Which lens?

[noah_maier]

<p>I just bought some gear so I'm waiting a while for this, but I'm looking to replace my 18-55 (first series). Here is my kit:<br>

K10D, 50-135 2.8, 18-55 3.5-5.6, 400mm 5.6, 70-300mm 4-5.6, 135mm 2.8, 50mm 1.7, 80-200 f4.5, Lensbaby Muse (glass, 50mm), *ist DL, 360FGZ, Vivitar 285HV, Pocket Wizards, grip, and other stuff.<br>

I shoot mostly weddings and events, with some portraiture and food thrown in.<br>

Here are my options:<br>

10-17mm Fisheye (Love the effect!)<br>

12-24mm<br>

30mm 1.4 (Sigma)<br>

16-50mm 2.8<br>

28-75mm 2.8 (Tamron or Sigma)<br>

50mm 1.4 (Mine is manual focus)</p>

<p>Thanks in advance! And if you have any other suggestions I'm open to them</p>

 

[roseberry guitars]

<p>Noah, if you're doing quite a few weddings and considering what you already have, I'd say go for the DA* 16 - 50mm f2.8 first. I have a simular kit to yours, which I use for weddings, product shots and my own pleasure. The DA* 16 - 50mm gets the most work by far. It's a great lens and I don't know how I survived without it.</p>

<p>I have the 50mm f1,4 and it doesn't get used nearly as often as one would think it would. In fact in last weeks wedding it didn't even make it out of the camera bag. That's gotta tell me something.</p>

<p>I've been reading about the new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM which has the constant f3.5 throughout it's range as opposed to the older Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC which changed from f4 - f 5.6. And an alternative which I think I prefer (a hold over from my film days where third party lenses were not up to par with the label issue most of the time...not so these days) is the Pentax 12 - 24mm f 4. Either one whould be a good addition at a later date.</p>

<p>I think a good thing to do is go over your recent work and see what range you naturally gravitate towards working in. I do this every so often and find some surprising stats. It gives me a hint as to what my next lens should be. I find my tastes change over time as well as holes in my kit show up rather quickly.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>I think you'd want to replace the range you are taking out of service, the 18-55. I have the Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 and it is working very well, I am very pleased with it. I also have the Sigma 10-20 F/4-5.6 and it is giving the same great results at the 18-50. I didn't know Sigma was coming out with a new 10-20mm F/3.5, that would be useful when lighting is not so great. And I have the Pentax 10-17 fish eye, just for fun- what a neat lens. Sigma has some fish eye lenses, too, both linear and circular, the latter for digital cameras. But because you are leaving a big gap in your collection removing that 18-55, I'd go first with something to replace that range, then the 10-20'ish after that. But those are just my thoughts.</p>

[noah_maier]

<p>The only reason I would consider the fisheye is because I tend to use my 18-55mm at it's widest setting, and it's a very inexpensive lens :)<br>

The new sigma 10-20mm sounded very interesting. <br>

Here are some price differences, just for reference.<br>

Pentax 12-24mm $579<br>

Sigma 18-50mm $367<br>

Pentax 16-50mm $609<br>

Sigma 30mm 1.4 $417<br>

I personally would like to get something a little bit more wide than a 16, but I do love my 50-135. Perhaps the 16-50 is a good option. Is the 12-24mm really worth $579? At face value I don't see too much that's unique.</p>

[noah_maier]

<p>I also forgot to say thanks for the great advice! That's why I love this forum</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>If you like the effect of the fisheye, and want a wiiiide field of view, that zoom lens is quite unique. Its FOV is actually quite a bit wider than a standard 10mm. I have both it and the 12-24mm, because with the fiseye zoom, the FOV at 17mm is nearly as great as 12mm on the 12-24mm lens, so they match up well. That new Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 should be good as well for a standard wide. But no wide angle zoom will replace your 18-55mm. </p>

