Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 87

Thread: Reccomend a lens below $500

  1. #21

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    why no one recommend Sigma 17-70mm?
    You can probably get a 2nd hand one at around $400, provided someone is willing to let go of it.
    I found it an excellent lens which is capable of holding its weight against the constant F2.8 DA*16-50mm lens.

    I happened to play with a DA* 16-50mm some time ago.
    My Sigma 17-70mm happened to be sharper than the Pentax DA*16-50mm even at F2.8.

    *Disclaimer I think it was a bad copy of DA*16-50mm*

  2. #22

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by Recoil3d View Post
    what about image quality wise ?
    depends whether you get a sharp copy or not...so before leaving the shop, do every test you can think of to check for front/back focusing.

    best is to go to shops that have the most copies so that can take time to test thoroughly.
    You wont see me much less remember me but i am the guy who makes you look good.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by maxtmhz View Post
    why no one recommend Sigma 17-70mm?
    You can probably get a 2nd hand one at around $400, provided someone is willing to let go of it.
    I found it an excellent lens which is capable of holding its weight against the constant F2.8 DA*16-50mm lens.

    I happened to play with a DA* 16-50mm some time ago.
    My Sigma 17-70mm happened to be sharper than the Pentax DA*16-50mm even at F2.8.

    *Disclaimer I think it was a bad copy of DA*16-50mm*

    16-50mm was at f2.8, you can't compare it like this. If you did, 17-70 at f2.8 = no photo
    What about stopped down to f4? Were you sure the you had proper focus? DOF can be really thin if you are at the longer end at shooting at f2.8. Even your body sway will move out the focus point.

    A faster lens allows you to shoot at a wider aperture when required for less DOF or faster shutter speed. A slower lens, don't even have an option. Most fast lenses also benefit from earlier sweet spots in the aperture setting that gives max sharpness (usually 1 to 2 stops from max aperture).

    I have compared the 16-50 against the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the 16-50 is a very little bit sharper. The Tamron has been compared favorably to my other lenses.


    Not saying the the 17-70 is not good. In fact its very good. The catch is the slower aperture.
    Last edited by pinholecam; 17th April 2010 at 08:38 AM.

  4. #24
    Member seefei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    1,708

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by maxtmhz View Post
    why no one recommend Sigma 17-70mm?
    You can probably get a 2nd hand one at around $400, provided someone is willing to let go of it.
    I found it an excellent lens which is capable of holding its weight against the constant F2.8 DA*16-50mm lens.

    I happened to play with a DA* 16-50mm some time ago.
    My Sigma 17-70mm happened to be sharper than the Pentax DA*16-50mm even at F2.8.

    *Disclaimer I think it was a bad copy of DA*16-50mm*
    I own a copy of the sigma lens 17-70. Indeed it is a very sharp lens. but f2.8 is only at wide open. i used it a lot for travelling and general walkabout lens. although slower than the pentax 16-50 lens but not an issue since you can use a flash to fill in, even when taking event like wedding at social (not pro) level.

    the pentax 16-50 is going for $900 and sigma $400 at B&S. the sigma is value for money but please check before buy. happy lens hunting!!
    shoot to remember. flickr

  5. #25

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    yup, sigma 17-70 is not a constant F2.8.
    But 17-50mm costs more than twice of the 17-70mm, i won't assume that the 17-50mm should be sharper at all the f-stops. surprisingly, it lost out to the 17-70 till around F5.6. That defeats the purpose of having a constant F2.8 lens when you have to use it at F5.6?

    I was super-uber disappointed with the copy of 17-50mm I had and realised that this problem is not unique to me. so my point is, don't look at the price of the lens to determine whether it can do the job. Sometimes a much cheaper lens can do the job, and you can use the spare cash for other lens.
    and pls check before you buy!

    Quote Originally Posted by pinholecam View Post
    16-50mm was at f2.8, you can't compare it like this. If you did, 17-70 at f2.8 = no photo
    What about stopped down to f4? Were you sure the you had proper focus? DOF can be really thin if you are at the longer end at shooting at f2.8. Even your body sway will move out the focus point.

    A faster lens allows you to shoot at a wider aperture when required for less DOF or faster shutter speed. A slower lens, don't even have an option. Most fast lenses also benefit from earlier sweet spots in the aperture setting that gives max sharpness (usually 1 to 2 stops from max aperture).

    I have compared the 16-50 against the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the 16-50 is a very little bit sharper. The Tamron has been compared favorably to my other lenses.


    Not saying the the 17-70 is not good. In fact its very good. The catch is the slower aperture.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    anyways, back to the topic, it is my opinion that if you have $500, better than anyhow throw around just to say that you have another lens,

    be sure what you want, if it is more than $500, save more. this will make you happier in the long run.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Can try looking through the Pentaxforums Lens review database, and look for lenses with a high number of reviews and a high overall score. They have a section for third party lenses also.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by maxtmhz View Post
    yup, sigma 17-70 is not a constant F2.8.
    But 17-50mm costs more than twice of the 17-70mm, i won't assume that the 17-50mm should be sharper at all the f-stops. surprisingly, it lost out to the 17-70 till around F5.6. That defeats the purpose of having a constant F2.8 lens when you have to use it at F5.6?

