Len Choices

[mike_downs]

<p>I currently have a DA 18-55 and a DA 55-300. Which lens would I need to round out the package. I would like to be able to shoot all types of photos. I have about a 1000 dollars to spent on additional lenses. Thanks for any help!!</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Hmmm, sounds like me 3 years ago and 134 lenses later ..lol</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p><br />Your question is overly broad, Mike! Right now you already have a well-rounded package for most general uses, with a lot of range from wide angle to telephoto. Good lenses too. And which camera?</p>

<p>To "round out the package" more now depends on what is now lacking for you in your own particualr shooting needs. Where do your lenses now leave you short? Do you often run out of tele zoom too quickly with your 18-55mm? On the other hand, if you very often find you need to get wider angle than you now have, obviously the addition of a lens with wider-angle range is needed. If shooting longer range tele is your need, that could get very pricey. If you need to get some really close closeup shots, a macro lens would be a logical addition, and they are not cheap. If you shoot quite a bit of fast action, particularly under artificial lighting or lower light, without flash, you'll need a lens with a fast, wider aperture capability. Those aren't cheap either. And, fast zoom lenses are larger, heavier, and usually have a shorter zoom range than you can get with a slower aperture zoom.</p>

<p>If you need a very compact lens of very high quality in a non-zoom, the Pentax Limited series of primes is top of the line. </p>

[elnoralouisa]

<p>I agree, you need to know what you need. A 50mm 1.4 is always good, and cheap. If you switch lenses a lot because of the cut off at 55, then a zoom lens that goes from 18-? would be good. For me a true macro lens would be on top of my list, but it all depends on what you spend your time doing.</p>

[don_rasmussen]

<p>Great recommendations. Sounds like you are new to SLR photography, so the implication in the previous suggestions is to go out and shoot, shoot, shoot --- until you discover for yourself where your interests lie and where your equipment is lacking, then fill that void.</p>

[mike_downs]

<p>I have a K20D<br>

I was thinking a marco len--Sigma 17-70 2.8 Marco- I think it would serve most walk around needs.i.e. close up,landscapes,nature and portraits. Are converters any good, extending the reach of the 300 would be nice. I enjoy hiking and take alot of nature shots currently. I would like to avoid purchasing 132 lenses in the next 3 years as did Javier. I would like have 3 or 4 good lenses to serve almost any need that may arise. Sorry for be overly broad!Thanks for your patiences.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>I should mention that I was joking on the 134 lenses, but in truth, I have bought over 75 of them, but many are ebay film manual lenses and such.</p>

[elnoralouisa]

<p>Portraits, get the 50 1.4 for cheap, but good lens.<br>

Notice that Sigma is not really a macro...."Maximum magnification of 1:2.3 enables close-up photography LIKE a macro lens" It will work as a macro lens and get you closer pics, but a true macro is a 1:1 magnification. Also, might be just me, but I prefer something like a 70-300 "macro" as in 1:2 lens because of the distance. Often find it hard to get close to the flowers or bugs. I had a 50mm 1:1 macro, and just too short for bugs!</p>

 

[c_wyatt]

<p>Depends what you need it for.</p>

<p>The Pentax lenses where I am are hard to come by and way over-priced so I have more experience with Sigma. Sigma have quality control issues, but if you go through a reputable dealer there should be no problem in returning a lens that has any focus issues. Their service in this area is meant to be good. Their <em>EX</em> range is their top of the line - very good build quality, good optics and great value. I have the Pentax DA 18-55mm. I mostly use 30-50mm and I have a <strong>Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO </strong>on the way. The discontinued <strong>Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG </strong>(very well priced), or <strong>Sigma 18-50mm EX f/2.8</strong> are also options. I find the Pentax DA kit lens has a heap of fringing at 18mm, so you could pair up the standard zoom Sigma with a Sigma 10-20mm or Sigma/Pentax 12-24mm. Otherwise there is the Pentax DA* range (especially if you need weather-sealing), the 50-135mm is good I'm told. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is meant to be pretty good and the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 has had some outstanding reviews from users.</p>

