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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 7, 2010, 7:02 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

the tamron is better then the 50-200, but the pentax 55-300 is better then the tamron on the long end. So if you are looking a good longer reach, the pentax would be a better options. I you are looking for a macro zoom with good performance out to 200mm, and gives you the extra reach to 300mm, the tamron is not a bad choice. But is soft at 200-300mm.
__________________
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 Aug 7, 2010, 7:06 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

From what you've said so far, I suggest you skip the telephoto zoom and put your money toward a TAMRON 90mm F2.8 Di PAF or a SIGMA 105mm f2.8 EX PAF DG Macro.
__________________
  • 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 Aug 7, 2010, 7:51 PM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 14
Default

Ahh wow, those lenses are really far out of my budget TCav

I'd like to do some macro photography, portrait, landscapes and time lapse. It seems though that I choose the expensive types to shoot heh. Apart from the kit lens what would be a good all rounder that you would recommend?

( I have no clue what certain markings on the lens mean http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productDA...roductID=13879
for example... what does SMC P DA AL 3.5-5.6 mean? )
ConorKennedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2010, 7:53 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If you are shooting some marco of things that do not get spooked away, you can use a short macro lens like the sigma 50mm 2.8 macro.
__________________
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 Aug 7, 2010, 7:56 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

PS

macro lenses make great portrait lenses. And the kit lens is a good landscape lens.
__________________
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 Aug 7, 2010, 8:25 PM   #26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 14
Default

Thanks for getting back to me. I'll maybe just leave the 50-200 lens depending on what else I see for a reasonably cheap price.

I'd be grateful if you could recommend me some kit to start myself out like a decent bag (possibly backpack / messenger bag style), filters etc.

Thanks
ConorKennedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2010, 8:38 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Not sure if there is a kit with the pentax k-x with the 18-55 and the 55-300 lenses where you are. But that is actually a very good combo.

With a bad, it depends on the individual. Some like shoulder bags, other like backpacks, and some like sling bags. And depending on the brand, they can range from inexpensive to very expensive.

A good quality bag that is not to expensive in a should bag, is the tamrac messengers. It will hold the k-x with 3 lenses and a external flash. If you are not planning to get carry away on the lenses, maybe just adding a macro lens and a flash down the road it is a good 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 Aug 8, 2010, 6:15 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

You've never really mentioned anything that would lead me to believe you'd need a longer lens. Try the kit lens first, and see what happens. If you're anxious, instead of the kit lens, you could get the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5. It's longer, wider, faster, and sharper than the kit lens, plus it does 1:2.3 macro, so it would be right up your alley. But it costs more.
__________________
  • 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 Aug 8, 2010, 8:43 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tclune View Post
....The IS in the body is a bit trickier. It isn't as good as in-lens. The usual rule of thumb is that in-camera IS buys you a full stop worth of stabilization, first generation lens stabilization (VR in Nikon) buys you two stops, and current technology (VRII for Nikon) buys you three stops. However, these apparently can be cumulative -- if you have in-body stabilization and a VR lens, you get three full stops of stabilization, etc. So, AFAIK, in-body stabilization is always either irrelevant (sports shoots or tripod photography) or a benefit. It appears that the only reason not to include it is to save money.
I am sorry but it does NOT work that way. When both lens based stabilization AND in body stabilization are used together, they cancel each other out rather than be cumulative. Here is why....

  • As the light passes through the lens, accelerometers senses motion in the axis and make micro adjustments on an optical element in order to stabilize the image as its projected on the sensor (within the body).
  • In body stabilization has another set of accelerometers that again sense the same movement, and again make micro adjustments in the position of the sensor in the X and Y plane (up and down) to mitigate the motion.
  • However when used together in series - light passes through the lens and is stabilized, and projected on to the sensor, which is then being moved to again stabilize the image - this actually just serves to un-stabilizes the image by essentially injecting motion back into the image.

So, in practice - it is one OR the other, BUT NOT both.

Lens based stabilization technology is claimed to be better, and some actual tests shows that it is by a small margin. However, in body stabilization at the sensor, is there and can be applied to all lenses that are mounted. Lens based technology is usually applied to general and telescopic lenses, but usually not wide angle because it is thought to not be needed as much to shorter focal length lenses. Wide angle or short focal length lenses, can benefit from it too - especially at dusk and evening conditions or interior low light conditions. So in practice in body may be slightly less effective of the two, but can be applied to all situations, thus its affects can be applied across the board in all situations.

... hope that helps...

Last edited by interested_observer; Aug 8, 2010 at 8:45 AM.
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2010, 2:16 PM   #30
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
You've never really mentioned anything that would lead me to believe you'd need a longer lens. Try the kit lens first, and see what happens. If you're anxious, instead of the kit lens, you could get the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5. It's longer, wider, faster, and sharper than the kit lens, plus it does 1:2.3 macro, so it would be right up your alley. But it costs more.
What sort of things would the 55-200 be used for?
I think the Sigma is slightly out of my price range as a beginner lens. From what I'm reading the 55-200 is about 130 to buy and I get it on offer for 60-70 so I'm not sure if I'm better off buying it just due to the offer or not.

It's also cheaper to buy the K-x with the kit lens as apposed to just the body.

Everytime I just about decide I change my mind haha.
ConorKennedy 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 6:13 PM.