<p>A wide-to-short tele zoom is a whole other matter, a different category. You simply cannot get as wide with such a lens. But it is more versatile since it also provides some tele range. Depends also on how fast you need it to be, and this is dictated by the uses you are looking for. If you actually need a f/2.8 zoom, then you need it. If not, there are other options. Getting a handle of your intended use should narrow the choices. </p>

[noah_maier]

<p>I need some pretty fast lenses most of the time, at least until the ISO performance of Pentax gets extreme :D<br>

So what I am understanding is that I cannot be cheap and buy one lens that does everything. Oh well, so much for that theory. So let's talk two lenses now, and throw some primes in there. I want one superwide for fisheye, and something to cover the wide to medium range. I will buy the fisheye (cause I love it!), but as for the wide to medium range I need something fast. 12-24 is out of the picture, it's too expensive and not fast enough. I seem to have everything past 50mm covered 3x over, but everything below it is a crapshoot.<br>

Thanks again!</p>

[arkadiy_chernov]

<p>I´m using the istDL too, and hey...get a good piece of glass...and the pix will be improved DRAMATICALLY! hehe I got myself a voigtlander...oh well...who cares.<br>

For weddings and stuff...i´ll go for 16-50mm. For close-ups, like product shots, or portraits, nothin´is better than a Zeiss, but getting Voigtlander 90/.35 instead for 1/3 or 1/4 of the price...it´s a big deal right there. Those lenses are real cream machines, and extremely precise when focusing. But I see that u have the 50-135 there..so...u shouldn worry that much I guess =)<br>

VL is coming up wif a 20mm...just if you are interested. No doubt that the quality will be awesome. Or orrrrr....u have the Distagons from Zeiss...but be ready to spend 1700+ =) (That´s in case if u want ur grand grandkids use ur lenses for their future 3 or 4D photography or something far far in the future lolololol)</p>

 

[steve_t.1]

<p>The Pentax 10-17mm fish eye is F/3.5-4.5 through its zoom range.</p>

<p>Up at 15 to 17mm, the fish eye effect is knocked down, but still present. You can limit the warped look by putting your main subject right through the horizontal center line of the lens.</p>

<p>Here's a thread I did a few weeks ago when I went to play with the fish eye for the first time. Jump down to the shots showing my living room and out my front door (night shots), those will give you an idea of how things look for warp and for zoom.<br>

http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00SPqg</p>

<p>This shot shows what the horizon looks like when it is below the center line of the lens-<br>

<img src="http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p26/stevet_010/_K200598.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And this shot shows the horizon on the center line of the lens. The warp is down at the bottom at the shoreline of this frozen lake, where it is visible, and at the top of the photo just showing sky, where the warp is not really noticeable. These photos were taken within just a moment or two of each other.<br>

<img src="http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p26/stevet_010/_K200581.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[noah_maier]

<p>I didn't even consider Voightlander, good tip.<br>

And thanks for the fisheye info, I'll keep in in mind!</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>One favorite of mine, a fast prime to consider, is the high-quality Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG. </p>

<p>Then of course, get your 10-17mm fisheye zoom, and for the mid range- with a wide angle being important to you, either the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, or the pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 SDM would be fine choices. </p>

[michellemandat]

<p>My 18/55, very used was broken. After testing many lenses, I bought a new one because it's one of the better lens in this range, except slight vignetting when set at 18.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Noah, the key is matching your lenses with the type of assignment without burdening your load too much. Your wallet, of course, is another story. After reading your use scenarios and your requirements, I would recommend a higher quality version of a lens like your kit lens. Two that come to mind are the Pentax DA* 16-50mm and the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.</p>

<p>Shooting events is among my corporate gigs (though fine art is my personal bent) and I've learned to go pretty efficient and fast. You already have the DA* 50-135. To match I've been pleased with the Tamron. I purchased it last year when quality issues were rampant with the DA* 16-50mm; I don't know the situation now. They are very similar lenses; the Tamron may be a bit sharper and lighter, and is about $400 new; the DA* is weatherproof, renders color a bit more accurately, and is that one degree wider.</p>