    I was super-uber disappointed with the copy of 17-50mm I had and realised that this problem is not unique to me. so my point is, don't look at the price of the lens to determine whether it can do the job. Sometimes a much cheaper lens can do the job, and you can use the spare cash for other lens.
    and pls check before you buy!
    Certainly! Everyone's own choice on the price they want to pay. It boils down to FL range and usage as well. I always advise ppl to get the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 over the Pentax 16-50 ( too little diff for the extra price).
    BTW, are you talking about a Pentax 16-50 or Tamron 17-50?
    I don't know how bad was the copy you tried. All the lenses mentioned so far are good/sharp if they have no problems.


    My point is just that you are trying to compare a lens than can shoot at the long end (ie.50mm) at f2.8 and faster shutter speed to a lens that would be at f4 (slower shutter speed). It can make a difference to getting a shot or a blurred one.
    Think of an overcast day at around 5pm. Lighting is no good. You are shooting street as ppl pass you by. You shoot at 50mm ISO800 1/45 f4 (movement blur); You shoot at 1/90 f2.8 (very good chance).
    Its not about the cost of the lens. As I've said, the Tamron f2.8 options are quite cheap at ~$600+ new.

    Resolution numbers from Photozone.
    Sigma
    http://www.photozone.de/pentax/147-s...report?start=1

    Pentax
    http://www.photozone.de/pentax/405-p...650_28?start=1

    The 16-50 is the sharper lens in the center. Border sharpness does to the Sigma.
    Last edited by pinholecam; 17th April 2010 at 06:09 PM.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    A constant F2.8 is certainly useful, especially in dark conditions.
    i was referring to the Pentax DA* 16-50mm.
    Sorry, was typing too fast!

    I got it in the B&S sometime ago, but returned to the original owner at a loss after realising the problem.
    Too bad the copy was terrible, otherwise I would have definitely keep it.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    I got the 17-50 & 28-75 and both works great.

    Anyways,

    I think Cosina M Lens are also great. I got mine Cosina M 50mm 2.0 at B&S less than $100 and the color is vibrant. bokeh nice too.

    But now I think since we started to look for manual lens, the B&S manual lens prices are starting to go high. Unless the lens is clean and clear we dun mind. IMHO. This is more on faster Finger First if good offer came up.
    Last edited by ricsal; 17th April 2010 at 06:35 PM.
    My Flickr iownthislensthatlensthislensthatlens

  11. #31
    Senior Member felixcat8888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    9,108

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by maxtmhz View Post
    A constant F2.8 is certainly useful, especially in dark conditions.
    i was referring to the Pentax DA* 16-50mm.
    Sorry, was typing too fast!

    I got it in the B&S sometime ago, but returned to the original owner at a loss after realising the problem.
    Too bad the copy was terrible, otherwise I would have definitely keep it.
    The DA* early copies had some issues but nowadays the copies are perfect. I have had mine since April last year and have no issues whatsoever . . .
    Pentaxian for Life
    K1, KP, FA*28-70/2.8, FA31, 43 & FA77 Limiteds, K85/1.8, FA*200/2.8, A50/1.2



  12. #32

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by maxtmhz View Post
    A constant F2.8 is certainly useful, especially in dark conditions.
    i was referring to the Pentax DA* 16-50mm.
    Sorry, was typing too fast!

    I got it in the B&S sometime ago, but returned to the original owner at a loss after realising the problem.
    Too bad the copy was terrible, otherwise I would have definitely keep it.
    Luckily you tested it out and made a good decision.

  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    891

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    went SLR Revo,cathay today to check lenses . the DA*16-50 cost $1200++ and tamron 17-50 $580 , ... with the cost of the DA* i can buy the tamron + flash or other lenses ... although i can afford the DA* , do you think its worth getting the tamron one + flash or another lens ? I currently have the sigma 18-200 , takumar 50mm 1.4 and a vivitar 35mm 2.8. just sent the 50 for cleaning as its mouldy so should it just use it when its repaired or should i get the 50 1.4 just for the af ?

  14. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,984

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by Recoil3d View Post
    went SLR Revo,cathay today to check lenses . the DA*16-50 cost $1200++ and tamron 17-50 $580 , ... with the cost of the DA* i can buy the tamron + flash or other lenses ... although i can afford the DA* , do you think its worth getting the tamron one + flash or another lens ? I currently have the sigma 18-200 , takumar 50mm 1.4 and a vivitar 35mm 2.8. just sent the 50 for cleaning as its mouldy so should it just use it when its repaired or should i get the 50 1.4 just for the af ?
    I was in your position some time ago, and my internal struggle was this: The head will say get the Tamron, it's more than good enough, and you'll have so much spare cash for other stuff. But the heart will always yearn for the DA*, it just feels so nice in your hands, and looks so nice with with green and gold rings...

