Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Kit lens gap filler

robby
Posted 22/01/2008 - 08:48 Link
Hi - Better kit glass LBA is kicking in and my list has narrowed to;

Sigma 28-70 2.8
Sigma 24-60 2.8
Sigma 18-50 2.8
Tamron 28-75 2.8

Ive already got the Sigma 10-20, Pentax 50 1.4 and Sigma 70-300.
Wanted something that would capture people in small informal groups in the interior of buildings as I'm off to a christenng in a couple of weeks. I do like fast glass and love the wider angle so I was going down the 18-50 road until a friendly tog said I'd be better off with the Tamron 28-75.

The star 16-50 is orribly expensive and the mixed reports are not good.

Did also toy about picking up a Sigma 20 1.8 - real fast but fixed and the bank account would still need to fund another. (Real tempted though - very fast and wide(ish) )

Doing a search and people seem to like the Tamron and the Sigma 18-50 gets good reports but cant find much about that 24-60 and I'm thinking that the Sigmas wider 4mm over the Tamron might be better for me than the loss of 10 and the far end.

Any thoughts appreciated.

robby
Nimitz
Posted 22/01/2008 - 08:58 Link
I use my sigma 28-70 as my "kit lens" now. I'm very pleased with the result of this lens. A few times I needed the extra wide angel - but in the 4 months I have used it - only 2-3 times. Depends on your style. If you bring the 10-20 along - I doubt you will find any troubles at all.

Most of my posted pictures are done with the 28-70. Haven't regretted that I picked it up. I'm still waiting to get the Sigma 10-20. Should be able to pick it up in a month.
Posted 22/01/2008 - 08:59 Link
Sigma 17 -70? Budget option maybe, but if you are happy with the Sigma 70 -300 (you may not be), the 17 -70 won't disappoint. It's really 18 -70, especially at 2.8 but a good little lens.

Stuart
niblue
Posted 22/01/2008 - 10:22 Link
I quite often carry the Sigma 10-20, a fast 50mm prime and the Sigma 70-300 but the lens I use to fill in the gap is the Pentax 16-45 F4 and I think it'd be worth adding that to your list even if it is a stop slower than the others. I used to have a Tokina ATX-Pro 28-70 F2.6-2.8 and while it was a great lens I found the focal length range wasn't the most useful with an APS-C DSLR so eventually sold it. Having a gap between 45mm and 70mm (or 45 and 80mm if I'm carrying an 80-200 F2.8 instead of the 70-300) I've never found to be an issue.

If I need more speed for interior shots I tend to use cheap manual focus primes (e.g. Sigma 24mm F2.8, Vivitar 28mm F2).
Utopia Poppy
Posted 22/01/2008 - 10:29 Link
Please take this comment with a pinch of salt as I have only been back into photography since college (10 years ago!) for about a month.

I am having great fun with the Pentax 18-55mm that came with the body. It also got me my first commended in the competitiion at the weekend (just thought I'd slip that in!) For it's type I think it's absolutely excellent, so much so I haven't swapped lenses for anything else yet. It's so versatile, and of course, doesn't melt the old flexible friend!

That's just my opinion, bearing in mind I know next to nothing when it comes to these things - I just know that it works well for me!
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep". ~Scott Adams

Q | Various Q lenses & filters | KP | 35mm 2.8 Macro
johnriley
Posted 22/01/2008 - 10:56 Link
The Pentax 18-55mm is a very good lens. It focuses close, very close, it has a nice softness at open aperture (good for portraits) and it sharpens up very nicely by f8 or f11. It's light, it's cheap, it takes the same 52mm filters as the 50-200mm.

It's a very good option.
Best regards, John
niblue
Posted 22/01/2008 - 11:07 Link
johnriley wrote:
The Pentax 18-55mm is a very good lens. It focuses close, very close, it has a nice softness at open aperture (good for portraits) and it sharpens up very nicely by f8 or f11. It's light, it's cheap, it takes the same 52mm filters as the 50-200mm.

It's a very good option.

For the stated requirement (indoor of people in groups) it differs from the other lenses mentioned in that it's almost certainly going to need flash as it's soft wide-open as well as being slow. It might only be a stop or so slower than the 16-45 F4 wide open but by the time you get to a useable aperture it's more like 2-3 stops.
johnriley
Posted 22/01/2008 - 11:32 Link
Or would it be more appropriate to use flash? I don't normally like flash, but it can be useful in some circumstances.

The alternative can be to up the ISO and this works very well with the 16-45mm. Or the 50mm f1.4 if light levels are very low!
Best regards, John
niblue
Posted 22/01/2008 - 12:04 Link
johnriley wrote:
Or would it be more appropriate to use flash? I don't normally like flash, but it can be useful in some circumstances.

