got the camera, now the lens


jacqui2

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 15:33
ok, managed to buy a k100d off of a member here it's got the 18-55mm with it but I shouldn't think I will use that much, want a bigger zoom. can't afford 18-250 although that would have been perfect, looking for as long a range as possible but as cheap as I can get, I know the two don't really go together on my last camera I had just the 50-200mm kit lens, which I used all the time, but it would be great if I could get something a bit longer (and wider if possible) what about 28-200mm or 18-200mm or maybe the 28-300mm but I think that would be too much for me as well? is the 50-200mm better? thanks, jacqui
jacqui

Dangermouse

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 15:40
My view would be to go for the 50-200mm or the 55-300mm. The latter is often reported to be better. I made do with an old 80-200mm until I could afford the DA* 50-135mm which is a superb lens.

The megazooms generally lose out in image quality when compared to shorter lenses. They're fine when stopped down a bit but that requires good light or a camera which can handle high ISOs without showing excessive noise.
Matt

Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.

Hardgravity

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 15:57
Sorry to disagree regarding super zooms Matt, I use a 18-250 as a travel lens and get good results from it.

Granted the long ends do suffer in poorer light, but what the heck!

Look around for a Sigma or Tamron 18-200, they pop up at silly prices from time to time.

I used a Sigma 18-200 for a period, it's now the standby lens on my K110 for when Honesty( my Daughter!) uses it

If you check the EXIF on my gallery shots you'll soon see how good these lenses can be.
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

I've some gallerieshere CLICKY LINK! and my PPG entries.

Frogfish

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 17:00
Although the 55-300 is the best of the budget bunch it can not be described as cheap. The best lense for your buck is IMHO the Tamron 70-300 di Macro, you can get one of these for a great price of 70 to 100 pounds in very good condition. Not only is it a sharp lense (suffers from some PF but don't shoot at backlit subjects) and not far behind the 55-300 and for the price it's a steal. The clincher is it offers wonderful macro at 1:2 - and that's amazing for the money.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Last Edited by Frogfish on 04/07/2011 - 17:01

davex

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 17:05
[quoteThe best lense for your buck is IMHO the Tamron 70-300 di Macro,[/quote]

+1,

Great starter zoom.

Davex.
K5 + 8mm-500mm zooms and primes
Please feel free to play with any images I post.
My flickr: link

simonkit

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 17:38
Not really wanting to start the superzoom debate but I did try the "best of the bunch" Tamron 18-250 and personally couldn't live with it from an IQ point of view compared to my Pentax DA17-70 or the DA 55-300 - this is very much a personal thing though as many people obviously are very happy with them so that's enough of that from me.

Having got that out of the way the 18-250 is widely seen as the best option by some margin so it might well be worth pushing the budget if at all possible. If this isn't possible then the alternatives will probably produce similar results to your kit lens (only a guess as I haven't used them)so perhaps the DA55-300 makes more sense, if budget is tight the DAL version is worth a look - the Tamron 70-300 mentioned already is definitely worth thinking about the only downside being it produces more PF/CA than the Pentax options, just as sharp though

Simon

Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link

snappychappy

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 18:16
Another vote for the Tamron for me, great value and great quality.
My piccies.

johnwhit

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 18:45
Frogfish wrote:
The best lense for your buck is IMHO the Tamron 70-300 di Macro, you can get one of these for a great price of 70 to 100 pounds in very good condition.

+1 Best 65 I ever spent. Cliff-P gets some great results with his too.

John
PPG link

In LBA hiatus.

thoughton

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 18:51
+1 on the Tamron from me too. Reputedly a bit softer above 250mm but I've never noticed that with my copy (26 on ebay!). The purple fringing is quite heavy - I don't do any birding and so have yet to encounter it in a 'real' photo but I can make it happen in tests.
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!

Hardgravity

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 20:08
Ok, I'd forgotten the Tamron70-300.

I have one for occasional use and get some good result.
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

I've some gallerieshere CLICKY LINK! and my PPG entries.

Stuey

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 21:05
I have the Sigma 70-300 apo DG Macro - if I remeber correctly the Tamron is better at the long end whilst the Sigma is better at the short end and both are similar in the mid range - the wierd thing is though the Sigma is meant to be better for macro but that only works at the long end

I'd go for the Tamron as they are cheaper and all said and done the IQ is similar

Unless of course you find a Sigma on the cheap - the apo is more expensive than the non apo version.
K10D, K5 plus plenty of clueless enthusiasm.

My Flickr site link

jacqui2

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 21:30
Hi, thanks everyone for your suggestions, looks like I will be looking for a 70-300mm then! it doesn't give me the all in one I am after, I know, but if it's got that many votes, I think it's worth putting up with changing lenses occasionally, I can always save for a 18-250mm later. Now to find one!
jacqui

JamieT

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 21:35
Another vote for the tamron, great start. The zoo pictures in my portfolio were with the tamron and the orchid was with the macro setting, which is a bonus!
K5, LTD 15 SIG 30, SIG 105.

Epithet Man

Link Posted 04/07/2011 - 22:17
The Tamron 70-300mm is a nice lens. I've had a few cases of PF, but nothing too worrying (it's relatively easy to deal with). In servo mode it tracks pretty well on my K10D (for birds, dragonflies, etc) and the macro feature is handy too. Only real annoyance is that you need a lens change (or a short hike) if you need to go wider.

Rarely used these days though because I find my DA*50-135mm long enough for most things.

EM

rparmar

Link Posted 05/07/2011 - 01:33
The DA55-300 is so much better than the off-brand zooms I have tried (still own a Sigma) that I would have to say it's well worth saving for. Very noticeable over 200mm.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.
Last Edited by rparmar on 05/07/2011 - 01:34
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.