Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 8, 2010, 7:42 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Yes I would go with a 2 lens option personally. You will get a bigger aperture on the long end for one, 5.6 vs 6.3. There is a bit less distortion. But it really comes down to the need of the user. Some may want a one lens option. Me I have 10 lens for my T1i and my brother has 3 lenses, so 1 lens option is not high on my wish list.
__________________
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 8, 2010, 7:55 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

I hear ya! Many thanks, indeed, for prompt response.
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2010, 7:58 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eetu View Post
... I hear ONLY good about the DAL 55-300 mm. I have been saving up for this camera since November, and racking my brains over what lense(s) to get. I am carefully looking at a 17-70 mm OR 16 -45 mm. ...
Yes, the Pentax 55-300 is a good choice, but if it doesn't come as part of the kit, Tamron's 70-300 Di LD is as good and it costs less.

And either the 17-70 or the 16-45 are very good choices, and either of them will run rings around the 18-250 (as will either the Pentax 55-300 or the Tamron 70-300 Di LD.)
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2010, 8:02 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

Hiya, TCav, very good point about the Tamron 70-300 Di LD. I am sort of taking aim at the moment at the 17-70. I think this would be more versatile and perhaps slightly better in quality... at least I hope so.
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2010, 8:11 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The Pentax 17-70 is a very good lens, but Sigma's 17-70 is no slouch either. It's not quite as sharp but it has less chromatic aberration. It's faster at the long end, plus it's a 1:2.3 macro lens. Together with the 1:2 macro of the Tamron 70-300 Di LD, you'd be ready for some macrophotography as well.

Oh, and the Sigma 17-70 is cheaper.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2010, 8:50 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
The Pentax 17-70 is a very good lens, but Sigma's 17-70 is no slouch either. It's not quite as sharp but it has less chromatic aberration. It's faster at the long end, plus it's a 1:2.3 macro lens. Together with the 1:2 macro of the Tamron 70-300 Di LD, you'd be ready for some macrophotography as well.

Oh, and the Sigma 17-70 is cheaper.
This is not meant to sound like an stupid questions, but one lense is sharper... the other has less chromatic aberration... Do I need the wisdom of Solomon to decide between the two???

The 1:2 macro of the Tamron 70-300 Di LD sounds really interesting.

Many kind thanks, indeed.

Ned
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2010, 9:42 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Ned-

I think it is really a matter of convenience and your shooting style. The Pentax 18-250mm lens is all about convenience and making your kit lighter. Image quality is very good and with it, I really did not need the Pentax 55-300mm lens. I met all my needs quite nicely with a single lens.

Have a great day.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2010, 9:44 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eetu View Post
This is not meant to sound like an stupid questions, but one lense is sharper... the other has less chromatic aberration... Do I need the wisdom of Solomon to decide between the two???
No. You just need to know what you want.

If you don't generally shoot subjects in high contrast situations, the CA in the Pentax isn't going to crop up very often. If you'd like the freedom to crop a little more, go for the sharper of the two. Does the Sigma's 1:2.3 macro sound better than the Pentax' 1:3.2? Is the Sigma's $369 price tag more attractive than the Pentax' $500 price tag?

You didn't think this was going to be easy, did you?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2010, 9:50 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

It really depends on the individual. Some people would rather compromise sharpness for having less CA while others would rather deal with the CA in software and keep the sharpness. It also depends on whether/how much you will be shooting in conditions that would bring out any CA at all. I don't have either of the 17-70 lenses and am not particularly interested in either one, but I ended up opting for the DA 55-300 because I preferred the less CA/PF and didn't think I lost anything as far as sharpness over the Tamron (comparison shots I've seen by one or two people indicate that the Tamron might be a hair sharper, but the differences are very small).

The FA 50 mm f1.4 is a very well liked lens that gets excellent reviews. I don't have one since I have an old M 50mm 1.7 (and a M 50mm 1.4), and they are probably my least used lenses (well, the 1.4 gets used occasionally reversed in front of my macro lens, but that's another subject).

Getting the kit lens is usually a good idea since it adds very little to the cost of the camera. I happen to really like the 55-300 so my recommendation would be to get the kit with those two lenses and set aside the money for a third lens. Get used to the camera and the two lenses you have and see what they can and can't do. You may decide that what you have meets all your needs, or that you really would like to have an external flash more than a different lens. You'll know in a month or two if you will even want anything else, and you'll have a much better idea of just what it is that you will need (if anything) next.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2010, 11:40 AM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 58
Default

So the way I am looking at it, I have (to get a good selection of lenses) 2 basic options.

Buy this now
Pentax K-x Digital SLR with 18-55mm and 55-300mm Zoom Lenses (Black) $714

and this later (maybe Christmas)
Pentax Normal SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Autofocus Lens $359

- 1073

OR
Buy this now

Pentax K-x Digital SLR with 18-55mm Zoom Lens (Navy) $548

(and hopefully this soon if not now)
Pentax Normal SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Autofocus Lens $359

and this later
Tamron 70-300 Di LD $165

- Grand Total of 1072

So the price is really a wash and I guess it comes down to which option is better between the Tamron 70-30 Di LD or the Pentax 55-300mm zoom. Also, it might be that if I don't get the longer length lens, I can get an even nicer one later on. Right now my point and shoot has a really good zoom capabilities and I'd likely take it with me to the Zoo for those situations and be just as happy. So filling that niche right away isn't as important. But I am no expert so what I am saying might not even pan out to reality. Lens needs/uses and differences is where I have a real black hole of knowledge. I also have a big want for a good 50 mm because that is what my friends do most of their shooting in with their kids and get great results, so that is attractive to me. And for some reason just getting the body on BH is more expensive than the body with the 18-55 mm lens. (And while this has NO real bearing, I do like the idea of the navy camera over the basic black, though I am not bold enough for red or white lol)

The other (which I'm not sure is a reality) is getting the Canon 50D $930 and the canon 50 mm 1.8 for 100 dollars, for a total of 1032. then over the next 2 years working up to getting other lens options. I know I'm throwing a whole new camera into the mix.

Last edited by las7828; Mar 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM.
las7828 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 11:00 PM.