Lens advice, please...
Posted 03/04/2009 - 02:17
Link
Welcome to the forum Adrian,
The DA40 is so sharp because it's a prime lens, it only need to preform at that one range, zooms, certainly super zooms like the 18-250 needs to pay for the price of that focal range.
Althose lenses you name are sharper then the 18-250 beacuse those lenses are far more specialize for that range. If you want sharpness get a prime lens if you want more convenience get a zoom.
The 18-250 does preform pretty wel though in the middle of his range around the 50 to 150 is my guess, you do gaine quality in that range from other lenses but far less then you will gain from the far ends of the lens so concider what you use the most.
You already have a Limited so why not try to expand that range and buy a DA21 and later the DA70 for example?
If you want to photograph wildlife, I've seen some great shots from the DA* 300. Certainly something to save some money for, if that's your interest.
The DA40 is so sharp because it's a prime lens, it only need to preform at that one range, zooms, certainly super zooms like the 18-250 needs to pay for the price of that focal range.
Althose lenses you name are sharper then the 18-250 beacuse those lenses are far more specialize for that range. If you want sharpness get a prime lens if you want more convenience get a zoom.
The 18-250 does preform pretty wel though in the middle of his range around the 50 to 150 is my guess, you do gaine quality in that range from other lenses but far less then you will gain from the far ends of the lens so concider what you use the most.
You already have a Limited so why not try to expand that range and buy a DA21 and later the DA70 for example?
If you want to photograph wildlife, I've seen some great shots from the DA* 300. Certainly something to save some money for, if that's your interest.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 03/04/2009 - 02:19
Link
Croeso Adrian.
Prime Lenses (fixed focal length) will always be that one step ahead in IQ, not so noticably sharper when stopped down for landscape work though. I'm suspecting that the increased contrast is what's pleasing you as much as the increase in sharpness.
Now I don't have personal experience of any of the Lenses you've listed so am not perfectly qualified to give you specific advice but I'll give you my opinion on the listed options.
1. The 16-45 is regarded as a decent standard zoom but I fear it wont give you the leap in IQ you are looking for.
2. Again there are many fans of both the 17-70 & 55-300 here & both will give a moderate IQ increase but I think you'll struggle to find a used 17-70 & 55-300 & they will certainly have depreciated less than your Tamron, so I think you'll be paying more than you've anticipated.
3. Both the Tamron & Sigma will give better IQ & are faster, but again most of this will be lost when stopped down for landscape work.
Personally, I would opt for the Pentax 21mm or new 15mm primes (depending on your preffered focal length/budget) or I'd go for something like the Sigma 10-20mm or Pentax 12-24mm to give you focal lengths which you dont currently have covered.
These options may stretch your budget a little but are worth paying for in the long run. You could always trade in the kit lens for a head start !
Of course that's just my view & others will be along to greet & advise you differently I shouldn't wonder.
Stick around, there's alot of sound advice handed out round these parts !
Bob
Prime Lenses (fixed focal length) will always be that one step ahead in IQ, not so noticably sharper when stopped down for landscape work though. I'm suspecting that the increased contrast is what's pleasing you as much as the increase in sharpness.
Now I don't have personal experience of any of the Lenses you've listed so am not perfectly qualified to give you specific advice but I'll give you my opinion on the listed options.
1. The 16-45 is regarded as a decent standard zoom but I fear it wont give you the leap in IQ you are looking for.
2. Again there are many fans of both the 17-70 & 55-300 here & both will give a moderate IQ increase but I think you'll struggle to find a used 17-70 & 55-300 & they will certainly have depreciated less than your Tamron, so I think you'll be paying more than you've anticipated.
3. Both the Tamron & Sigma will give better IQ & are faster, but again most of this will be lost when stopped down for landscape work.
Personally, I would opt for the Pentax 21mm or new 15mm primes (depending on your preffered focal length/budget) or I'd go for something like the Sigma 10-20mm or Pentax 12-24mm to give you focal lengths which you dont currently have covered.
These options may stretch your budget a little but are worth paying for in the long run. You could always trade in the kit lens for a head start !
Of course that's just my view & others will be along to greet & advise you differently I shouldn't wonder.
