K10 general purpose zoom choices.


MattMatic

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 16:31
FWIW, I had a Tokina 24-200 that performed excellently on Fuji Provia with the Z1.

However, on the *ist-D the images were always a bit "nyer" (for want of a better adjective!) compared to the 16-45. In the end I never used it, prefering to carry around the 16-45 or 24-90 & 80-320. The 24-200 got ebayed (and the buyer, frankly, got a bargain).

Whenever I've used a lens that has compromises I kick myself for not taking a better one

My smallest carry-around-kit comprises the 16-45 & 50-200. And I reckon the two of them are lighter and possibly smaller than the Tokina anyway

Just my thoughts

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

viewfinder

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 16:51
".......Whenever I've used a lens that has compromises I kick myself for not taking a better one..."

My sentiments entirely!

Matt, I noticed you mentioned a 24-90 in your post. Could you tell me a bit more about it please?

johnriley

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 17:03
My usual kit consists of the 12-24mm, 16-45mm, 50mm and 50-200mm Pentax lenses, all DA apart from the 50mm which is a manual focus A.

I do have a 24-90mm, but the above line up doesn't really need it. It stays on my MZ3 for those rare days when I shoot film...
Best regards, John

George Lazarette

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 17:11
viewfinder wrote:
".......Whenever I've used a lens that has compromises I kick myself for not taking a better one..."

My sentiments entirely!

Matt, I noticed you mentioned a 24-90 in your post. Could you tell me a bit more about it please?

I'm not Matt (he said, stating the blindingly obvious), but I have had a 24-90 for the past three years, and was very impressed by the optical quality of the lens.

Subjectively (because I never did any formal tests), I would rate it as sharper than many of my older M primes. It was on my recent "For sale" list (and has found a buyer) purely because I have ordered a 16-50 and wouldn't expect to use the 24-90 so much once the 16-50 arrives.

As a single lens solution, the 24-90 is probably better suited to walking around in the country, whilst the 16-50 is more a creature of the city.

An oddity of this lens, which is disconcerting at first, is that the barrel wobbles when extended. Lots of people have commented on this, but nobody (AFAIK) has noticed any adverse effects on the picture.

I used it quite a lot, and liked it.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

MattMatic

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 17:38
Adding my bit about the 24-90... This is an expensive lens SRP was around 450.

Echoing George's thoughts, as a single lens solution, it's wonderful - giving about 35-135mm angle of view. Lovely bokeh and very sharp. In fact, I used it recently for some head and shoulder portraiture I was doing. Zero lens changes (I prefer that range, finding that the long end of the 16-45 isn't quite long enough... and even 16-50 won't be enough)

Mine suffered a bash which damaged the filter ring. Had it repaired on insurance and it came back calibrated and as far as I can tell, is sharper than it was. Now it's lovely on the K10D.

It's a real problem working out what to take now:
1) 12-24 + 24-90
2) 16-45 + 50-200

For around the city, option (1) is great. I took the two to Paris and used both equally

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

johnriley

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 17:54
I originally thought the 12-24mm and 24-90mm would make a fantastic pair of lenses, but in reality most of my shots were in the middle, meaning lots and lots of lens changing...not a good idea with a DSLR.

This is why, regardless of anything we can read in terms of advice it is critically important to consider exactly what our own requirements are and why. This may be the trick, but it's not an easy thing to decide sometimes.
Best regards, John

Mannesty

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 18:01
ChrisA wrote:
.. but there's no denying 28-300 is "general purpose".

I'm not so bothered about slow, but I'd like to know if it's reasonably sharp, considering.

28-300mm would seem to be general purpose . . . on film. On a digital body, I doubt it's wide enough at 42-450mm equivalent angle of view. It's almost certainly too long at 450mm end for hand held use on other than a K100D/K10D body. Even then, shake reduction might be a problem if the lens does not communicate with the body correctly.
Personally, I would choose the 16-45mm + 50-200mm DA lenses to suit a 'general purpose' requirement. Your image quality will be far superior and I doubt you'll be needing to change lenses too often.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

ChrisA

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 18:13
Mannesty wrote:
28-300mm would seem to be general purpose . . . on film. On a digital body, I doubt it's wide enough at 42-450mm equivalent angle of view. It's almost certainly too long at 450mm end for hand held use on other than a K100D/K10D body. Even then, shake reduction might be a problem if the lens does not communicate with the body correctly.
Personally, I would choose the 16-45mm + 50-200mm DA lenses to suit a 'general purpose' requirement. Your image quality will be far superior and I doubt you'll be needing to change lenses too often.

Interesting points. I've had quite a bit of practice now, hand-holding at 400mm (600mm equiv angle of view), and the K10's shake reduction is just fabulous.

These were hand-held at 400mm, for instance, and quite heavily cropped too:

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/Imgp2694s.jpg http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/IMGP2683-2-1.jpg

(although I had to mess about a bit with the latter, to remove some purple fringing, as you may remember).

The problem I have at 400mm fixed is that if the subject suddenly gets a lot closer, 400mm is too long. But for any kind of distance, 200mm can easily be way too short.

So a zoom with 300mm at the long end seems to be a decent compromise. If it's close to the sharpness of, say the Pentax SMC 28-200 FA, which I've been getting used to in the last few weeks, it would be very useful.

The kit 18-55 will do me for wide-ish angle for now, I think.

Mannesty

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 19:02
If you tend to use a zoom of that length mostly at the long end, then I'd suggest you try the SMCP-FA 80-320mm. It's a very good lens, works 100% with the Pentax digibods, and goes for less than 100.00 on that well known auction site. I have one and get good results from it. If you often need 400mm, then I can recommend the Sigma 135-400mm APO but of course, neither really fits the "general purpose" category.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

Mr. Ist

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 20:03
Concerning longer lenses, I have a tamron 70-300mm and was wondering if would be worth getting hold of an 80-320 instead? The things that annoy me about the tamron are its softness @300mm and its painstakingly slow focus. Would the pentax be sharper and focus faster or is it simply the body motor that determines focussing speed?

It would be useful to know if anyone has used both of these lenses and could confirm the above?

As far as a general purpose zoom goes, I would agree that the 16-45 is very fine, and doubtless the 16-50 will be too...

George Lazarette

Link Posted 23/04/2007 - 22:38
Mr. Ist wrote:
...........
As far as a general purpose zoom goes, I would agree that the 16-45 is very fine, and doubtless the 16-50 will be too...

It had better be!

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 24/04/2007 - 09:08
Interesting review of 18-55:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/pentax_1855_3556/index.htm

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

johnriley

Link Posted 24/04/2007 - 13:13
That seems very fair. Thanks for the link, George.
Best regards, John

Ammonyte

Link Posted 24/04/2007 - 19:56
If you team the 18-55 with the 50-200mm you have a lightweight walkabout system that covers a fair range of focal lengths!
Tim the Ammonyte
--------------
K10D & sundry toys
http://www.ammonyte.com/photos.html
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.