Just snagged a lens bargain!

I've just started doing some studio photography and currently use the 18-55 WR kit lens plus my old SMC 50mm F1.7 manual lens from my ME Super days. I had planned to add a 50-135mm F2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 to the kit bag in that order but I opened up camerpricebuster this morning to see that Currys are selling the 50-200mm Pentax WR lens for £89.95 which is less than half their normal price.

I decided to go for it on the basis that it will be quite a flexible home studio lens and used at F8 might be acceptably sharp. Also I've spent rather a lot on equipment of late - iLUX studio light set, Black Rapid sport strap, SD card holders, Flash/light meter, backdrops, backdrop stands etc.

I know the 50-200 is probably going to fall some way short of the 50-135 in image quality and read quite a damning review Photozone did but also found more positive reviews on http://photo.net/equipment/pentax/da50-200.adp and other places.

I bought over the internet so I can send it back if I don't like it rather than buying in store.

Really quite excited - haven't bought a lens in a long while - so any other people on here got experience of the 50-200? One thing I am curious about is just how visible the difference between a 50-135mm v a 50-200mm will be if I am enlarging say to a 30 inch print by someone like Loxley off a K5 raw file?? I'm not into pixel peeping particularly but I don't want anything that's obviously soft even at F8.

Within the next year I do plan to add a 50-135mm and SRS will be where I buy it along with the tamron 17-50, just needed to let the credit card cool off a bit this month!!

Saxon

I had a 50-200 and it was a very sharp lens with good contrast and colour, but not anywhere close to the 50-135 in image quality. For studio photography it will not do the same job as the 50-135 would do, partly due to the IQ and partly due to the wider max aperture on the more expensive lens.

I don't think you'll find the 50-200 soft, it's the more subtle aspects of IQ that you may be lacking.

Regards
David

I don't know about studio use, but the DA50-200WR is fine outside

Wow That reminds me I have that lens and don't recall using it. It came with the K7 kit, 18-55mm WR and 50-200mm WR. Must try it out in the garden tomorrow (rain is forecast but as the lens is WR ???) Thanks for the reminder

I have the DA 50-200. But I wouldn't make it my go to lens for studio work. There are others with far better image quality. I think your original desire of the 50 - 135 Would have been imo a better choice.

Thanks for the comments guys and totally agree Stub - finances permitting the 50-135 would be my choice too but I figured that I can probably part-ex the 50-200 for close to what I paid for it at SRS when I do buy the 50-135 and in the meantime can enjoy the luxury of autofocus!

I was thinking that I'm way behind the curve in terms of lens buying compared to some of you on here! I was reflecting on my lens buying history:

Pentax SMC-M 50mm F1.7 1981 (with ME Super) and used for a studio shoot with my daughter only last night!! Still a great lens.
Rest of the kit comprises (in chronological order)
Tamron Adaptall 2 80-210 F3.8-4 around 1984
Tokina ATX 80-400mm 1998
Pentax DA 18-55 WR (came with K5) 2013
Pemtax 12-24mm F4 2013
Pentax 50-200 F4-5.6 2014

Planning to buy the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 and Pentax 50-135mm F2.8 in the next 12 months depending on how finances go - it's really where I want to get to!! That would give me coverage from 12mm up to 400mm and all of them would be pretty good optics and F4 or better most of the way there.

I see that compared to many of you I'm incredibly slow to upgrade and somewhat behind the curve really - finances are always a limiting factor for aspirations...

Thanks for the positive vibes! Lets hope the 50-200 proves a fine example of the breed!

On the upside I did find the following post with images all shot with the 50-200 and I'm quite surprised how good they look:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/130-lens-sample-photo-archive/154436-pentax-d...

Saxon

You might want to have a look at this thread too, with some samples of what this lens can achieve...I don't use mine as much since I got the 18-135WR, but I think it's more than capable, and at that price a bargain!

Hi Gareth,

I agree the 17-70mm is a fantastic focal length lens for studio work and is another option I was considering but the gap in my lenses was really the area just past the 18-55 kit lens for reasons of facial perspective.

