Beginner with MZ-50 Needs Help

[david_halliwell]

Hi,

 

I have had my MZ-50 for many years now and have had great results without

trying too hard and without learning a great deal about the techie side of

photography, which I guess is the beauty of this camera. However, we are

about to set off to Africa and I am hoping to take some semi-decent pics of

some wildlife, what lens would you recommend I got if I want to avoid the

disappointment of developing a small spec in the middle of photo of the

plains? Also, can you recommend the best type of film?

 

Hope I am not asking the daftest question ever, but I don't want to go off to

a camera shop and get sold a load of stuff I wont be able to use!

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[unca mikey]

After trying quite a few color films, I've settled on Fuji Superia 400. It's cheap, widely available, and has great color. The 400 speed is fast enough -- when I've taken faster (800 and above) films on trips, they've been affected by the x-ray machines.

 

I don't do much telephoto work, but the FA J 75-300 is cheap and works great, for me. It's light and the MZ-50 will have no problem with the lack of an aperture ring. Anything longer and you'll need a tripod.

 

Travel light and have fun!

[david_halliwell]

Thanks,

for that, found this lens in a online store - any good?

 

Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD

 

Dave

[andrewg_ny]

<A HREF=http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_70300_456_pentax/index.htm>Here's a review</A> of that Tamron. Short answer is probably not bad or hugely different than other lenses of this ilk (70/80-300/320, f/4-5.6 or f/4.5-5.6). This sort of lens tends to be a little soft at the long end of the zoom range. Longer (>320mm) or faster will cost substantially more.

[revolver]

David,

I have the tamron 70-300MM Di lens. it is a great lens but as I am taking more and more photos I am discovering that as Andrew said the long end of the lens tends to distort or blur. you have to be real steady or use a tripod for the full 300MM at longer ranges.

 

if you are 98 feet or more away from your subject the far end of the lens is going to be distorted.

 

I had a hell of a time with the whole metric to feet thing in the beginning...lol

[stemked]

If you can find it I'd recommend the Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO lenses. There are two versions of the lens, the old 72mm filter (DO NOT get the non-APO version) and the 'macro' 77mm filter. Both are decent lenses, the smaller one being quite light, but somewhat fragile. The larger optically superier, but heavier. I have used both versions with a 1.4X-S Pentax teleconvertor, but the larger is definitely the better buy.

 

These lenses used to be pretty reasonable, I'm not sure they are now. Frankly I have the Tamron lens. Not bad until you get beyond 250mm, then it gets soft, but this is a common problem in this type of lens. The version I have has a 'macro' mode that isn't all that bad. But honestly 300mm (and the Tamron really isn't 300mm) is going to be just too short for most wildlife.

 

This is probably a good time to think digital. The 1.5X crop factor makes your think your lenses are 1.5X as long.

[markku_ylilammi]

The crop factor does not increase the magnification. You can get the same effect if you use only a fraction of the film area. You have to use low speed film of course.

 

Long zooms are heavy, expensive, slow, and there are often problems with resolving power. The ideal solution is a second hand long prime lens. There are several good alternatives in the K and M series of Pentax, but I suspect that MZ-50 mount is somehow crippled and cannot use these. Then you must pick your tele in the A series which is difficult to find. With these you must use manual focusing.

[david_halliwell]

Wow. Guys thanks for all the useful tips. As weight and space should not be too much of a problem, I am thinking that a small tripod could be a good idea and given my experience of photography with anything other that auto functions, I think I should stick with a lens that supports this.