additional lenses
Posted 29/12/2010 - 14:48 - Helpful Comment
Link
To be honest I wouldn't bother with the attachment lenses. The fisheye might be a bit of fun but the quality is likely to be hit and miss. The 3.5x lens (I assume this is some kind of teleconverter) is pretty much guaranteed to produce awful results. Yes it will extend your range by 3.5x, but it will also enlarge any defects and aberrations by the same factor, so you will probably end up with a 3.5x larger and 3.5x blurrier image. A small teleconverter (1.5x is often recommended as the maximum usable multiplier) CAN extend the range, but unless the original lens is an absolutely top quality lens (which usually means very expensive) then it won't be worth it.
A fisheye produces curved images like these.
A fisheye produces curved images like these.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Posted 29/12/2010 - 15:43 - Helpful Comment
Link
To be honest I'd be more inclined to get hold of a decent Polarising filter and a set of ND or Neutral Density filters. The former will allow you to control reflections while the latter allow you to use longer shutter speeds in bright light - this is how to get those milky water effects or flatten waves in large bodies of water.
Matt
Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.
Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.
Posted 29/12/2010 - 15:59 - Helpful Comment
Link
Welcome to the forum jimock.
As stated above the adaptors aren't really worth it, you'll get better results with lenses more suited to the use.
For a 'longer' lens check the Pentax 55-300. It's a well regarded lens at a reasonable price see this link.
For a converter the Pentax 1.4X is the best but unavailable, you could try this link.
Hope that helps.
As stated above the adaptors aren't really worth it, you'll get better results with lenses more suited to the use.
For a 'longer' lens check the Pentax 55-300. It's a well regarded lens at a reasonable price see this link.
For a converter the Pentax 1.4X is the best but unavailable, you could try this link.
Hope that helps.
Cheers, HG
K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.
Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...
PPG entries.
K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.
Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...
PPG entries.
Posted 29/12/2010 - 16:19 - Helpful Comment
Link
Hello - welcome and enjoy your new hobby! My advice would be to stick with what you've got until you've worked out whether you need anything else! It's a lot simpler and cheaper that way...
But if wildlife is your thing, then you may find that the 50-200 lens is not always long enough - especially for birds - in which case the most obvious affordable upgrade is the Pentax 55-300 zoom lens (you could trade your 50-200 in because you wouldn't really need both). The 55-300 is excellent, but the 50-200 has the advantage of being rather more compact.
I would not buy any kind of teleconverter to put on your 50-200 lens - it is unlikely that the image quality would be any better (and may be worse) than you would get by simply cropping an image taken without the teleconverter on your computer. This comment does not apply to the highest quality converters, but they cost more than your lenses!
You asked about fisheye lenses. These are extremely wide angle, and produce very distorted shots - sometimes almost circular. They are an acquired taste that I personally have not acquired, and would be of limited use in wildlife photography.
If wildlife is your thing, I would ignore suggestions to buy filters - especially ND grads and the like - those are much more useful for landscape photography, but a polariser might help if you often take wildlife photographs near water.
If you like flaura and fauna, including close ups of small creatures and bugs, you might want to consider a macro lens which allows you to focus very closely on small things. Good macro lenses do not run cheap, but this is one area where it would be possible to put a cheap attachment on the lenses you already have, and get some reasonable results.
The cheapest macro option would be to purchase a close up filter to screw into the front of your lens (either of your lenses would be OK for this). In effect this is like screwing a magnifying glass on the front - and means that you can get some pretty decent close up shots. It should be possible to get a decent close up filter (I have used Marumi ones very happily) for around £20. If this appeals to you, I would also strongly recommend you also consider a tripod - it is very hard to take handheld macro shots and get decent results. In fact, personally I would recommend that you buy a tripod to supplement your kit before you buy anything else - having a sturdy support will make by far the biggest difference to your results.
I hope this helps,
Jon
But if wildlife is your thing, then you may find that the 50-200 lens is not always long enough - especially for birds - in which case the most obvious affordable upgrade is the Pentax 55-300 zoom lens (you could trade your 50-200 in because you wouldn't really need both). The 55-300 is excellent, but the 50-200 has the advantage of being rather more compact.
I would not buy any kind of teleconverter to put on your 50-200 lens - it is unlikely that the image quality would be any better (and may be worse) than you would get by simply cropping an image taken without the teleconverter on your computer. This comment does not apply to the highest quality converters, but they cost more than your lenses!
You asked about fisheye lenses. These are extremely wide angle, and produce very distorted shots - sometimes almost circular. They are an acquired taste that I personally have not acquired, and would be of limited use in wildlife photography.
If wildlife is your thing, I would ignore suggestions to buy filters - especially ND grads and the like - those are much more useful for landscape photography, but a polariser might help if you often take wildlife photographs near water.
If you like flaura and fauna, including close ups of small creatures and bugs, you might want to consider a macro lens which allows you to focus very closely on small things. Good macro lenses do not run cheap, but this is one area where it would be possible to put a cheap attachment on the lenses you already have, and get some reasonable results.
The cheapest macro option would be to purchase a close up filter to screw into the front of your lens (either of your lenses would be OK for this). In effect this is like screwing a magnifying glass on the front - and means that you can get some pretty decent close up shots. It should be possible to get a decent close up filter (I have used Marumi ones very happily) for around £20. If this appeals to you, I would also strongly recommend you also consider a tripod - it is very hard to take handheld macro shots and get decent results. In fact, personally I would recommend that you buy a tripod to supplement your kit before you buy anything else - having a sturdy support will make by far the biggest difference to your results.