<p>Oh and Tamron makes plenty of lenses sinilar to Sigma you might want to check out. Their 17-50mm f/2.8 is meant to be really good. Tamron isn't available here though so I have no experience with them.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>Oh just saw your post about telephoto range.</p>

<p>Check out the Sigma range here: <a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp</a></p>

<p>There's 50-500mm, 150-500mm, 500mm, 300-800mm...</p>

<p>I've never used a teleconverter but I read that they <em>always</em> reduce optical quality (and speed). I think the 1.4x converters are less of a compromise in quality and speed than the 2x converter. They are both much cheaper than big, quality telephoto lenses though. Telephoto + fast = $$$$$$$$$$. If you really want range above 300mm, a converter might be a cheaper option if image quality isn;t the number one priority, or at least till you decide on what lens might suit you the most.</p>

<p>With regards to the macro side, I have a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 'macro' which is 1:2, but thats at the 300mm end and this is a budget telephoto zoom, where 300mm is not a good performer. Up to 200mm the lens is pretty good, but 'macro' is only available from 200-300mm. Useful to have 1:2, but if you really want to shoot macro I'd say get a dedicated macro lens. Real macro is 1:1, they just stick the label on a bunch lenses from 1:4 now it seems.</p>

[langkata]

<p>Mike, I was in a similar situation a year or two ago, but with the 18-55, 50-200 and k10d. I ended up getting the 50 1.4 and later the Sigma 17-70. With both I saw a very satisfying increase in image quality. Two problems with Sigma: I am often annoyed at losing the option of 2.8 aperture at I think 22mm and up, and I agree with Debbie about 70mm being a little short (would rather not have to get that close), but a great walk around lens worth every penny. But now I d really like a 100mm(or more) 1:1 macro.<br>

However, I recently bought the DA* 50-135. It absolutely blows the others away.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>The Sigma 17-70mm has a pretty decent reputation, but it's not a top <em>EX</em> model, and it doesn't have a constant aperture, which may or may not matter to you. There's a Pentax 17-70mm f/4 with SDM which is meant to be pretty decent. Most of the high quality zooms have constant f/2.8 which is pretty quick, though they can't match primes. The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG (like most of the f/2.8 zooms) is pretty decent at f/2.8, but if you can afford to stop it down to 4 or 5.6 it's meant to be razor sharp. On a slower lens that might mean to have to stop it down to f/8 or f/11 and still not get the same quality.</p>

<p>Apologies for all the blabbing on about Sigmas, I've been choosing a new lens so I've read literally hundreds of reviews over the past few weeks. Was looking in the moderately wide to short telephoto range, say 17-80mm. I wanted it mostly for general and street photography. For my needs I settled on the Sigma 24-60mm EX DG, for the great optics at a really, really good price. Had to send it back with a front focusing issue. Was going to get a replacement, then I was offered the Sigma 24-70mm EX DG Macro for the same price so I've gone with that. Another option was the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX but it was a touch short, and I use 18mm less than 60mm (unless it's landscapes, but then I'm planning on a Sigma 10-20 or 12-24 in the future.</p>

<p>The downsides to the lens I chose: size, weight, filter size. Upsides: price, range, speed, image quality.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di has a pretty good reputation. It's not wide enough at the wide end though, but has a very usable short tele / portrait range.</p>

<p>The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is another worthy kit-lens-replacement.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>The main consideration as to a f/2.8 constant aperture pro style zoom is- do you really need that speed, enough to warrant toting the extra size and weight along with less zooming range. The speed can provide more shutter speed for action under lower lighting, and can allow you to reduce your depth of field more to blur background better.</p>

<p>I have such lenses, but I often choose a smaller, lighter lens for many uses where that speed is not an issue.</p>

