Telephoto zoom lens for K10D Which one?

[gerald_silverman]

Sigma, Tamron or Pentax? Which one to use with my K10D? Going on safari and

would like an 18-200 or 18 250 lens. Are the quality and features on these

lenses about equal? Is any one a standout?

 

 

Thanks for any input

 

 

GS

[kevin_hess]

none of these 18 to 100+lenses do very well across the range you will do beter with two or thre lenses start with a 17 to 55 or so and a 70 t0 200 you will get beter images and most likley wont miss the gap from 55 to 70

[michael_kuhne]

Which lenses do you now have?

[a few images]

Safari?

 

Bigma!

 

50-500 :)

[r.t. dowling]

The Tamron 70-300 Di is a great little lens, very good image quality from 70 to 250-ish, usable image quality to 300, 6 year warranty, and a bargain at under $200. Add the Sigma 17-70 and you've got an excellent 17-300 solution with no gaps. Another option would be the Pentax 16-45, which would give you a slight gap, but probably not a problem in most situations.

[mc2imaging]

For a Safari, I'd say you need a good tele-zoom, not a superzoom. Having said that, I do

have a Tamron 28-300mm that I really use mostly on the long end and it does a pretty

good job, but is a bit slow. Used off eBay, mine was about $125. If you are traveling light

and only want one lens, I understand the desire for a superzoom, but your image quality

will be better with a tele-zoom.<p>

 

A while back, we discussed some long glass. You might find <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NagD"

target="new">this thread</a> interesting.

[gerald_silverman]

Thank you all for some great insight. I se no one mention the Pentax lenses; why is that?

[gerald_silverman]

Thank you all for some great insight. I see no one mentioned the Pentax lenses; why is that? Oh and Michael: I am currently using my old 28-200 sigma lens from my old Pentax, but it is not a digital.

[william-porter]

Gerald asks: "Thank you all for some great insight. I se no one mention the Pentax lenses; why is that?"

 

Well, long telephoto lenses are most definitely NOT the Pentax platform's strong suit. You don't see a lot (er, any) National Geographic photograhers with Pentax equipment. Pentax is what you get when you'll be close enough to tell the subject to smile.

 

What Pentax lenses would you expect people to mention?

 

I owned the Pentax 70-300 for a while, sold it and got the Tamron 75-300 instead, which is a little better and has a pseudo-macro close-focus capability. The Tamron is not a GREAT lens, certainly, but it's okay and I've taken some decent shots with it. One of these days I'll upgrade to the Sigma 135-400 or something else, but above 200 all my shooting is just hobby stuff (vacations mainly) and I can't justify the expense.

 

The Pentax 18-250 might also be mentioned, and the difference in reach between 250 and 300 isn't that great. But I don't know anybody who's got the Pentax 18-250. Everybody seems to be happy with the Tamron 18-250 which has sometimes been suspected of being the same lens. I doubt it, but I had the Tamron 18-250. Sold it, too, but it was a very decent lens and in retrospect I wish I had it still.

[mountainvisions]

Will,

 

Let me clarify...you don't see a lot of NatGeo wildlife photographers with pentax equipment. It's important to make that distinction because otherwise, I'd be forced to pull out an issue of NatGeo and reference pages where Pentax 645 and 6x7 gear is listed, and I'm sure you don't want me to waste my time on that?

 

But the premise of Will's statement is true, Pentax has in the past made pretty much every lens all the other comapanies have made, plus a few oddballs.

 

For instance on this board a guy in PA is selling a 600mm F/4 Pentax F lens. Probably long gone, and they have made 300mm 2.8s and 200mm 2.0 (or 2.8). When Pentax retooled for digital, it abandoned (foolishly) the FA long lenses, and started over with normalish lenses, like 21mm-70mm, plus wide angles like the 14mm and 12-24mm. Recently they issued a very fine 50-135mm, and soon to be releases is a 200mm 2.8, and a 60-250mm f/4, both of which are slightly short IMO for wildlife.

 

To the OP you probably want something like a 300mm 2.8 and a 1.4x TC, or a 300 to 400mm f/4 type lens that can accept a TC. 200mm isn't going to get you very close to the wildlife even with the 1.5X crop factor (aka, lossless teleconverter).

[samius]

I've always dreamed of a photo safari .. congratulations!! You will get some good advice about about long lenses here. The longer sigma lenses come to mind.

Please take a 16-45mm or a 35/2 as well for some pics of the camps your guides etc. And from what I've seen on Planet Earth.. Africa has plenty of beautiful views to be capture with a wide lens when the wild critters are out of site.

[a few images]

If you'd like a Pentax lens, that's all well and fine, however, if you're asking about a Pentax lens, you don't need one ;)

[frank_b._baiamonte]

The Pentax 50-200 is not bad for its size, I am happy with mine. (I would never compare

it to the Nikon 300/4 that I use on an F100, but for what it is it's not bad.) Paired with the

16-45/4 it makes a nice combination. I would rather do that than the 18-200, mostly

because the 16-45 is so nice, and I've never been that impressed with the super zooms.

 

I've used a few of the Tamron 70-300's in the past, in various mounts. I thought they

were OK, but nothing special, especially at the long end. They're not very expensive, might

be worth trying one out to see if you like it. Get the latest version.

 

I guess it really depends on how much you want to carry, and how long a lens you'll need.

If you think 300mm (35mm equivalent that is) is enough, then the 50-200 might be good.

If you really need 450mm then try the 70-300.