I hope this helps,
Jon
Posted 29/12/2010 - 16:57 - Helpful Comment
Link
Welcome Jimock, its a great hobby to get into and the early days are the ones which really are for building the foundation skills (and learning from mistakes) in using your equipment.
I agree with jon, you have a good selection with the kit lenses to start with and you will learn their pros and cons along with what you may need in the future.
You will no doubt suffer from the infectious LBA in the future..... just try and fight it off for a while.
I agree with jon, you have a good selection with the kit lenses to start with and you will learn their pros and cons along with what you may need in the future.
You will no doubt suffer from the infectious LBA in the future..... just try and fight it off for a while.
Posted 29/12/2010 - 23:03
Link
Thank you one and all for your very speedy and very helpful responses to my questions.
I have taken it all on board and will slow down and familiarise myself with the lenses that I have before I get in too deep and waste a lot of money although I like the idea of maybe trading in my 50-200 lens for a 50-300 lens some time in the future- how would I go about doing this??
I have taken it all on board and will slow down and familiarise myself with the lenses that I have before I get in too deep and waste a lot of money although I like the idea of maybe trading in my 50-200 lens for a 50-300 lens some time in the future- how would I go about doing this??
Posted 29/12/2010 - 23:17
Link
jimock wrote:
I like the idea of maybe trading in my 50-200 lens for a 50-300 lens some time in the future- how would I go about doing this??
Contact Chris at SRS and he will probably do something.I like the idea of maybe trading in my 50-200 lens for a 50-300 lens some time in the future- how would I go about doing this??
You would probably be better off selling your lens on here and then buying the 55-300mm though.
Posted 30/12/2010 - 00:13
Link
There's also a Tamron 70-300mm lens which seems to be almost on a par with the Pentax 55-300mm lens, but only costs about 65.00 second hand, roughly what your 50-200 could fetch. It's also a better one for close ups of large insects etc as it focuses closer than the Pentax. The downside is that it suffers from more 'purple fringing' on high contrast edges, but you can reduce that in software.
Posted 30/12/2010 - 12:35
Link
Hello Jimock
I agree with the advice above
Unless I have missed it above no one seems to have mentioned the backwards compatability of the Pentax mount - there are literally thousands of second hand lenses to choose from as well - this may not help with your choice but at least it gives you options.
Regards
Stu.
I agree with the advice above
Unless I have missed it above no one seems to have mentioned the backwards compatability of the Pentax mount - there are literally thousands of second hand lenses to choose from as well - this may not help with your choice but at least it gives you options.
Regards
Stu.
Posted 30/12/2010 - 16:41
Link
In the past I've brought two filter mounting converters:
1. A fish eye converter from a car boot sale, which has proved fun enough to be worth the £12 it cost, but rather disapointing compared to proper fisheye lenses.
2. A 2* adapter. This has proved to be a complete waste of £10! It does bring things closer, and allows continued use of autofocus & auto aperture (as the lens still mounts directly on the camera) BUT the IQ is awful, it vignetts badly below ~35mm, it increases the minimum focusing distance by 2.5 fold, and so reduces the acheivable macro magnification.
Ordinary teleconverters (even ultra budget ones) are much better, though these days second hand lenses are available cheap enough to make these the use of these rather limited too.
1. A fish eye converter from a car boot sale, which has proved fun enough to be worth the £12 it cost, but rather disapointing compared to proper fisheye lenses.
2. A 2* adapter. This has proved to be a complete waste of £10! It does bring things closer, and allows continued use of autofocus & auto aperture (as the lens still mounts directly on the camera) BUT the IQ is awful, it vignetts badly below ~35mm, it increases the minimum focusing distance by 2.5 fold, and so reduces the acheivable macro magnification.
Ordinary teleconverters (even ultra budget ones) are much better, though these days second hand lenses are available cheap enough to make these the use of these rather limited too.
Mike
.
Pentax:K5ii, K7, K100D, DA18-55, DA10-17, DA55-300, DA50-200, F100-300, F50, DA35 AL, 4* M50, 2* M135, Helicoid extension, Tak 300 f4 (& 6 film bodies)
3rd Party: Bigmos (Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM),2* 28mm, 100mm macro, 28-200 zoom, 35-80 zoom, 80-200 zoom, 80-210 zoom, 300mm M42, 600 mirror, 1000-4000 scope, 50mm M42, enlarger lenses, Sony & micro 4/3 cameras with various PK mounts, Zenit E...
Far to many tele-converters, adapters, project parts & extension tubes etc.
.[size=11:].Flickr• WPF• Panoramio
.
Pentax:K5ii, K7, K100D, DA18-55, DA10-17, DA55-300, DA50-200, F100-300, F50, DA35 AL, 4* M50, 2* M135, Helicoid extension, Tak 300 f4 (& 6 film bodies)
3rd Party: Bigmos (Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM),2* 28mm, 100mm macro, 28-200 zoom, 35-80 zoom, 80-200 zoom, 80-210 zoom, 300mm M42, 600 mirror, 1000-4000 scope, 50mm M42, enlarger lenses, Sony & micro 4/3 cameras with various PK mounts, Zenit E...
Far to many tele-converters, adapters, project parts & extension tubes etc.
.[size=11:].Flickr• WPF• Panoramio
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
8 posts
15 years
Ayrshire
I have seen various lenses advertised for sale but don't know anything about them and would be grateful for some guidance.
The lenses that have caught my eye are the 3.5x telephoto lens and the 0.4x fisheye lens which apparently can be attached to the 18-55 and 50-200 lenses which came with the camera.
Can someone please enlighten me as to what these lenses do and what sort of results I could expect by attaching them to my present lenses and maybe explain what a "fisheye" lens is ???????.