Pentax K7/Kx & Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Combination

[juchua]

Thank you all for your replied! I'm trying to convince myself to get a K7 with a better lens, after i've gotten the Kx and shoot about 5k of shots.

Colour and low light capability no doubt it's good, but the sharpness was not up to my expectation.....(perhapes can't expect from the 18-55 kit)

I love the handling of the K7 after trying the N,C,S brands. K7 grip and feel is still the best.

Wanting to get something that has a all in one travel/walkabout lens that is at lease f/2.8 which produce good quality out of cam Jpegs....

 

[Recoil3d]

Hmm i think you have been infected with BBA :sweat:

K-x is already a great camera and only 5k shutter ... and what do you do that requires images that are sooo sharp ? The difference would be minimal between these two cameras so far heard that K-7 is better only at <400 iso and repeating myself, diff would be minimal...

I would instead recommend the money saved from upgrading to buying more lens (specially primes if you want the best IQ)

Might even want to wait till pentax realeses a new cam , K-8?;p

 

[elavan]

the tamron 17-50's f2.8 performance isn't fantastic, quite junk, stopping down for sharpness is needed..unless u want a soft human portrait which can help mask some facial flaws :bsmilie: or you can rescue it reasonably by post-sharpening

 

[night86mare]

Thank you all for your replied! I'm trying to convince myself to get a K7 with a better lens, after i've gotten the Kx and shoot about 5k of shots.

Colour and low light capability no doubt it's good, but the sharpness was not up to my expectation.....(perhapes can't expect from the 18-55 kit)

I love the handling of the K7 after trying the N,C,S brands. K7 grip and feel is still the best.

Wanting to get something that has a all in one travel/walkabout lens that is at lease f/2.8 which produce good quality out of cam Jpegs....

to be blunt, i 'm not sure how you expect changing a camera body would make a difference.

especially since sensor wise, k-7 has inferior low light capability than the k-x.

the kit lens is not the sharpest lens in the box, yes, but stopped down it is good enough for even stock agency purposes. like i mentioned before, sometimes it is the user, not the camera.

throwing money into new gear in the hopes of getting better pictures is not going to do you any good. you will just burn the money. just look at the people who have canon, nikon.. pentax.. and end up still produce soft images with good lenses and top end bodies.

but anyways, i really don't think it will make a difference...... i'm just repeating myself for fun.

 

[darrrrrrrrrr]

Thank you all for your replied! I'm trying to convince myself to get a K7 with a better lens, after i've gotten the Kx and shoot about 5k of shots.

Colour and low light capability no doubt it's good, but the sharpness was not up to my expectation.....(perhapes can't expect from the 18-55 kit)

I love the handling of the K7 after trying the N,C,S brands. K7 grip and feel is still the best.

Wanting to get something that has a all in one travel/walkabout lens that is at lease f/2.8 which produce good quality out of cam Jpegs....

Agree, get the lens first since that will improve the quality of your photos. Only upgrade bodies when the current one is really holding you back? I'm at ~40k with my K20D and I still refuse to upgrade bodies, spending what little disposable income I have on lenses instead. Nevertheless, if money is not an issue, then get the K-7 along with the lens, you won't regret it!

 

[night86mare]

the tamron 17-50's f2.8 performance isn't fantastic, quite junk, stopping down for sharpness is needed..unless u want a soft human portrait which can help mask some facial flaws :bsmilie: or you can rescue it reasonably by post-sharpening

hrm?

it is certainly not tip top at f/2.8.. which lens is wide open, other than the few anomalies? take for example 50mm fa f/1.4.. at f/1.4 the performance isn't anything to shout about either!

but i think beyond f/5.6 it is reasonably good. this is based on my fiancee's canon copy.. which i assume will not be that different from the pentax one.

 

[night86mare]

I.S in lens uses up much more battery than in-body I.S...

it does?

i've never had the chance to compare and try, so i'd take your word for it.

 

[otc]

Just a tot, sigma 18-50 f2.8 and I have a copy. seems Ok for travelling and at 2.8 is fast enough. I think pentaxforums has someone selling. do a check over there. Its quite sharp wide open.

marcus

 

[darrrrrrrrrr]

to be blunt, i 'm not sure how you expect changing a camera body would make a difference.

especially since sensor wise, k-7 has inferior low light capability than the k-x.

the kit lens is not the sharpest lens in the box, yes, but stopped down it is good enough for even stock agency purposes. like i mentioned before, sometimes it is the user, not the camera.

throwing money into new gear in the hopes of getting better pictures is not going to do you any good. you will just burn the money. just look at the people who have canon, nikon.. pentax.. and end up still produce soft images with good lenses and top end bodies.

but anyways, i really don't think it will make a difference...... i'm just repeating myself for fun.

It's not all about making the best photos.. like he said he enjoys the handling of the K-7 more than rival brands and the K-x, and that's a very valid reason to change cameras. I can imagine the process of shooting is more shiok, playing with 2 dials, touching the magnesium body, twiddling the strap lugs, admiring the angles, trying to hear the shutter sound :bsmilie:

I confess, sometimes I wish I can buy a D3 just to press the 11fps..

 

[darrrrrrrrrr]

the tamron 17-50's f2.8 performance isn't fantastic, quite junk, stopping down for sharpness is needed..unless u want a soft human portrait which can help mask some facial flaws :bsmilie: or you can rescue it reasonably by post-sharpening

I thought it was the DA* 16-50 that got the bad rep for softness (initial decentered element problems aside) and the Tamron 17-50 was optically better but let down by build quality.

I've never felt my 17-50 was junk or soft even at f/2.8, and I think that's the general opinion too. :dunno:

 

[night86mare]

It's not all about making the best photos.. like he said he enjoys the handling of the K-7 more than rival brands and the K-x, and that's a very valid reason to change cameras. I can imagine the process of shooting is more shiok, playing with 2 dials, touching the magnesium body, twiddling the strap lugs, admiring the angles, trying to hear the shutter sound :bsmilie:

I confess, sometimes I wish I can buy a D3 just to press the 11fps..

well, if you have the money, i guess that's up to you to how to spend it.

the reason why i wrote all that was because there was a huge part about sharpness... and that was confusing, because that has little to do with camera body. it gave me the impression that he was pegging his hopes on improving his images' sharpness by upgrading to k-7. in which case, he will be sorely disappointed. not even addressing composition, etc.

of course, if it's handling, i get what you mean. it's funny though.. when i used the k100d it was fine, even seemed heavy in comparison to my prosumer. when i used the k20d and went back to the k100d it became very light. i guess it's just habit.

up till now though, i still prefer having a single wheel than dual wheel. it's something i miss.

 

[tootboink]

i have the 17-50 f2.8 with the k-x.. and it is a very good lens indeed. blew me away with the first shot. it's very sharp all around, even wide open. some dude in pentaxforums said owning it was like having a bag of primes, and i wouldn't disagree much!

but you need to check out for focusing problems when u buy it. the QC apparently is not too tight with tamron.

 

[darrrrrrrrrr]

well, if you have the money, i guess that's up to you to how to spend it.

the reason why i wrote all that was because there was a huge part about sharpness... and that was confusing, because that has little to do with camera body. it gave me the impression that he was pegging his hopes on improving his images' sharpness by upgrading to k-7. in which case, he will be sorely disappointed. not even addressing composition, etc.

of course, if it's handling, i get what you mean. it's funny though.. when i used the k100d it was fine, even seemed heavy in comparison to my prosumer. when i used the k20d and went back to the k100d it became very light. i guess it's just habit.

up till now though, i still prefer having a single wheel than dual wheel. it's something i miss.

I was also quite confused because he also did say that cannot expect much from the kit lens (which is true, the Tamron 17-50 is a lot sharper than the kit lens, though the kit lens is still alright) and then he went on to talk about the K-7 handling.

My friend bought a K100D as her first DSLR and it felt nice in my hands, like good old times. But boy is it sloooowwwww especially with raw files. Funny thing is when I upgraded from K100D to K20D the K20D felt so much snappier, but now I find the K20D a bit unresponsive and taking too long to scroll through menus, clear buffer, etc.

 

[night86mare]

My friend bought a K100D as her first DSLR and it felt nice in my hands, like good old times. But boy is it sloooowwwww especially with raw files. Funny thing is when I upgraded from K100D to K20D the K20D felt so much snappier, but now I find the K20D a bit unresponsive and taking too long to scroll through menus, clear buffer, etc.

yeah, that's true.

no leh, k20d is fine.

maybe you have been trying even newer cameras. :angel:

 

[darrrrrrrrrr]

yeah, that's true.

no leh, k20d is fine.

maybe you have been trying even newer cameras. :angel:

Dunno leh I was at a photoshoot and burst maybe 10 shots in raw and the camera just became unresponsive while it was taking its own sweet time to write to the card. Maybe I'll try a Sandisk Extreme card one day to see if it improves that aspect.

I've had hands on Nikon D300 and Canon 7D and they feel less, on the ball?

Also, the long-exposure dark frame subtraction noise reduction has annoyed me to hell when I was playing with my cheapo welding glass super ND filter. I can feel your pain when you do your long exposure shots.. :sweat:

 

[fengwei]

the tamron 17-50's f2.8 performance isn't fantastic, quite junk, stopping down for sharpness is needed..unless u want a soft human portrait which can help mask some facial flaws :bsmilie: or you can rescue it reasonably by post-sharpening

Really? The one I had was pretty sharp, worked great on my K7. I wouldn't have let it go if I hadn't got the DA*1650.

 

[wrx_sti_22b]

it does?

i've never had the chance to compare and try, so i'd take your word for it.

The bigger the lens, the more so... those tele VR lens in Nikon, once the VR is on, it saps so much power from the camera's battery. Use a while low batt already.

 

[wrx_sti_22b]

juz to update if you intend to buy from SLR R. i bought the last copy just now. According to Ray, next shipment will take some time.

Would like to know the price. :think:

 

[lichtleiter]

Would like to know the price. :think:

non- VC should be $618

 

[hjbyeo]

I don't remember doing much pp at all ... pardon my lousy photography, and certainly can't be compared to the masters here in the Pentax family, but this simple still life does show out of focus areas that this lens is capable of. Sharpness? Aiyo, does it have to be freakingly sharp?

And it's iso1600, 50mm, at f4.0.

Btw, I also want to point out that the 17-50 that I have tends to underexpose ... just a little, but nothing that post processing cannot correct.