[michael_kuhne]

Ok we'll get down to the nuts and bolts here. The Pentax 50-200 main advantage over what you have is that it is smaller. Disadvantage- it has no width, all tele range.

 

The advantage of the Tamron 18-250mm is you can go from a very wide angle to long tele without lens changing. Easier to get that spur of the moment shot from near or far. As you already know from using your 28-200mm with film, great when there is no time to change lenses. And that can be inconvenient when bumping around in the outback. Then there is blowing dirt. So there is a lot to be said under such conditions for a good quality super zoom, which the Tamron reportedly is. Disadvantage- pretty slow at the longer end.

 

Under more optimum conditions, I would take two camera bodies, one compact model with a short lens, and the larger body with a tele zoom, probably a Sigma 70-300mm DG lens. This lens provides good range and quality without being very heavy. At about 190mm, which your 28-200mm really is, it can provide about twice the shutter speed, and better quality.

[rogerdaltx]

I was on a dive trip back in the Spring and took my EOS with several pro f/2.8 zooms. It was about 20lbs of camera bag. I ended up leaving it at the hotel for most of the week as it was too much to carry on foot all day and I was dealing with blowing sand and sea spay which I did not want to change lenses in. Plus I was in and out rather questionable areas. My point and shoot got used 70% of the time.

 

On that trip a super zoom like the Tamron / Pentax 18-250 and my lighter Pentax body whould have been the better choice. These are amoung the better super zooms out there. Some times you can't or don't have time to or don't want to change lenses.

 

Here is one more thought. The point and shoot super zoom cameras do have their place. Traveling light and where you might need significant reach, they are not a bad option. I think the current best of breeds of these camera are the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 with 18X zoom and the Canon PowerShot S5 IS with 12x zoom. For $300 to $400 dollars it would make a great back-up camera for your SLR. Plus the Canon uses AA batteries, I think a plus when traveling.

 

My main point, sometimes your best gear is not necessarily the best gear for the job at hand. If you don't have your camera with you and convenient to use you come home without the shot or at best really annoy the other around you with you fiddle with lenses and bags. Have a backup camera to compliment your SLR

 

/Roger

[garydem]

the following is a link to an article about going on a digital photo safari. about halfway through they are talking about recommended sizes for telephoto lenses. if you noting the mm length take care as which camera they are used on with or without a crop factor.

my conclusion from reading the article is that some real telephoto muscle is required.

this may mean that a lens for a safari will not get much use once home where you would be shooting at a more normal distance. have you considered slecting the lens size then RENTING IT FOR THE SAFARI ONLY?

this would be a lot cheaper than a 1 time only use of a very expensive lens.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Safari-Tips.shtml

[henkc]

It all depends on what you want to photograph on your Safari. The longest lens I currently have is a Tamron 70-300, which serves me well, although I find that my shorter lenses get a lot more work.

 

It's probably also important to bear in mind that you may well spend a lot of time in a dusty environment, where you will need to think twice before changing lenses, which is a big plus for the superzooms. I often carry my old Minolta A1 around for preciely this reason.

 

I've added a picture taken with the Tamron at 260mm a few months back. The reality is that you don't stop and ask the animals to pose nicely.

 

Enjoy the trip.<div></div>

[gerald_silverman]

Wow! some great info here. I guess I am leaning to a super tele for all the reasons stated above. One more thing: Is there a longer Super lens that goes beyond the 28-250/300 range?

 

Thanks Again

[michael_kuhne]

A 28-300mm is as long as a super zoom gets. Just a semi-wide at the short end for digital though. The Sigma just prior to the current model was the best of these, according to tests. I think the digital Tamron 18-250 also tested better than most for quality.

[gerald_silverman]

Michael,

 

Thanks so much for the very helpful info. Also thanks to all who contributed to my questions

 

 

GS

[mggm59]

I know this is not exactly travelling light, but when I go to an important, once in a lifetime

trip, I never leave without at least two bodies. And one of them can be film if needed.

 

I would go with a fixed 300 or 400 mm on the digital (with crop factor, anything should be

within reach, and with stabilisation quality should be ok even if it is not a 2.8. Another

body with a 80-200 2.8 (I have an APO Sigma EX with its TC). If it is film, one can swap

lens more lightheartedly with a 28-80 or lower for the cases where it is needed.

 

And to round it out I always take with me the emergency (but with good light, oftern more

than enough) Lumix TZ3 with its very good 28-280 stabilized lens. For the bulk, it is a

good insurance policy. And in case it can replace the film body with its 28mm capability.

 

Cheers

Maurizio

[henkc]

When travelling to Africa, everyone knows and expects (should be hopes) to see the Big 5. Don't forget the small 5 http://www.polepole.co.za/big5.htm . There's a lot to be said for having a macro lens along as well.

[gerald_silverman]

Henk,

Very cool! thanks

 

GS

[slawek_jacek]

I have Pentax SMCP-FA 100-300mm f/4.7-5.8 and am very happy with it despite rather poor reviews on the net. It's very light and IQ is not bad. Here is a wildlife picture sample at long end (300mm)and wide open. It only gets better from there.<div></div>

[acrummey]

I also have Pentax SMCP-FA 100-300mm f/4.7-5.8, it is not terribly well built but is very lightweight and has decent IQ. I have shot some very nice images with this lens at the 300mm end. I also have a much better built SMCP-F 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 but it doesn't really offer any improvements in IQ. Here is a shot with the FA.<div></div>