To avoid red-eye & harsh shadows the flash would probably need to be bounced and with a large group that would need lots of power and/or a higher ISO especially if a slow lens is used.
Don
Posted 22/01/2008 - 12:18 Link
multiple portable flash units (3 or more) is the way to go.
I use mine on manfrotto clamps or putty knives or lightstands.
grab a cheap white plastic cup to set on top of the flash to create a "bare bulb" effect (actually quite soft ligh up close).

put them all on manual and at half power (to start) one in each of three corners of a room. use slower shutter speeds.

arrange your groups away from the walls and with one light behind and two in front (your back towards the one corner with no flash unit).

the trick is to have enough flash to freeze subject motion, and color balane subjects, and enough ambient to get everything else and warm the image up.
use a tri or mono pod.

try 1/30 sec or 1/15 sec exposures and iso 200-400

remember, faster lenses have less dof, at wider apertures and require stopping down to get groupshots, anyways, so f1.4-f2.8 won't be usable at all.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
robby
Posted 22/01/2008 - 12:48 Link
Thanks everybody for your thoughts.

@Nimitz - that 28-70 sigma gets lots of good sharp reports and if I thought I wouldn't miss the wide angle would be my choice - but I might always be moaning trying to screw the lens wider.

@Snadalholme - thought loads about that 17-70 - seems perfect except for the speed of the glass - now if that was only 2.8 fixed...

@niblue - the classic 16-45 and very reasonable from Chris at SRS and would be another favourite if only it were faster. Don't think I'd miss that gap from 45 to 70 - This is a deffo in the running.
(the star 50-135 in a few months might just be on the cards - hoping it'll drop in price)

@poppy - re. the kit - it's a great lens for the pennies - on ebay it goes for silly amounts, but it just isn't fast enough and people keep on comparing it to say the 16-45 and the big difference in the two. Well done on your ribbon by the way .

@John, niblue and Don - I know I keep on about fast glass but I don't have a flash yet and setting up lighting just wouldn't be on the cards in Church. A 540 probably soon but I'm a favourite like most of us in the flattering effect of ambient and was hoping to capture the moment just available light.

Going to sit in a corner and try to make a decision - will let you know which won the day - thanks again .

robby
Don
Posted 22/01/2008 - 12:54 Link
feel for ya.
it's tough to choose.
I wanted the 16-50 2.8, but came across a stellar deal on the 16-45.
I too had a line on a sigma, 17-70...
lighting is not an issue for me. you could get through with what you got (50 1.4, no groups, but nice shots of the baby, and a high iso tripod shot of the group inside then more after the ceremony, in a better lit locale.
you will find it worth your money to grab the flash instead of the glass this time around.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
iceblinker
Posted 22/01/2008 - 13:00 Link
I also considered getting a fast-but-not-terribly-expensive lens to replace my 18-55 - but reviews of the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and similar say their wide-open performance is not very good. Therefore I think there would be little advantage in a much faster zoom unless paying a lot more money.

Instead I got a 16-45: better (and slightly faster) than the 18-55, yet cheaper than the 16-50, etc. I also considered a Sigma 17-70. Apparently it's almost good enough to be an EX model. The 16-45 is lighter though (if I remember rightly). I think that's what swung it for me in the end.

I wouldn't be happy with a general purpose zoom on digital that started at 28mm - because it wouldn't be general purpose! Even though I have a Sigma 10-20 as well, I don't want to be changing lenses so often that I need to fit a "special" lens for every 20mm-ish shot. I don't even want to take the 10-20 out with me every time. That's another advanage of the 16-45: 16mm is so wide that there is an even less frequent need for the 10-20.

When a large aperture is needed, you could perhaps use an old Pentax 28mm F2.8 (M, A, F or FA). These are cheap second-hand, and small.
~Pete
MX veteran
Posted 22/01/2008 - 13:04 Link
The kit 18-55 is as fast as your Sigma 10-20 and I know you love that.
K100D Super, 18-55, 50-200, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 70mm macro and lots of old lenses
robby
Posted 22/01/2008 - 22:16 Link
Don wrote:
...you will find it worth your money to grab the flash instead of the glass this time around.

Daft but I never thought of that Don - keep what I've got cos with the kit then there's no real gap and opt for a flash unit - and maybe pick up some fast 2nd hand glass on ebay when the card's cooled....sounds like a plan - cheers Don.

Only problem now is choosing between the Metz 58 and the Pentax 540

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.