Stick around, there's alot of sound advice handed out round these parts !
Bob
Posted 03/04/2009 - 05:20
Link
It's good we think a like then Bob and don't worry about my name
Pentax trully have some wonderfull primes so why a Sigma indeed?
I myself am still struggling to find a lens to fill the gap between the DA40 and the DFA100, I was thinking of the DA*55 but maybe I'll opt for the FA77 or DA*50-135 instead... maybe.
It's so hard to pick the right lens you know, I wonder how those with another system do it. Sometimes they got multiple lenses in the same range, it's just crazy.
Pentax trully have some wonderfull primes so why a Sigma indeed?
I myself am still struggling to find a lens to fill the gap between the DA40 and the DFA100, I was thinking of the DA*55 but maybe I'll opt for the FA77 or DA*50-135 instead... maybe.
It's so hard to pick the right lens you know, I wonder how those with another system do it. Sometimes they got multiple lenses in the same range, it's just crazy.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 07/04/2009 - 00:22
Link
RR wrote:
Croeso Adrian.
Prime Lenses (fixed focal length) will always be that one step ahead in IQ, not so noticably sharper when stopped down for landscape work though. I'm suspecting that the increased contrast is what's pleasing you as much as the increase in sharpness.
Now I don't have personal experience of any of the Lenses you've listed so am not perfectly qualified to give you specific advice but I'll give you my opinion on the listed options.
1. The 16-45 is regarded as a decent standard zoom but I fear it wont give you the leap in IQ you are looking for.
2. Again there are many fans of both the 17-70 & 55-300 here & both will give a moderate IQ increase but I think you'll struggle to find a used 17-70 & 55-300 & they will certainly have depreciated less than your Tamron, so I think you'll be paying more than you've anticipated.
3. Both the Tamron & Sigma will give better IQ & are faster, but again most of this will be lost when stopped down for landscape work.
Personally, I would opt for the Pentax 21mm or new 15mm primes (depending on your preffered focal length/budget) or I'd go for something like the Sigma 10-20mm or Pentax 12-24mm to give you focal lengths which you dont currently have covered.
These options may stretch your budget a little but are worth paying for in the long run. You could always trade in the kit lens for a head start !
Of course that's just my view & others will be along to greet & advise you differently I shouldn't wonder.
Stick around, there's alot of sound advice handed out round these parts !
Bob
Thanks for the welcome and suggestions (diolch fawr!)Croeso Adrian.
Prime Lenses (fixed focal length) will always be that one step ahead in IQ, not so noticably sharper when stopped down for landscape work though. I'm suspecting that the increased contrast is what's pleasing you as much as the increase in sharpness.
Now I don't have personal experience of any of the Lenses you've listed so am not perfectly qualified to give you specific advice but I'll give you my opinion on the listed options.
1. The 16-45 is regarded as a decent standard zoom but I fear it wont give you the leap in IQ you are looking for.
2. Again there are many fans of both the 17-70 & 55-300 here & both will give a moderate IQ increase but I think you'll struggle to find a used 17-70 & 55-300 & they will certainly have depreciated less than your Tamron, so I think you'll be paying more than you've anticipated.
3. Both the Tamron & Sigma will give better IQ & are faster, but again most of this will be lost when stopped down for landscape work.
Personally, I would opt for the Pentax 21mm or new 15mm primes (depending on your preffered focal length/budget) or I'd go for something like the Sigma 10-20mm or Pentax 12-24mm to give you focal lengths which you dont currently have covered.
These options may stretch your budget a little but are worth paying for in the long run. You could always trade in the kit lens for a head start !
Of course that's just my view & others will be along to greet & advise you differently I shouldn't wonder.
Stick around, there's alot of sound advice handed out round these parts !
Bob
The 21mm Ltd had crossed my mind, but I would find this rather limited. Reviews I've also read suggest that this Ltd isn't as good as the others?
I'm drawn more towards the Pentax 17-70 because this seems to be one of the best alternatives to a prime (correct me if I'm wrong).
Perhaps the Tamron or Sigma f2.8 would be a side step, in that the DA40mm wouldn't be used?
What I forgot to mention initially is that I'm fairly new to DSLR's, having owned my K100D just under a year. This brings me onto the suggestion regarding the wider zooms, Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-24.
