Help with next lens focal length

bmichel · August 8, 2012

I did an analysis of over 2600 photos taken with my K10 to determine what focal lengths (on the lens) I used most. I plan to --finally-- get a K5 soon and wondered if I should also invest in another lens. My current lenses are: Pentax 18-250, Tamron 28-75 2.8 and sometimes an older Tokina 20-35. These lens do determine the distribution of the focal lengths below. I often shoot outside and find myself even limited by the 250 range. Plus carrying additional lenses can be a burden. I wonder if I am limiting myself by my original choice of lenses.

Here is the focal length distribution:

<tbody>

<tr>

<td align="RIGHT" width="93">Usage</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

The Pentax 55-300 might be useful. I do have a rarely used 400mm.The DA* lenses are pricey, plus the ongoing quality and SDM issues make me wonder.

Your insights and recommendations, please.

Mike Howard · August 8, 2012

I own the 55-300 and love it. I previously had an older 80-200 which I thought was ok until I got the 55-300, it blew it away. From your distribution, it looks like you shoot a lot around "normal". It is also similar to what I shoot. I was using 16-45 and 55-300, I am in the process of changing to: 15, 21, 35M, and 55-300. This will cover everything I want to do. I may later get the 100M just because I borrowed one and I think it may be the best lens I've ever used around that focal length. I only wish the 55-300 was weather resistant.

Good shooting!

ukhov · August 8, 2012

da 15 sound like kill usage table

stemked · August 8, 2012

How very scientific of you.

It looks to me like you are lusting to go wider; maybe the Pentax 12-24 fits the bill? It's a great lens.

Mike Howard · August 9, 2012

I thought long and hard about a kit with just 12-24 and 55-300, with maybe the 35M in the middle. I would love to get a 12-24, if I could find one that isn't jacked up in price. Maybe someday Pentax will start producing them again...

htarragon · August 9, 2012

A further analysis of your numbers produces this:

18-55 = 56.62%

24-55 = 40% approximately

56-85 = 25.53%

81.85% of your shots are taken in the range above.

You say you are limited by the 250 end of your 18-250, but you have an underused 400.

Do you feel limited on the wide end? A Tamron 10-24 (non-fisheye) is reasonably priced and is a nice lens (I own one).

You're thinking of a 55-300, it is a very nice lens and is the lens I usually have on my K-5, but how many shots will you take between 85-250? You're not taking them now. That's a lot of wasted lens. A 10-24 and your 28-75 and 400 should have you covered in the areas where you normally shoot.

What do you normally take pictures of?

MattB.Net · August 9, 2012

For more reach and good value the 55-300 seems like a no-brainer to me. I have the DA L version and got it in like new condition for $250 and it's been a very solid performer. I had to buy an eBay hood for it ($5 or so) as the L version doesn't come with one.

I don't use it a whole lot but when I want the reach I do and I'm usually very happy with the results.

Yury mentioned the da15 too (although I can't understand what he actually said about it). That in my opinion is one of the best lenses available for our cameras. Just a wonderful lens to use and the results are often stunning. It's also very compact and rejects flare like no other lens I've used. If you are at all considering it just do it. Fantastic lens and probably my favorite if I had to choose just one. But I'm glad I don't have to choose. :)

stemked · August 9, 2012

Just a note: B&H has the 12-24 for around $730 on their site.

shots worth sharing · August 9, 2012

Looking at your stats (impressive exercise, btw), I had to think, "FA 31/1.8 or DA 35/2.8 Macro." From my pov, zooms are very useful and a great way to start out but once you've gotten a feel for what you shoot most, it's time to think about going for really high IQ at that FL. Nothing against the 55-300--it's a high value lens. I just don't think it adds much--either in terms of range or IQ--over what you've got.

lauren_macintosh · August 9, 2012

Since you say [ I do have a rarely used 400mm.] I'll pay the postage for you to ship it to me:

Mike Howard · August 10, 2012

It's out of stock, Douglas...has been practically forever. I found 1 listing on Amazon for it, but it says "ships in 3-5 weeks" which tells me it's out of stock there, too. It's a very popular lens, no doubt. 6 months ago I had the money for it and was going to buy it, but for the love of money I couldn't find one other than at the Brooklyn scam stores. I have since changed directions.

htarragon · August 10, 2012

Michael,

Adorama seems to have it in stock, with or without an accessory kit...... BUT.... when you hit buy, not available. @#$#$%^^^$##. Thought I found one. Sorry.

Howard

bmichel · August 11, 2012

Thanks to all for your ideas.

As Howard Tarragon noted, not a lot of photos at 250. But, when I was using that length I often wished for more. E.g., the picture of the feral cat I posted a while back. I could not take a chance of getting any closer. So, perhaps a 300 length along with the extra pixels of the K5 would leave me the option to crop more, if needed.

I want to try more photos at the wider end, so the DA 15 or 12-24 sound like good ideas. Would the Sigma 10-20 3.5 be a contender instead? Douglas, at my age I hardly lust.

