Ideal Lens Package


Status
Not open for further replies.

airconvent

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2005
4,777
0
36
#1
So far I'm trying to figure out what I really need and have been establishing it each time I go on a photograhic session with the family.
Was wondering, if you can choose 3 final lenses for your camera, which would they be?
Give some explanation as to why you made that choice.

1. Between 24-28mm and between F/1.4 to f/2.8 (prime lens with the P&S view for general use) Still deciding!
2. Tamron 18-250mm (Best compromise of wide angle and high zoom) - more zoom than my current sigma 18-200!
3. Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 (small kit lens for when zoom not critical)

What about your ideal trio?:)
 

Nov 21, 2006
693
5
0
38
#2
@Alvin

How much did you got your Tamron 18-250mm ! that is all in one lens!
 

May 27, 2006
352
0
0
Redhill, Singapore
#3
@TrailSeeker (Alvin)

Huh, I'm confused again :confused: If you are referring to me (username alvinsclee), then I must clarify that I do not own any Tamron zoom lens. The Pentax kit lens 18-55mm is currently my ONLY zoom lens.

If you are referring to airconvent, his name is not Alvin. Airconvent and Alvinsclee are two different persons, and we have met in person a number of times too :) Nice chap!

From: The other Alvin (alvinsclee)
 

CYRN

Senior Member
Nov 14, 2002
4,575
0
36
photoevangel.com
#4
So far I'm trying to figure out what I really need and have been establishing it each time I go on a photograhic session with the family.
Was wondering, if you can choose 3 final lenses for your camera, which would they be?
Give some explanation as to why you made that choice.

1. Between 24-28mm and between F/1.4 to f/2.8 (prime lens with the P&S view for general use) Still deciding!
2. Tamron 18-250mm (Best compromise of wide angle and high zoom) - more zoom than my current sigma 18-200!
3. Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 (small kit lens for when zoom not critical)

What about your ideal trio?:)
U already hav 50 f/1.4 rite?
Keep your sigma,.

I recommend another wide and fast prime... I'm not sure about K-mount offering, but it might be costly.
 

airconvent

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2005
4,777
0
36
#5
@TrailSeeker (Alvin)

Huh, I'm confused again :confused: If you are referring to me (username alvinsclee), then I must clarify that I do not own any Tamron zoom lens. The Pentax kit lens 18-55mm is my ONLY zoom lens.

If you are referring to airconvent, his name is not Alvin. Airconvent and Alvinsclee are two different persons, and we have met in person a number of times too :) Nice chap!

From: The other Alvin (alvinsclee)
haha...thanks alvin. a coincidence both our engines powered by astronomy and photography also! ;).
Actually I have the Sigma 18-200. Purchased for around $700+. That was before the 18-250 came out. Dnaxe told me he was thinking of getting that lens as it is 50mm longer than the 18-200, yielding a magnification of x14 as compared with x11 for my 18-200.
That's even higher than my PNS lumix FZ7 @ x12 and both have image stablisation too!

yes cyrn, I also have the 50mm f/1.4 but looking at another wider prime lens for more general use.
 

CYRN

Senior Member
Nov 14, 2002
4,575
0
36
photoevangel.com
#6
yes cyrn, I also have the 50mm f/1.4 but looking at another wider prime lens for more general use.
Image Quality would suffer more if you switch to that 14x lens. 24mm or 35mm for "standard" wide. Have you considered 17mm or wider primes?
 

airconvent

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2005
4,777
0
36
#7
Image Quality would suffer more if you switch to that 14x lens. 24mm or 35mm for "standard" wide. Have you considered 17mm or wider primes?
I think 17mm would have been the techncial limit before the views become a "fish eye" view?
 

airconvent

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2005
4,777
0
36
#9
The limit is probably lower. Pentax has DA 14mm f2.8, K/A 15mm f3.5. There is 12mm f5.6, I think from Nikon and Voigtlander, all non-fisheye.
I'm not surprised. Do you know Pentax makes very good telescope eyepieces and they are compared to Televue ones? But back to topic, I think 12-14mm would have been too wide for normal use. More like for wedding dinners?
 