As an example I have a model booked for a studio shoot on Tuesday but we're also planning to do about 2 hours in the studio and then head out to a local Rapeseed field and shoot there too and I imagine the 50-200 will be invaluable for that kind of work.

I guess my options really were:
50-135 F2.8 - too expensive right now
18-135mm (tempting and a wonderful range of focal lengths but perhaps a few too many optical compromises for the price)
17-70 F4 (Also very tempting - great focal length range equivalent to a friend's Canon 24-105 which I covet but most of this range is covered by the kit lens I already have although it is a superb all round range. Also widely differing optical test results - Photozone loved it, Digital camera review didn't - hard to believe they reviewed the same lens!
50-200 - Usefully extends my available focal lengths with autofocus and doesn't overlap the kit lens. Again widely differing optical tests - photozone hated it, ephotozine liked it as did photo.net. For less than £100 it was a very economical option and gets me part way towards the 50-135 I ultimately want.

I must say on reading all these lens reviews on the web though I am struck by the ridiculous apparent sample variation on lenses from Pentax. Strikes me that quality control may be lacking

Jonlg

There has been a thread in "leads to Deals" for a couple of weeks which included a link to the Currys website.

You got a bargain. I have read poor reviews but my experience has been quite the opposite. Apart from the obvious benefit of the narrow depth of field offered by wider apertures and/or low light performance, I have found my 50-200 to offer excellent images.

I paid double what you paid and still considered it a bargain. I later bought the 18-135 (double again) which offers a different range, but haven't seen any improvement in IQ. This seems to be much higher rated by the community?

The 50-135 offers fixed 2.8 max aperture but at 10 times the price (and more) is a genuine luxury and/or a succesful businesses tax write-off. If I need that speed I'll grab my £100 DA50 1.8 and zoom with my feet lol. I apologise to you professionals, I'm just a hobbyist and big money goes on my wife lol.

Some quality shots there kh

One over looked advantage is the compact size. It's amazing what has been squeezed into such a light, tiny package compared to, say, a Tamron 70-300.

You'll love the Tamron 17-50 when you get one. I've never taken mine off the K5.

The 17-70 is a great lens, IQ is very good indeed, don't have any concerns if you're thinking of buying this lens. MattyH has one for sale on this forum at present, I know it's a good 'un and in superb nick because it was mine until a couple of weeks ago!

Regards
David

Well guys an update for you and once again thank-you to everyone who replied - especially Cardiff Gareth who raised the issue of the 50-200 being too long for the studio and the 17-70 being ideal.

I did my first model shoot earlier this week and found having to occasionally swap lenses between 18-55 and 50-200 quite annoying and my Canon friend who shared the shoot managed to do the whole thing with just his Canon 24-105mm. He has a 70-200mm F2.8 Canon L series lens which is a magnificent beast which never even came out of his bag.

This set me re-thinking and so I began looking for a 17-70mm F4 and found one secondhand for £229 at LCE in mint/as new condition which I bought and it arrived today. The entire lens feels and looks brand new and the HSM focus motors are amazing (my first HSM lens). On top of that the build quality is gorgeous and on my gripped K5 the whole thing feel like a very serious piece of kit indeed - just not sure about the photographer on the end of it!!

This has considerably changed my future lens roadmap from wanting Pentax 50-135mm F2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 to supplement my existing Pentax 12-24mm F4 and Tokina AT-X 80-400mm F4.0-F5.6. Because of the extended range of the 17-70mm I now don't need a short range telephoto to bridge the gap to my 80-400mm which saves me a fortune.

System is now:
Pentax 12-24mm F4
Pentax 17-70mm F4
Pentax 50mm F1.7 SMC-M series
Tokina AT-X 80-400mm F4-F5.6

Thanks guys - just goes to show that what you think you want isn't always what you need...

Here's a shot from my first shoot last week taken with the 18-55 - the warm fleshtone on this shot was intentional (studio flash modelling lights only - intended to give a warm fireside type of glow).




Here's another with a more edgy fashion type of feel




Thanks again,

Saxon

In #2 was the "black eye" intentional otherwise I like both images