<p>I would usually recommend one more very fast prime for the spontaneous portrait/headshot or terrible lighting capability, but you have the 50mm f 1.7; I take a FA 50mm f 1.4 along as it is small and light. The AF can help, especially when combined with the AF-assist light on my Metz 58-AF unit. But I'm quite OK with manual focus.</p>

<p>I love the DA 12-24, but I find it too wide and a bit slow (f4) for most social shooting; the extra heft is too much a burden for being on the move too. But that's just me.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[noah_maier]

<p>I love the idea of a 24mm at 1.8. Paired with a Tamron/Sigma 18-55mm 2.8 and a fisheye I think my wide angles would be well developed. LBA is a deadly disease. Be careful</p>

[noah_maier]

<p>Is there a notable difference quality wise between the tamron and sigma 18-55?<br>

And how do they compare with the 16-50? And my kit lens?</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Noah, the Tamron is 17-50mm. I have no experience with the corresponding Sigma. The Pentax optically is just as good and perhaps a tad better, but it has had quality control issues in the past.</p>

<p>Your kit lens is good in the genre of kit lenses, but compared to the Pentax or Tamron it is in a lesser league. Speed matters here, especially for events for which lighting is somewhat unpredictable<br>

The fisheye zoom is a special effects lens and for artistic purposes I'm sure it's good.</p>

<p>After some thought, the one strong benefit the DA 12-24mm has for event-related shooting is when you are scouting locations. Occasionally I'm in a creative director role and have to coordinate lighting placement, and work with video folks and signage artists . The extra width is great for capturing a whole hall so other photogs can better prepare for setup and lighting angles.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>If this is important to you, the 12-24 has relatively little distortion in the 15-24 range where the wide end of standard zooms will be relatively weak. I'm tending to think that the 16-50 would probably good for you. The 10-17 is interesting for some effects but don't confuse that 17mm length with the 18mm of your kit lens; the 17mm fisheye is pretty close in angle-of-view to the 12mm wide end of the 12-24.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I have never seen a negative comment for the Sigma 18-50mm, which I think is also a fairly recent lens. It got very high test reviews, has good close focus capability, and goes for a very reasonable price tag. The Pentax goes wider, but of course with considerable distortion at 16mm. Andrew is right as to the distortion aspect at 15-24mm for the Pentax wide angle lens. But if you don't do much shooting archetecture, or linear subjects like city scapes where there are linear subjects, you are unlikely to notice any distortion. Of course, the fine 24mm f/1.8 prime lens has very low distortion. There has always been a rub or two in the wide angle category for DSLRs. So when I want to get real critical for wide angle, especially low light situations, I throw my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 on a film body. That is like 16mm on a DSLR. After all, it is a full frame lens, and even has an aperture ring! It is one of Sigma's best lenses, IMO. </p>

[slamet_hendry1]

<p>I have K200D and just got the Sigma 30mm / f1.4 a few weeks ago. I have not taken too many pictures with it yet, but based on what I see so far, I can recommend the lens. Mine is reasonably sharp, has good colour and constrast. And I love the bokeh.<br>

I was wavering among FA 35mm / f2, DA 35mm / f2.8 limited and the Sigma above (also FA 31mm / f1.8 limited, but the price was beyond what I was planning to spend). I looked over results from the Sigma that were taken by a pro wedding photographer and to my eyes they seemed as good as the results from the 35mm limited, so I went with the Sigma for the extra speed.<br>

SH</p>

[noah_maier]

<p>I'll probably end up buying three lenses to satisfy my wide angle hunger. First comes the fisheye, simply because I'm picking up more concert photography jobs, and the fisheye would be good to have. Next will probably be a low light sigma prime, and then finally a wide sigma zoom. <br>

Is the Pentax 31mm 1.8 really worth the price? I've heard some people say its the best ever made, but I've heard other people say that you can't tell a difference between it and similar primes. I've never owned a limited lens, so I am curious about the difference.</p>