Oct 30, 2006
252
0
0
#10
Walkabout Lens: Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 Macro or Sigma 17-70 F/2.8-4.5 Macro
Zoom Lens: Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 Macro
Wide Angle Lens: Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6


Lol, am i a Sigma promoter? :bsmilie:
 

May 27, 2006
352
0
0
Redhill, Singapore
#11
I'm not surprised. Do you know Pentax makes very good telescope eyepieces and they are compared to Televue ones? But back to topic, I think 12-14mm would have been too wide for normal use. More like for wedding dinners?
Haha... don't tempt me to buy more telescopes / eyepieces... ;) We are strong Pentax supporters, aren't we?

Due to 1.5x crop factor, even a 16mm fish eye lens will lose its effect somewhat. For really fish eye effect, we need to go below 12mm. I just bought a new Peleng 8mm FE lens (M42 version) from another CSer called "ullyss" (nice seller :))... wonderful lens for ultra-wide perspective (some cropping may be necessary for balance between fisheye distortion and good composition).
 

airconvent

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2005
4,777
0
36
#12
Haha... don't tempt me to buy more telescopes / eyepieces... ;) We are strong Pentax supporters, aren't we?

Due to 1.5x crop factor, even a 16mm fish eye lens will lose its effect somewhat. For really fish eye effect, we need to go below 12mm. I just bought a new Peleng 8mm FE lens (M42 version) from another CSer called "ullyss" (nice seller :))... wonderful lens for ultra-wide perspective (some cropping may be necessary for balance between fisheye distortion and good composition).
Hi Alvin
That is why must tempt you to make you more pentax-embedded..;)
For example, this precious Pentax baby... http://www.singastro.org/viewtopic.php?t=4307
Maybe you can try it on the WO66...once the clouds clear.

As for the wide view. Its ironical that people want great optics and yet now they will pay through their noses for a distorted view! But the fish eye does have its atractiveness but its not something you will use all the time, so I don't think I will go for it.
 

airconvent

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2005
4,777
0
36
#14
Given the budget

1. DA 14
2. Upcoming Pentax DA * 16-50/2.8
3. Upcoming Pentax DA * 60-250/4

No Budget

1. DA 21/3.2 (Even this mayb slightly above budget for now)
2. Upcoming Pentax 17-70
3. Tamron 70-300 Di LD
anyone dare to hazard a guess how much the 16-50/2.8 will cost?
I am trying to compare this to the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 macro @ 850...
 

snapnut

New Member
Oct 1, 2004
580
0
0
#15
Any comments on the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 macro vs non-macro version ?
Besides the macro feature, are the results similar or is the marcro version much better ?
Thanks... :)
 

dnaxe

Senior Member
Oct 5, 2006
1,330
0
36
#16
Ideal trio:

1. tamron 18-250 - will probably be at least as good as a kit, and for travel it's REALLY nice to have an all-in-one. (haven't got this yet, my only wide lens currently is the kit.)
2. 50 1.4 - cheap, sharp, excellent.
3. sigma 70-300 - for the 1:2 macro, although the focal length makes it a little painful. Also a good lens as long as there is a little direct illumination.\

--
The position of the 70-300, if I get the 18-250, is in doubt, but I can't think of what else I would use. The 10-17 fisheye is very tempting, but it's very very situational, and there's only one time in recent memory when it would have been excellent to have.

The DA* 16-50 is also interesting, of course, but it's range is not so hot, and i wonder if it's quite fast enough for dim indoor situations.

Whatever the case is, I'm not likely to change from my current setup for awhile (kit, 50, 70-300) as i've recently heard a rumour regarding (the rapidly plummeting cost of) full frame sensors, and until that is demonstrably wrong (when the D2X and/or D200 sucessor is released), I'll probably be able to persuade myself that additional lenses are unnecessary.

TBH, even the kit is pretty sharp as long as there is sufficient light.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom