Welcome a virgin Pentaxian!!!

[michael_mitchell13]

<p>So I wanted to get back in to photography now that I have come across some money. I was very close to getting a Canon 50mm 1.8 II and a Canon DSLR body for under $500 and maybe buying an Elan 7E to shoot film now and again but guess what!</p>

<p>I was sulking all day a couple days ago when I decided on going away from Canon, because I thought it was just so awesome, that 50 mm 1.8 II, for less than 100$ o man, how can I leave that lens I thought. Then low and behold, I discovered a wonderful forum regarding just Pentax, and they had a lens review section where I found the grand M series!</p>

<p>This is my new setup I have decided upon!</p>

<p>Pentax K2000<br>

SMC Pentax-M 28mm F3.5<br>

SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.7<br>

SMC Pentax-M 200mm F4<br>

<br /> Now, I need a cheap, relatively inexpensive, meaning under $300, 3-4-5-600mm Prime, or decent zoom lens that is AF for wildlife photography. I am actually a half way decent photographer, at least I think so, and I have taken wonderful birding photos in the past, I will upload one immediately.<br>

I think that AF is useful for this situation, although I'd often practice focusing manually for fun. What do you suggest?<br>

<br /> Btw, I'm going to buy an LX for film use, I just love how I can use all my lenses on both camera bodies, except of course the newer lens on the older body.</p>

<p>Can't wait to drive to Yellowstone and retake all the photos I took when I was 18 with a Chinon-CE 5 and SuperHQ200. I was so amateur, and now that I have a chance to go at it again there is so much I would do differently, I'm 24, so 6 years in the making of a better photographer than I once was.<br>

<br /> So, gimme your best advice for a nice prime or zoom lens that is AF for birding or general wildlife photos, under $300 please =)</p>

<p>Thank you all! And have a Happy New Year!</p><div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Indeed, welcome to Pentax, Michael!! Did you already purchase your K2000?</p>

<p>Very nice bird shot! What did you use to get this fine capture?</p>

<p>I still have several "M" lenses, and I still shoot film as well as DSLR use. Yes, it IS great to be able to use the same lens on a film or digital body!! But to be honest, this would also be possible with Canon, by sticking to mostly their full-frame lenses and an AF film body like the Elan. May be a problem with Canon, however, in trying to use an AF lens on an older Canon MF body- but I could be wrong in this.</p>

<p>Manual-focus lenses are designed with that in mind, having a more damped feel with more resistance, and often more rotation for fine-tuning focus. But anytime you can satisfy your focal length requirement with an "A" series MF lens, you are better off in terms of DSLR use. Handling is faster as to setting your exposure, metering is less tricky, and more operational aspects are open to your use. This series therefore generally costs a bit more on the used market than the "M" series. Take the 50mm f/1.7 for instance. The "A" version will usually cost a bit more. But if you are not especially after the heavier MF feel, with Pentax you can use an AF lens on an older MF camera with no problem. And many AF lenses still do have a decent feel for MF. The first Pentax AF 50mm lens, the "F" series f/1.7 is a very fine lens, and would probably go for about the same as an "A" series MF model, yet you would have AF and full functions. Optics are the same.</p>

<p>The LX is a very good body, and still sought after. But these are quite old now, and most will need some renovation. Many have a LOT of use on them. Not to discredit such a fine camera in any way- but unless you really need the special aspects it offers, such as modular construction and exceptionally long-exposure metering, the very fine and unique MZ-S will generally be available for about the same price! A much newer AF model, introduced in 2000 with new ones still being sold as recently as 2005. It remains the only compact AF metal-body model (magnesium alloy) with pro-style control layout and featres, made by anyone! JUst thought I'd bring this up as a viable option.</p>

<p>Visiting Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax site may be of help to you. </p>

<p>I hope you know that the selection of an AF tele lens of at least 300mm for $300 or less, is very sparce, from any brand!! Sigma did make a 135-400mm zoom that was pretty good at a reasonable price, if you can find one in good shape. Their 70-300mm DG APO Macro is selling new for something over $200 and is a decently good lens. A Nikon-shooting friend of mine has been getting good bird shots with this lens.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>"Welcome a virgin Pentaxian!"<br /> Well, that would have been more interesting if it were <em><strong>Michelle</strong> </em>Mitchell.</p>

