bought it with the 18-55mm? Would buying a fast lens be better than the 55-300mm?

I've been looking around and found the 35mm f/2.4. Are there any other lens that are cheaper and fast? My budget is around $250.

Thanks,
jellyfish
jellyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 30, 2011, 9:05 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

the 55-300 is good for when you need to reach out to 450mm with the 1.5x crop. Also if you get good separation between you subject and background, you can get some nice shallow dof portrait shots. Also if you add a close up conversion lens, it makes for a good macro lens, as you get some good working distance.

The 35mm f2.4 is a good range as it gets a good eye's level prospective to the shot. And at 2.4 is is a bit brighter then the kit lens, so it will give you 1 stop of aperture preformance, giving the k-x a little better low light preformance and a bit more shallow dof.

Each has it's place, depending on what you shoot, will determine which is a better first option.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2011, 10:45 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
the 55-300 is good for when you need to reach out to 450mm with the 1.5x crop. Also if you get good separation between you subject and background, you can get some nice shallow dof portrait shots. Also if you add a close up conversion lens, it makes for a good macro lens, as you get some good working distance.

The 35mm f2.4 is a good range as it gets a good eye's level prospective to the shot. And at 2.4 is is a bit brighter then the kit lens, so it will give you 1 stop of aperture preformance, giving the k-x a little better low light preformance and a bit more shallow dof.

Each has it's place, depending on what you shoot, will determine which is a better first option.
I don't want to highjack your thread, but shoturtle...can you explain what the conversion lens is? Does it allow the 55-300mm lens to take macro shots? How much is a conversion lens and where can I get one?
acscoggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2011, 12:11 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi jellyfish,

Welcome to the Pentax DSLR fora!

Choices in lenses really depends on what you like to shoot and what type of P&S you were used to shooting.

If the camera you have been using is a superzoom, and you liked shooting at the long end at least some of the time, then the DA 55- 300 would give you the same kind of range at the tele end with some very good quality for the price.

If you were shooting a 3x zoom with something like 28-85 mm equivalent lens, then the DA 18-55 kit lens fits that range almost exactly.

If you'd just like to experiment, and need to find your preferences, then you could do a lot worse than getting the 18-55 and the 55-300, go out and shoot with both lenses, and then assess where you'd like to put your money into better quality lenses with better optical quality and more specialty uses.

If you have a Windows computer, there is a program called ExposurePlot that can take the exif information from your pics, and show you graphically your use of focal length, aperture, and shutter speed. It might be a good idea to download this and use it with the pics that you've taken with your P&S. It's freeware, and the results can sometimes surprise.

Lenses can be expensive -- it's not a bad idea to get familiar with the camera and what it can do, then decide where you want to put your money in lenses and other accessories for either better quality or more versatility.

Good luck with your Kx. I look forward to seeing some of your results on the Pentax DSLR forum. It's a friendly forum, and we especially like to see what our members shoot.

See you there. . .

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2011, 12:18 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If you add a 58mm close conversion lens to the 55-300, depending which one you have, it will let the work good hand held macro lens, or a true macro that requires a tripod.

Good lenses for a dslr lens, is a canon 500D or 250D. The 500D is 2 diopter and 250D 4 diopter. More diopter, close you can get. But more difficult difficult to use. So you will need need for compensate for the shallow dof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acscoggins View Post
I don't want to highjack your thread, but shoturtle...can you explain what the conversion lens is? Does it allow the 55-300mm lens to take macro shots? How much is a conversion lens and where can I get one?
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2011, 12:40 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

As was pointed out, it really depends on what you want to use the lens for. The 35 f2.4 is a nice lens to use indoors since it's reasonably fast. I like the focal length because what I see through the viewfinder is close to what I see without it.

On the other hand, I'm another who likes to take detail type shots rather than wide vistas. So the 55-300 would be my first choice for a second lens. Those who are shooting indoor parties, informal shots of friends and vistas might skip the 55-300 telephoto and prefer the 35. Both are very nice (I have the 55-300, but instead of the 35 f2.4, I have the 35 f2.8 macro).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 10:53 PM.