Sorry, Lauren, but I want to keep the 400. I refer to it as a mini rocket launcher due to its size and weight. Not real portable and only fitting when I also use a tripod.

My real issue is the size and weight of carrying (schlepping seems more appropriate) the gear. But, having sometimes been able to get really good photos unobtainable with lesser gear I am challenged to keep doing it.

htarragon · August 11, 2012

Bruce,

There IS a difference between 200 and 300mm that is noticeable. I have the 50-200 kit lens, which is much lighter, but I prefer the 55-300 because I can get that much closer to the subject to frame it well enough not to need much cropping, if at all.

Why not consider the Tamron 10-24? It has good reviews, makes nice images and has a 6 year warranty.

HT

michael_elenko · August 12, 2012

A thread that provokes a lot of thought and your approach is a lot more intelligent than only asking the universe “what should I buy next?”

Bruce, you’ve presented us with a quantitative view of your picture taking with the desire of better matching a lens to your usage history. I think you should also include a qualitative perspective. This can be accomplished in a few ways. One is by looking at which of those shots are in the five-star class (that’s easy if you use Lightroom or any other rating-based image management software) and how these match up with focal lengths. That way you may see if you are short-shrifting yourself.

Another way is purely subjective. What focal lengths do you personally enjoy shooting at, even if you don’t have a lot of saved images? Even though I don’t have a lot of ultra-wide images (12-15mm) in my collection, I find the challenge of framing shots at that range to be highly satisfying and have thus secured the right tools to make it happen. You also have to balance focal length with weight and all those other factors I’m sure you know well.

ME

michael_kuhne · August 13, 2012

Apparently you do most of your shooting between 18-75mm, and then sometimes at longer tele. Your Tamron 28-75mm is a very fine zoom lens, but 28mm does not offer wide angle on a DSLR unless Pentax comes out with a full-frame model. It does, however, provide a fast aperture and more depth of field control when you need it. It would match well with a Pentax 12-24mm f/4 although necessitating lens changing, but then you'd have plenty of wide angle. It is also a bulky, heavier lens because of its fast f/2.8 for a zoom lens.

A Pentax 55-300mm is not a bad idea specifically for tele zoom use. It produces good results even all the way out to 300mm. It can sustain f/4.5 aperture even up to 200mm. I've been hoping Pentax will come out with a WR version. If you find you do quite a bit of work in the 300mm range, and need more aperture, you may eventually shell out the necessary $$ for a 300mm prime.

Although I have some fast zooms and primes, I often take the Pentax 18-135mm with my K-5 when the extra speed is not an issue. Being a WR design, and compact too, it goes especially well on the weather-sealed K-5. It is a very well-made lens, having the WR and a fast, accurate, silent AF not of the SDM variety. It can maintian aperture of f/3.5-4.5 up to 70mm, and with exceptionally good optical quality in that range. That would also mate well with a Pentax 12-24mm f/4.

andrewg_ny · August 15, 2012

While the breakdown might be interesting it doesn't really tell the story because it leaves out:

<ul>

<li>image quality concerns - the shortest and longest part of the 18-250 will be bested by most non-kit-lens 'separates' like 16-45 and 55-300.</li>

<li>speed (max aperture) - how much are you shooting wide open? How much are you held back by the slow speed of the long end of the 18-250?</li>

<li>the range you aren't currently shooting because you don't own it now -- < 18mm, > 300mm.</li>

</ul>

The difference between 250 and 300 isn't that huge but the DA55-300 is ~one stop faster and better optically throughout the longer part of the range (as MK mentioned, f/4.5 is available up to nearly 200mm, plus it only drops a tick slower than f/5.6 (to f/5.8) as it approaches 300mm.

Right now there aren't a lot of choices > 300mm -- the only ones relatively easy to find are the Sigma zooms like 120-400, 150-500, or 50-500 (Bigma). These are relatively inexpensive vs. something like a Nikkor 80-400 or Canon 100-400, but considerably more expensive and larger/heavier than a DA 55-300. Unfortunately the relatively compact and relatively budget-friendly Tokina 80-400 is quite rare in Pentax mount.

I like the DA12-24/4 enough when I use it but it tends to stay home a lot because it's relatively bulky and when I'm using it there tends to be relatively frequent lens swapping. I have found that I can more easily include the 10-17 fisheye (which is much smaller, about the size of 18-55) for those occaisional shots I want that merit something wider than the 15-17mm I can do with DA15/4, DA16-45/4 or DA17-70/4. I am more likely to bring the 12-24 if I'm using the FA24-90/3.5-4.5 (which functionally is somewhat similar to your Tamron 28-75).

les_lammers · August 17, 2012

I'd get a couple of primes. A Pentax A 28mm is inexpensive and would free you from a big zoom.

I agree with Matt on the DA15. I had the 12-24, great lens, but flare was an issue...so I sold it.

bmichel · August 19, 2012

Thanks again to all. I will take these ideas into consideration. But first I need to get used to my K-5 due tomorrow.

The thoughtful and extended suggestions makes it clear that this forum is not moribund.

Sign In

Help with next lens focal length

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in