<p>I'm confident she would have received a warm welcome!</p>

<p>I don't think I've heard of a good Pentax lens that's going to come in at under $300 for 600mm. You might find a mirror at those prices, but the aperture on those will make their use for animal photos somewhat restrictive.</p>

[michael_mitchell13]

<p><a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VMow-204733584.jpg">Minolta Maxxum HTsi Plus and FujiFilm 400 SuperHQ and a 70-300mm Quantaray </a></p>

<p>I realized too that the 200mm was actually a 300mm with the 1.5 crop factor, but I need the AF heh. I really like the lever that you use to advance one frame on the film cameras like the LX and the Chinon CE-5 and a couple others like the Minolta XD-11. You lose that if you buy an Elan, or a newer Minolta or Pentax...</p>

[michael_mitchell13]

<p>Thank you</p>

[michael_mitchell13]

<p>Did you know that Mitchell is a surname derivitive of Michael, so my name is Michael Michael... and Michelle is Michael as well, so just pretend I'm Michelle Mitchell, or Michelle Michelle or cute little pink teen with braces if you like... just tell me what's the best lens with AF that is possible to capture bird photos ok =)</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>And, yes, welcome!</p>

[michael_mitchell13]

<p>No I have not, "already purchased it" however I do have a 1 year CD coming to fruitrition in January, and I plan whole hearted on purchasing it.</p>

[rose_duclos]

<p>Pentax has a lot of beautiful AF offerings ... and Sigma and Tamron has a few too. IT all depends on how much you wish to spend (buying budget lenses sure does add some limitations) and whether you want to buy a prime lens or a zoom.)<br>

I bought a Sigma APO 75-300 zoom for less than $150 (over a year ago). It's a very nice lens that offers some macro capability. It's a bit heavy - and plastic feeling - but not bad. :)<br>

For primes - Pentax has a 300mm ... which shoots like a dream - ie. some great shots were posted online here - I don't own one yet. Pricey - but, well worth it if you have a heavy wallet with nothing else to empty it on. :) (yeah - that's my dream ... to have a heavy wallet and absolutely nothing to spend it on.... :D) ... could this ever happen?</p>

<p>And there are even bigger lenses out there - heavy monster beast lenses that will require big shoulders, a tripod, or shear courage to carry around... the sigma 50 - 500? ... I don't have one - but if you look around ... there's some decent reviews of it.<br>

Welcome to the forum Michael (who I'm unsure if I should call him? her? Michelle?) The last post was a bit confusing... pink braces?</p>

[laur1]

<p>Sadly, there are no great cheap lenses over 300mm. In Pentax land there are also fewer choices, even if price is not an option.<br>

So, you're left with stuff like budget zooms: 50-200, 55-300, Tamron 70-300, Sigma 70-300.<br>

Or you're looking at more expensive zooms, mainly from Sigma, like the 50-500, 150-500, 120-400, or the Sigma 500 prime.<br>

You could also try to find older Pentax FA(*) lenses, but those would not be cheap.<br>

If you throw AF away, then you have a bit more options in the budget arena in the form of preset primes or mirror lenses.</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Michael, I like your bird photo and your enthusiasm!</p>

<p>Some of the better choices for 400mm in AF are the Tokina 400/5.6 or 80-400/4.5-5.6, though both have been discontinued for a while, neither are easy to find, and neither will likely be bought for as little as $300. My guess at the price range of these is more in the $400-600 range due to the rarity. What you can get for approximately that amount is a pretty good DA 55-300/4-5.8, or for even less, a Tamron or Sigma 70-300/4-5.6. If you're planning on using the same lens on a film body, you might want to skip the DA (which is not 35mm film compatible and lacks an aperture ring) and go for a used Pentax FA 80-320/4.5-5.6, or find a version of the Tamron or Sigma 70-300 that includes an aperture ring. With good light, you might be able to add a teleconverter but these have obvious drawbacks when the glass is somewhat compromised (e.g. long slow end of zoom) to begin with.</p>