<p>Otherwise, the Sigma 17-70mm zoom has a very good reputation among its users, with greater range and speed than the Pentax kit lens. I would still keep the kit lens in any case, as it is great for very compact casual use, and so small the built-in camera flash can be used without interference if you take off the lens hood.</p>

[mike_downs]

<p>Thanks for all the great info. I'm thinking that lenses for marco and potrait will be my next two purchases. I do believe a faster len will help my K20"s focusing performance in low light condirions. Not one of the best performers....I will say that this is the first forum were the members are interested in promoting the hobby, instead of trying to sell their BRAND or opinion. Thanks!! I noticed no comments on the usefulness of a tele-converter (1.4)for additional reach..</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>A TC can be useful if you need more reach, providing you have plenty of light. You do lose a little quality by adding the extra glass, and with 1.4x you lose a stop of speed. So a f/5.6 lens becomes f/8 wide open. f/8 max will not support autofocus. There is also a chance a particular TC will not mate well with a particular lens, with poor quality and focus issues as a result.</p>

<p>Although that Sigma 17-70mm is not a true macro 1:1 lens, the 1:2 it offers is quite good, and the quality for closeups also not bad. Even with a true macro lens, most closeups are not done at max 1:1 anyway. This Sigma would allow you to do some decent closeups and see if you want to get into more with a true quality macro. It would also serve the purpose of greater range, all at a reasonable price. Not trying to sell it, but to answer the needs you have addressed, it seems like a plausible step. </p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Oh, and the 70mm f/4.5 of that Sigma zoom is also quite good for portrait use.</p>

<p>That said, a fine prime lens is a very good thing to have, and the FA 50mm f/1.4 is an excellent, extremely FAST high-quality lens. It would be a good choice as an addition to whatever zooms you have or will have. Now is the time to get one, because it is being phased out, and when gone the replacement will cost twice as much.</p>

[hagar]

<p>One of the best TC's to get is the Tamron 1.4x Pz-AF MC4. It works with SDM lenses. But make sure that it's the MC4.. it is difficult to find. Here's a shot with the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG + k20d + Tamron 1.4 TC. It's cropped pretty heavily (almost at 100%). Handheld</p><div></div>

[j.p.snapd]

<p>Hi,<br>

This is my first contribution on this site.<br>

Before anything, I would like to say how much I have appreciated reading the posts from all of you, great work! great sincerity and honesty, invaluable advice ! Kudos to all of you !<br>

I am new to digital photography. I have a K20D and a system with 4 lenses for now.<br>

Mike, if I may give you a piece of advice and if you are still ready to go for a macro lens, I would suggest the Tamron 90mm f2.8. It is a true 1:1 macro of superior quality and great value for money. Also a superb lens for portraits. Do check it out, you shouldn't regret it.<br>

As for the zoom lenses you have, I think you must get familiar using them before you make a decision to get anything else, although a standard prime is generally the main work-horse. I've preferred the 35mm f2 AL over the 50 f1.4 and am quite pleased with it.<br>

I also have your 55-300, very good value for money as well. And I take the 16-50 DA* with me most of the time when I don't know what to expect.<br>

Hope this will be useful?<br>

Jean-Pierre</p>

[johnw436]

<p>I keep myself sane when it comes to buying lenses with a challenge I created for myself. To justify buying something new I have to prove I cannot do something with what I have. If I honestly cannot accomplish something with what I have then I have no regrets about buying what I want. BUT, in most cases I find out that I can do it with what I have. It causes me to get creative and to master the tools I have. It is amazing at how much you can do with very basic stuff.</p>

 

[elnoralouisa]

<p>Well, then, with that as a challenge, I can go buy my macro lens. I went to the park today, and wanted to do a few macro shots, so I put on my close-up filters, and took them off, and put them on, etc. etc., and ended up with put one on. It would not come off. I sat for about 15 minutes trying to get the stupid thing off. I finally took the lens off the camera and replaced it, so I could get a better grip on the thing, and got it off. Yup, it's time for a macro lens! :)</p>