    Since this fast wide-to-normal zoom was going to be my primary workhorse lens, I went straight for the DA* and never looked back, and I don't have to live with those "if only I had the DA*..." moments. The opposite is true for my "non-workhorse" lenses, I always wonder when I'll upgrade from the Sigma 30mm f1.4 to the FA31mm limited, but deep down I know that I'll never be able to justify such an upgrade.
    My photos - see just some or all of it =)

  15. #35
    Member scorpioh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Woodlands
    Posts
    1,973

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by Gengh View Post
    I was in your position some time ago, and my internal struggle was this: The head will say get the Tamron, it's more than good enough, and you'll have so much spare cash for other stuff. But the heart will always yearn for the DA*, it just feels so nice in your hands, and looks so nice with with green and gold rings...

    Since this fast wide-to-normal zoom was going to be my primary workhorse lens, I went straight for the DA* and never looked back, and I don't have to live with those "if only I had the DA*..." moments. The opposite is true for my "non-workhorse" lenses, I always wonder when I'll upgrade from the Sigma 30mm f1.4 to the FA31mm limited, but deep down I know that I'll never be able to justify such an upgrade.
    Agree. Always go for the best lens you can afford. The rest of the stuff can save up. Heavy glass often gives a level of confidence during shooting. No experience with the Tamron but heard that optically it is good but built-wise it leaves a bit more to be desired.
    I say the lens is the soul of a camera. What about the body? Well, it's just the body...

  16. #36

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by Recoil3d View Post
    went SLR Revo,cathay today to check lenses . the DA*16-50 cost $1200++ and tamron 17-50 $580 , ... with the cost of the DA* i can buy the tamron + flash or other lenses ... although i can afford the DA* , do you think its worth getting the tamron one + flash or another lens ? I currently have the sigma 18-200 , takumar 50mm 1.4 and a vivitar 35mm 2.8. just sent the 50 for cleaning as its mouldy so should it just use it when its repaired or should i get the 50 1.4 just for the af ?
    The DA* is SMC, SDM, WS, better build quality and wider by 1mm such that is quite enough not to get another UWA. Its going to operate silent and smooth with the SDM. Its more expensive for good reasons.

    The Tamron will make that "zhi-zhi-zhi" drive motor sound when it focuses if that bothers you (does not bother me). Certainly high in value and performance. The money saved by buying this lens and then a flash does help open a new area in photography (ie. flash photg).

    Both are sharp lenses so what you want to buy depends on what you need/prefer.
    There is no wrong choice here.

    On your current setup,
    How do you use the Takumar 50/1.4? Do you mount the adapter on the lens and then use i like a k-mount or do you mount the adapter on the camera 1st?
    How often do you use this 50/1.4?
    I feel the the frequency and ease in changing lenses help determine if you should just get a K-mount one.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Good pictures are not just a result of the lens, a good lens won't be able to perform to its best without good lighting. Getting the tamron zoom + a good flashgun will likely give you better results for the same amount of money. Of course you must learn how to use a flashgun too, but you have to start somewhere!

    I had been wanting to get a DA* zoom for a while, but the thought of spending so much on a lens with a motor that is not really that fast or reliable is kind of a downer, especially given how much these damn things cost.

  18. #38
    Member scorpioh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Woodlands
    Posts
    1,973

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by CorneliusK View Post
    Good pictures are not just a result of the lens, a good lens won't be able to perform to its best without good lighting. Getting the tamron zoom + a good flashgun will likely give you better results for the same amount of money. Of course you must learn how to use a flashgun too, but you have to start somewhere!

    I had been wanting to get a DA* zoom for a while, but the thought of spending so much on a lens with a motor that is not really that fast or reliable is kind of a downer, especially given how much these damn things cost.
    The solution is: go for primes. Not an advocate of SDM lenses myself too.
    I say the lens is the soul of a camera. What about the body? Well, it's just the body...

  19. #39
    Senior Member felixcat8888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    9,108

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Quote Originally Posted by CorneliusK View Post
    Good pictures are not just a result of the lens, a good lens won't be able to perform to its best without good lighting. Getting the tamron zoom + a good flashgun will likely give you better results for the same amount of money. Of course you must learn how to use a flashgun too, but you have to start somewhere!

    I had been wanting to get a DA* zoom for a while, but the thought of spending so much on a lens with a motor that is not really that fast or reliable is kind of a downer, especially given how much these damn things cost.
    Use primes and to zoom, you will moved forward and backwards to get all in.
    Pentaxian for Life
    K1, KP, FA*28-70/2.8, FA31, 43 & FA77 Limiteds, K85/1.8, FA*200/2.8, A50/1.2



  20. #40

    Default Re: Reccomend a lens below $500

    Yeah I have been doing that. I can't bring myself to spend so much on the FA Limiteds (yet), but at the moment I am really happy with the DA 70.


Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •