Advice needed from lens owners, what lens should i buy???


fastfrag

New Member
Oct 1, 2007
184
0
0
42
Year end is coming soon and i have been saving up to buy new lens.
currently i have a KR with 18-55 and 50-200mm WR

1)Im thinking about DA 35mm f2.4 or DA 50mm f1.8 for portraits for group photos, but would i be better off with a tamrom 17-55mm f2.8 to replace my current 18-55mm??

2)also been wanting to have a wide angle lens for landscape shots and i saw the SMC P DA 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 Fisheye, i know its a fish eye lens but wonder if it's good enough for landscape since there will be distortions. i don't mind having fisheye features as well since it is a fun lens

hope the owners of these lenses can give me some insight, any blogs with sample pictures would be helpful in my decision making as well.
 

to me:

17-55mm f2.8 replace your kit is a good choice as it is very convientance to do everyday shooting...
50 f1.8 is not easy to do group photos... but for portraits is good... max half body... full body have to stand very far...
35 f2.4 is not a bad choice for walkabout prime... big group photo also have to stand far but at least better than 50mm... ppl may say f1.8 is better for protraits due to bokeh... but to me when you use 35 mm, you will be closer to the model which also can get very good bokeh...

fish eye i don't have.... so IDK...
 

if you use your kit lens a lot and you find most shots taken at 18mm end and 50mm extreme end, then 17-50 f2.8 tamron is a good way to upgrade. (then, no need 35mm f2.4, as f2.4 is not much different to f2.8)

I use XnView, which can see the focal length taken in a overlay format. Adobe Bridge has a filtering option to see how many shots each focal length taken

if you use your kit lens in the middle zoom range a lot like 24mm-40mm, then 35mm f2.4 is a good way to upgrade, and keep ur kit lens as a wide angle lens for companion. (a money save way)

if your most portrait photo is full body shot, then 50mm f1.8 is the way to go for strong bokeh.
if most portrait photo is half body portrait, then 17-50mm f2.8 is enough to delivery good bokeh. (at 50mm f2.8, go near to your subject, a half body portrait can already deliver a nice bokeh.)

Strong bokeh = fast aperture * close distance to subject * long focal length.
(to get most bokeh, use f1.8 at 1 meter or less to your subject at 50mm focal length)

if your aperture is not fast enough, then go closer to your subject,
if you cant go closer to your subject, use longer focal length,
if you focal length is not long enough, use fast aperture lens,

use this bokeh calculation to see the relationship
Online Depth of Field Calculator

I used to have a 8mm fisheye lens, for fun only, shoot for 3 month, then tired of the fisheye look
 

Last edited:
IMHO, there are 2 ways to approach it.
First one is to see what is the often used focal length that you use. 35mm or 50-55mm on you 18-55mm lens.
Second way is to just think over what you want that the current lenses cannot give/do (eg. f1.8; smaller; lighter; etc); or just jump in and explore another focal length/lens type/aperture that you've never used before.



1)Im thinking about DA 35mm f2.4 or DA 50mm f1.8 for portraits for group photos, but would i be better off with a tamrom 17-55mm f2.8 to replace my current 18-55mm??

>> DA35 is an all rounder, good for walkabouts, rather fast, decent subject isolation. It can do individual shots or group shots (with some distance of course)
A 50mm is much tighter in FOV, but generally better subject isolation due to focal length and large aperture. Its typically harder to do group shots due to the longer working distance and less DOF due to the longer focal length (need to stop down more to get everyone sharp enough if they are not on the same plane of focus).

There is no right or wrong lens in either of the two choices. Both can be very good and versatile enough if you practice/learn to use either FL well.


2)also been wanting to have a wide angle lens for landscape shots and i saw the SMC P DA 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 Fisheye, i know its a fish eye lens but wonder if it's good enough for landscape since there will be distortions. i don't mind having fisheye features as well since it is a fun lens

>>IMO, no. Its a special effects lens. Just get a DA15ltd; DA14; Samyang 14mm, 10-20, 12-24 or 8-16 and be done with it.



Some more info :
I had a post about the lowly A50/2 here : (a bit down the thread)
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/pentax/919264-lenses-frugal-photographer-3.html
Unfortunately I don't immediately have any portraits done with a 50mm that I can share since I use the FA43ltd as my '50mm'.

This is close though :
7781793694_7b70c55477_c.jpg

but its done with the DA18-55 at 55mm


Some samples from the 35mm (FA35/2; but the DA35/2.4 is pretty close)
7157359862_93cc9f71ab_c.jpg



7286887672_768dec74f9_c.jpg



7249150234_abbbdaf12a_c.jpg
 

Get Pentax DA 12-24 for Landscapes
Sigma 50mm 1.4 for Portraits
Pentax 55-300 as a Zoom lens to cover the rest:

Below are taken from above these lens:


7913445218_a5acbd1b7c.jpg



7494437064_4a4e6c2af1.jpg


7913437708_5f73f68b2a.jpg



6734476763_7474786b84.jpg
 

Last edited:
Get Pentax DA 12-24 for Landscapes
Sigma 50mm 1.4 for Portraits
Pentax 55-300 as a Zoom lens to cover the rest:

Below are taken from above these lens:

Those are really nice :thumbsup:

I agree the 12-24 and 55-300 are pretty good step up from the dual kit lenses. As to 50mm, I'd suggest to go w/ the much cheaper and smaller DA50/1.8 instead :)
 

Thanks for the advice guys!!!

now the headache part... my budget if only 1k for lens ....
 

Thanks for the advice guys!!!

now the headache part... my budget if only 1k for lens ....

thinking to get the tamron 17-50 f2.8 seems to be a good replacement for the 18-55 and i think shud be good enough for potraits as well
got a quote from OP $495 one year shop warranty

left with 555 bucks...
Pump in more $$$ and get wide angle lens??

or sell my K-r and then get K30 body...

damn!!!
 

555 sgd can get a 2nd hand tamron 10-24 or sigma 10-24
 

fastfrag said:
i think there's a samyang 14mm f2.8 going at $610 also... not sure if its good..

Please take note samyang's optic is good but it is a manual lens. No auto focus. All the other lens mentioned here by fellow Pentax users are auto focus lens.
 

Please take note samyang's optic is good but it is a manual lens. No auto focus. All the other lens mentioned here by fellow Pentax users are auto focus lens.

ooo thanks for the info~~

i guess more or less im getting the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and perhaps maybe sell my KR to fund a K5 or K30...

17mm seems pretty wide already
 

Year end is coming soon and i have been saving up to buy new lens.
currently i have a KR with 18-55 and 50-200mm WR

1)Im thinking about DA 35mm f2.4 or DA 50mm f1.8 for portraits for group photos, but would i be better off with a tamrom 17-55mm f2.8 to replace my current 18-55mm??

2)also been wanting to have a wide angle lens for landscape shots and i saw the SMC P DA 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 Fisheye, i know its a fish eye lens but wonder if it's good enough for landscape since there will be distortions. i don't mind having fisheye features as well since it is a fun lens

hope the owners of these lenses can give me some insight, any blogs with sample pictures would be helpful in my decision making as well.
Fisheye is not the same as rectilinear lens, even if you defish you will get very very very poor corner sharpness.

You have these two lenses, what do you like shooting? People can share their experience but everyone has a different shooting style... For example I do have a 70-300 lens but I use it like once or twice a year. :bsmilie:
 

Fisheye is not the same as rectilinear lens, even if you defish you will get very very very poor corner sharpness.

You have these two lenses, what do you like shooting? People can share their experience but everyone has a different shooting style... For example I do have a 70-300 lens but I use it like once or twice a year. :bsmilie:

hm...i try a bit of everything i guess..

i purchased my 50 to 200 recently and used it for sports photography like soccer. but of course i also used it for far subjects as well, still quite ok but looking forward to tamron 70-200F2.8 as a replacement in the next 1 to 2 years

so far im quite happy with the 50-200mm

as for the 18-55mm, its more like a generally purpose lens but i think i have grown out of it... dun think its wide enough, and f3.5 just isn't enough as well.

taken using the 18-55, can't achieve the kind of sharpness i want... i use to own a canon 400d with sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 and it's able to give me what i want.
 

hm...i try a bit of everything i guess..

i purchased my 50 to 200 recently and used it for sports photography like soccer. but of course i also used it for far subjects as well, still quite ok but looking forward to tamron 70-200F2.8 as a replacement in the next 1 to 2 years

so far im quite happy with the 50-200mm

as for the 18-55mm, its more like a generally purpose lens but i think i have grown out of it... dun think its wide enough, and f3.5 just isn't enough as well.

taken using the 18-55, can't achieve the kind of sharpness i want... i use to own a canon 400d with sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 and it's able to give me what i want.

There is the Pentax mount version for the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 or the newer 17-70 F2.8-4, besides the Sigma/Tamron 17-50 F2.8
 

There is the Pentax mount version for the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 or the newer 17-70 F2.8-4, besides the Sigma/Tamron 17-50 F2.8

yup but quite pricey lahzzz... i got a quote for $495 for the 17-50mm though one year warranty only
 

yup but quite pricey lahzzz... i got a quote for $495 for the 17-50mm though one year warranty only

Since you have used the 17-70 before, why not get it again? I have use the 17-70 before too on my K10D and loved it but sold to upgrade to the K20D and DA*16-50 F2.8
 

Since you have used the 17-70 before, why not get it again? I have use the 17-70 before too on my K10D and loved it but sold to upgrade to the K20D and DA*16-50 F2.8

I borrowed 17-50 from my friend before as well loved the f2.8

wow!!! da*16-50 slurps!! expensive
 

hm...i try a bit of everything i guess..


as for the 18-55mm, its more like a generally purpose lens but i think i have grown out of it... dun think its wide enough, and f3.5 just isn't enough as well.

taken using the 18-55, can't achieve the kind of sharpness i want... i use to own a canon 400d with sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 and it's able to give me what i want.

The 18-55 can't be as bad as the sample you posted.
Mine's certainly fine as you can see from the sample above.
 

The 18-55 can't be as bad as the sample you posted.
Mine's certainly fine as you can see from the sample above.

its not really that bad lahzz but could have been better, the bokeh is quite ok, the petals are ok too but the yellow part seems like not focused... is it because the lens isnt macro?