<p>If you're willing to live with older manual-focus for telephoto, you *might* be able to find a 300 or 400mm prime; for example, I've seen Sigma 400/5.6 manual focus for < $200, and Pentax K300/4 (precursor to Pentax-M) also in your budget, for $179-339 depending on condition (all these at KEH.com now).</p>

<p>If you haven't already bought the K2000, I would suggest you also consider the K-x, which while a little more expensive has the same body style but is significantly improved with a better sensor and faster shooting.</p>

<p>I also want to caution you, just to make sure you already know that using Pentax-M lenses means manual-focus only, manual-exposure only with less accurate center-weighted stop-down metering...though the lenses you selected are pretty good and would work great with an MX or most other Pentax film bodies (won't work with a few cheap autofocus bodies).</p>

[michael_mitchell13]

<p>Here's my old website, emails no longer active,<br>

http://mikemitchell.netfirms.com/<br>

You can see a lot more bird photos and poorly scanned images hahahaha... I was like... 16 give me a break...</p>

<p>OK, I will look at the K-X, isn't it brand new? Maybe I will just get the white version K-X after all. I already did look at it I realized. I just wanted to save the money hehe...</p>

<p>Yes, I was aware that the 1960s M series were fully manual... I have a love affair with the aperture ring on the lens, it's so sekzi! I just love adjusting it there and no on the camera hehe.<br>

If I find a nice zoom that is up to 300mm that's really a 450mm crop factor right, so whats the sharpest fastest zoom up to 300mm UNDER 300$, now if I get the K-X it will HAVE to be a budget lens...</p>

[michael_mitchell13]

<p>Made my decision because of this right here...<br>

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/80186-pentax-fa-80-320-4-5-5-6-6-imgs.html</p>

<p>that is the most I could ever ask out of a lens... thank you SOOOOOOOOOOO much Andrew, I almost when with the Tokina 400, but the 320 is over 400mm with crop factor.. and not only that but its a pentax AND it's image quality is terrific.<br>

I cannot thank you ENOUGH!</p>

[laur1]

<p>Pentax M lenses are great, but manual aperture is not their strong point due to the crippled mount on Pentax DSLRs - you'll need to use the lens in manual mode to be able to stop it down and you'll need to use the green button for metering. I much prefer M42 preset lenses instead, so I can use them in Av mode without going through the green button routine.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Michael,<br>

Though it is difficult to really judge lens quality from web jpegs, I suspect that something like the Tamron or Sigma 70-300mm will provide slightly better results than the Pentax 80-320. Don't let the brand name Pentax blind you too much, some of their cheaper zooms are less than wonderful. I use the Tamron 70-300mm for casual shooting and kid baseball, and for under $150 it is a great deal. It would work fine for birds in good lighting.</p>

<p>I agree with Laurentiu about preferring M42 lenses for this purpose. Going through the extra step or two with an "M" lens can lead to a missed bird shot as timing is everything.</p>

<p>Did you grow up in Olympia, or were you a 'Greener who stayed?</p>

<p>ME</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Those lenses aren't <em>that</em> old--K-mount appeared ~1975 and Pentax-M ~1977.</p>

<p>The 80-320 was probably Pentax's best of the zooms going to ~300 until the DA55-300 appeared, and has the advantage of film camera compatibility. I don't necessarily think it's clearly better than the similar Sigma or Tamron offerings, just competitive. Realistically, pretty much all lenses of this breed aren't real great (tend to be a bit soft with low contrast) at 300mm wide open and need to be stopped down to F8 for improved quality. You also might change your mind about the 80-320 when you find that it's much easier to find the silver version than the black one if that matters to you. I also wouldn't get hung up about the difference between 300 and 320mm--in practice you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The Sigma and Tamron zooms also have an extra 1:2 close-focus "macro" feature at longer focal lengths (>200mm, IIRC) that Pentax's zooms don't have. These lenses aren't going to be all that different than that Quantray you used for the picture you posted--it was probably made by Sigma or Tamron.</p>