What would such a wide angled lens be used for?
Budget wise the Pentax lens is beyond, whilst the Sigma is viable.
Again thanks for all your advice.
Regards.
Adrian
K5IIs, Sigma 10-20, Pentax DA 16-85, Pentax DA 55-300, Pentax 70 Ltd, Metz 44 AF-2.
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ambott/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ambott/
Posted 07/04/2009 - 15:56
Link
Adrian, shooting with a prime is really different then shooting with a zoom. With a zoom you can composit a shot and zoom to frame it, with prime you need to think about the limitations of the lens so you need to be flexable not the lens, it really is a diffrend way of thinking and shooting.
Something like a prime like zoom lens doesn't excist, although some come close.
Since you're talking about landscapes a lot and about the 17-70 I figure you want to use the lens for that, that's far easier to talk about then compare it to a prime lens.
The lens is surely sharp and for it's length it's a perfect walk around lens. For landscapes f/4 or f/2.8 doesn't matter since you're probable at f/8 or higher to get more dof and the lens is sharper around that range but for a general walk around lens f/2.8 is better.
17mm might still be not wide enough for landscapes, for some it is enough but the 10-20 or 12-24 are considered more usable for landscapes.
You already have your kit lens simply use that for awhile and see if you want a wider lens (10-20 or 12-24) or a longer lens (17-70), you aren't looking for a prime so far as I can tell.
good luck, hopefully I said something usefull,
Stefan.
Something like a prime like zoom lens doesn't excist, although some come close.
Since you're talking about landscapes a lot and about the 17-70 I figure you want to use the lens for that, that's far easier to talk about then compare it to a prime lens.
The lens is surely sharp and for it's length it's a perfect walk around lens. For landscapes f/4 or f/2.8 doesn't matter since you're probable at f/8 or higher to get more dof and the lens is sharper around that range but for a general walk around lens f/2.8 is better.
17mm might still be not wide enough for landscapes, for some it is enough but the 10-20 or 12-24 are considered more usable for landscapes.
You already have your kit lens simply use that for awhile and see if you want a wider lens (10-20 or 12-24) or a longer lens (17-70), you aren't looking for a prime so far as I can tell.
good luck, hopefully I said something usefull,
Stefan.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 07/04/2009 - 22:45
Link
Anvh wrote:
Adrian, shooting with a prime is really different then shooting with a zoom. With a zoom you can composit a shot and zoom to frame it, with prime you need to think about the limitations of the lens so you need to be flexable not the lens, it really is a diffrend way of thinking and shooting.
Something like a prime like zoom lens doesn't excist, although some come close.
Since you're talking about landscapes a lot and about the 17-70 I figure you want to use the lens for that, that's far easier to talk about then compare it to a prime lens.
The lens is surely sharp and for it's length it's a perfect walk around lens. For landscapes f/4 or f/2.8 doesn't matter since you're probable at f/8 or higher to get more dof and the lens is sharper around that range but for a general walk around lens f/2.8 is better.
17mm might still be not wide enough for landscapes, for some it is enough but the 10-20 or 12-24 are considered more usable for landscapes.
You already have your kit lens simply use that for awhile and see if you want a wider lens (10-20 or 12-24) or a longer lens (17-70), you aren't looking for a prime so far as I can tell.
good luck, hopefully I said something usefull,
Stefan.
StefanAdrian, shooting with a prime is really different then shooting with a zoom. With a zoom you can composit a shot and zoom to frame it, with prime you need to think about the limitations of the lens so you need to be flexable not the lens, it really is a diffrend way of thinking and shooting.
Something like a prime like zoom lens doesn't excist, although some come close.
Since you're talking about landscapes a lot and about the 17-70 I figure you want to use the lens for that, that's far easier to talk about then compare it to a prime lens.
The lens is surely sharp and for it's length it's a perfect walk around lens. For landscapes f/4 or f/2.8 doesn't matter since you're probable at f/8 or higher to get more dof and the lens is sharper around that range but for a general walk around lens f/2.8 is better.
17mm might still be not wide enough for landscapes, for some it is enough but the 10-20 or 12-24 are considered more usable for landscapes.