<p>The DA55-300 is probably the best of the lot for digital, though I'm not completely convinced by my copy yet. It does certainly have the best physical build of the lot, including a reversable bayonet hood, non-rotating front element, and it's smaller and lighter than any of the for-film zooms going to ~300mm (it's about 2/3" shorter and 110g lighter than the 80-320), and offers quick-shift manual focus touch-up. Zoom is smoother than my used FA80-320 as well.</p>

[michael_mitchell13]

<p>I decided on this instead...<br>

<strong>SMC Pentax-F 28mm F2.8 200.00</strong><br>

<a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-50mm-F1.7-Lens.html" target="_blank"> </a> <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-50mm-F1.7-Lens.html">SMC Pentax-F 50mm F1.7 100.00</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-200mm-F4-Lens.html" target="_blank">SMC Pentax-M 200mm F4</a> 100.00<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-100-300mm-F4.5-5.6-Zoom-Lens.html">SMC Pentax-F 100-300mm F4.5-5.6 125.00</a></p>

<p>A full set of Lenses for 525.00, I'd say not too shabby if you ask me, that 100-300mm took some NICE shots that I have seen... how could you guys didn't recommend it?</p>

<p>The F 100-300 took this shot, which is why I went with it..</p>

<p>http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f94/billbillw/Botgardensfrog.jpg</p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>. . . if you ask me, that 100-300mm took some NICE shots that I have seen... how could you guys didn't recommend it?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Michael,<br>

I think many of us experienced Pentax users didn't recommend this lens because it is not considered to be above average. I've never used one, but have read user reports over the years. Of course, the bottom line is photographer skill, and I'm sure you will use this to its full capability and produce great shots. The rest of your acquisitions look very good.</p>

<p>One question, what is your prioritized output target? Prints, online posting, photojournalism, magazine. . .</p>

<p>Thanks and enjoy your new camera and lenses.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[michael_mitchell13]

<p>Well, I feel that as a hobbyist, who would like to sell a few prints to friends perhaps, Prints are always the #1 thing to yearn for, however online posting is going to be important to get good critiques and useful help in that regard.</p>

<p>I just needed a lens with enough magnification that I could take some bird photos, at least one lens in my arsenal for this, so I took a look at the 100-300mm and it seemed if not above average to at least not be below average. And right now the average seems to be a pretty high standard of excellence I would say and hope that you all agree, who wants to think the average is crappy right?<br>

If anyone could warn me against this lens I would appreciate it in all earnest.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I have the FA power zoom version of that 100-300mm. It is not as bad as its reputation would suggest. I got it at a bargain price years ago, mainly for its power zoom capability with my PZ-1p, and the ability to lock image size for action shots. I did get good results using that function. It originally sold for over $300! Over-priced, to be sure.</p>

<p>The Sigma 70-300mm, however, is a better lens- especially at the longer end. Better image quality and better range, with 70mm at the short end. Believe me, you'll appreciate that shorter end, especially with a DSLR. The latest version, the DG APO macro is worth the extra cost, IMO. And not expensive for what it offers. It still has an aperture ring, I believe. It has proven itself in the field with many good shots being posetd on this forum. It has much better closeup ability and quality than that 100-300mm. And, you get a new lens!</p>

<p>For digital only, Andrew is right. The Pentax DA 55-300mm is the way to go. </p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>B&H Photo is offering this Sigma lens for only $209 brand new with free shipping in the USA. The reason I hang on to mine is because of its very good quality, I also shoot film, and these lenses may become discontinued because the trend is away from having an aperture ring.</p>

<p>When you get the bhphoto home page, and click on lenses, SLR lenses, then select Sigma brand, then select the Pentax mount. Should be easy to find.</p>

<p>They and Adorama are two of the most reputable companies.</p>

[michael_mitchell13]

<p>heh, I know B&H Photo as well as Adorama, I've used B&H photo a million times, never adorama.. no particular reason...</p>

[helen_oster]

<p>@Michael Kuhune</p>

<p>Thanks for the recommendation for Adorama - very much appreciated.<br>

<strong>Helen Oster<br />Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador</strong><br>

helen.oster@adoramacamera.com<br>

www.adorama.com<br>

 

 

</p>