You already have your kit lens simply use that for awhile and see if you want a wider lens (10-20 or 12-24) or a longer lens (17-70), you aren't looking for a prime so far as I can tell.
good luck, hopefully I said something usefull,
Stefan.
Again, thanks for your suggestions.
I've hardy ever used the kit lens, having bought the 18-250 shortly after purchasing the camera.
The big dilemma now is whether a lens like the DA 17-70 is that much better than the Tamron to warrant the price, about £350.
The wider options, sigma 10-20 and Pentax 12-24 have also been suggested, and are worth considering.
Coincidentally there have been a few of the 12-24 for sale in the various Pentax forums lately. Unfortunately mostly in North America, which after paying VAT to receive the package into the UK minimises the saving of buying used.
I shall sit on my hands and see what crops up in the classifieds, as I did with the DA40mm.
Regards.
Adrian
K5IIs, Sigma 10-20, Pentax DA 16-85, Pentax DA 55-300, Pentax 70 Ltd, Metz 44 AF-2.
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ambott/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ambott/
Posted 08/04/2009 - 09:11
Link
I have a Sigma 10-20 and tbh I don't like it for landscapes. It is too wide at 10 and by the time I get a result I like I may as well use my 17-70 for it. To me it feels like the landscape is being squashed into the frame at 10mm, whereas at 16,17 or 18mm it gives the landscape room to breathe if you get my meaning. If I want wider then I'll make a panorama of the scene rather than use the 10mm.
I was disappointed with the lens for landscapes. With buildings it is another story, but whether I photograph enough buildings to merit keeping it is another matter.
I got the Pentax 17-70 instead of the kit lens when I got my K20D, as I wanted too use the advantage of the SDM focussing. It is considerably bigger than the kit lens but it is a very good lens. I am very happy with it, and it covers a useful range for me. I have no experience of the Tamron to say what the quality of that is. Some members have the Sigma version I believe.
I was disappointed with the lens for landscapes. With buildings it is another story, but whether I photograph enough buildings to merit keeping it is another matter.
I got the Pentax 17-70 instead of the kit lens when I got my K20D, as I wanted too use the advantage of the SDM focussing. It is considerably bigger than the kit lens but it is a very good lens. I am very happy with it, and it covers a useful range for me. I have no experience of the Tamron to say what the quality of that is. Some members have the Sigma version I believe.
Posted 08/04/2009 - 09:29
Link
You could of course also consider the superb new 15mm prime lens. I've heard very good reports on it, and have added it to my wish list. I think the Sigma may well be going to help pay for it .
Posted 08/04/2009 - 12:02
Link
Regarding image quality, you are not going to find difference from the 18-250mm unless you buy a DA* zoom lens or a Prime lens.
Any other zoom might give marginally better quality at some focal lenghts, but absolutely nothing worth upgrading to.
A wide zoom is a different thing.
I would suggest you get an inexpensive prime like the FA 50 f1,4 and experiment with that for some time.
Good Luck,
Any other zoom might give marginally better quality at some focal lenghts, but absolutely nothing worth upgrading to.
A wide zoom is a different thing.
I would suggest you get an inexpensive prime like the FA 50 f1,4 and experiment with that for some time.
Good Luck,
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
479 posts
17 years
North Wales,
UK
K100D Super with a Tamron 18-250mm. Recently bought a used DA40mm 2.8 Ltd, and have been blown away with the performance and IQ, so sharp.
However, 40mm is simply not wide enough for landscapes etc., where do I now go; As good as the Tamron is, I am after sharper results, and what are the options for landscape/outdoor use?
1 How good is the 16-45, compared against the 18-250 (option: buy 16-45 for £199 and keep the Tamron for the convenience and reach, also keep 40mm).
2 Trade 18-250 for Pentax 17-70 and buy DA-55-300, and keep the DA40mm; all Pentax line-up (UK prices have the 18-250 and Pentax 17-70 at roughly the same price, hence my calculations).
3 The Pentax 16-50 is way out of my reach, cash wise and I doubt is not needed (Tamron 17-50 sounds a better option if needed, or Sigma 18-50).
All advice greatly appreciated.
Kind regards.
Adrian
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ambott/