lenses for K5 II
Posted 26/06/2013 - 22:26
Link
Lightweight and the siggy 50-500 don't belong in the same sentence, It's not called a bigma for nothing. The 8-16 good as it is isn't a small lens either. The answers all depend on budget. You'll find plenty of fans for the Penrax 17-70 as a landscape lens, for the longer end 50-300 would be two lenses on a budget meeting the lightweight criteria.
Best regards
Best regards
Posted 26/06/2013 - 22:42 - Helpful Comment
Link
I've just bought the Samsung version of the Pentax 12-24 and to say I'm impressed would be an under statement. Now I have this, I am not going to bother with any of the Limiteds.
I don't really do 'lightweight' as I usually go out with two cameras and a bag full of lenses, but if I had to go lighter I would take the 12-24, the K-5IIs and possibly the 16-45. Now I have the K-5IIs, my K-5 is relegated to be a bit part player I'm afraid. I actually prefer the 16-45 over the 17-70 for landscapes, it's not as sharp but it is lighter and less prone to distortions and vignetting.
For more general work, I would replace the 16-45 with the 17-70 and add the 55-300, keeping the 12-24 in the bag.
For a wildlife trip I would take the Siggy 150-500, I like this far better than the 50-500; I've had both and the 50-500 was nowhere near as sharp, in fact it was quite soft at anything over 150mm.
Regards
David
I don't really do 'lightweight' as I usually go out with two cameras and a bag full of lenses, but if I had to go lighter I would take the 12-24, the K-5IIs and possibly the 16-45. Now I have the K-5IIs, my K-5 is relegated to be a bit part player I'm afraid. I actually prefer the 16-45 over the 17-70 for landscapes, it's not as sharp but it is lighter and less prone to distortions and vignetting.
For more general work, I would replace the 16-45 with the 17-70 and add the 55-300, keeping the 12-24 in the bag.
For a wildlife trip I would take the Siggy 150-500, I like this far better than the 50-500; I've had both and the 50-500 was nowhere near as sharp, in fact it was quite soft at anything over 150mm.
Regards
David
Posted 26/06/2013 - 23:03
Link
CIBarker wrote:
Lightweight and the siggy 50-500 don't belong in the same sentence, It's not called a bigma for nothing. The 8-16 good as it is isn't a small lens either. The answers all depend on budget. You'll find plenty of fans for the Penrax 17-70 as a landscape lens, for the longer end 50-300 would be two lenses on a budget meeting the lightweight criteria.
Best regards
Should have been clearer, I need two sets of Lenses one General purpose Siggy 8-16/50-500 etc, and a small lightweight jobbie for backpacking/Travel... Lightweight and the siggy 50-500 don't belong in the same sentence, It's not called a bigma for nothing. The 8-16 good as it is isn't a small lens either. The answers all depend on budget. You'll find plenty of fans for the Penrax 17-70 as a landscape lens, for the longer end 50-300 would be two lenses on a budget meeting the lightweight criteria.
Best regards
Oh and I've been here before, owned the 8-16 before but not the Bigma but that would only come out as required...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 26/06/2013 - 23:05
Link
davidstorm wrote:
I've just bought the Samsung version of the Pentax 12-24 and to say I'm impressed would be an under statement. Now I have this, I am not going to bother with any of the Limiteds.
I don't really do 'lightweight' as I usually go out with two cameras and a bag full of lenses, but if I had to go lighter I would take the 12-24, the K-5IIs and possibly the 16-45. Now I have the K-5IIs, my K-5 is relegated to be a bit part player I'm afraid. I actually prefer the 16-45 over the 17-70 for landscapes, it's not as sharp but it is lighter and less prone to distortions and vignetting.
For more general work, I would replace the 16-45 with the 17-70 and add the 55-300, keeping the 12-24 in the bag.
For a wildlife trip I would take the Siggy 150-500, I like this far better than the 50-500; I've had both and the 50-500 was nowhere near as sharp, in fact it was quite soft at anything over 150mm.
Regards
David
Quick question David, do you find the Colour as good on the Samsung? I know you've only just got it! Generally I prefer the colours that come out of the Siggy 8-16, really rich but I seem to remember my Pentax 12-24 being very good and it's the same lens bar a Lens coating isn't it?
I've just bought the Samsung version of the Pentax 12-24 and to say I'm impressed would be an under statement. Now I have this, I am not going to bother with any of the Limiteds.
I don't really do 'lightweight' as I usually go out with two cameras and a bag full of lenses, but if I had to go lighter I would take the 12-24, the K-5IIs and possibly the 16-45. Now I have the K-5IIs, my K-5 is relegated to be a bit part player I'm afraid. I actually prefer the 16-45 over the 17-70 for landscapes, it's not as sharp but it is lighter and less prone to distortions and vignetting.
For more general work, I would replace the 16-45 with the 17-70 and add the 55-300, keeping the 12-24 in the bag.
For a wildlife trip I would take the Siggy 150-500, I like this far better than the 50-500; I've had both and the 50-500 was nowhere near as sharp, in fact it was quite soft at anything over 150mm.
Regards
David
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 26/06/2013 - 23:12 - Helpful Comment
Link
Hi Jules, my understanding is that everything is identical on the Samsung version, even the lens coatings. I think the only difference is external cosmetics.
Short answer on the colours is 'yes', I find it every bit as good. I know some have commented that the 12-24 doesn't have the same 'typical Pentax colours' as say the 17-70, but I haven't really found this to be the case so far. Take a look at a recent thread I posted: link; I think the colours from the 12-24 on these shots are pretty good.
Regards
David
Short answer on the colours is 'yes', I find it every bit as good. I know some have commented that the 12-24 doesn't have the same 'typical Pentax colours' as say the 17-70, but I haven't really found this to be the case so far. Take a look at a recent thread I posted: link; I think the colours from the 12-24 on these shots are pretty good.
Regards
David
Posted 27/06/2013 - 06:02
Link
Looks very good David
Nice shots too, never been there despite sort of being a "local" lad...
Nice shots too, never been there despite sort of being a "local" lad...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 27/06/2013 - 08:11 - Helpful Comment
Link
Hi Jules,
Lightweight backpacking option is easy, the DA21mm
General purpose...I wouldn't class an UWA lens as this so 8-16/12-24 wouldn't be on my list, I'd be looking at the DA17-70 or perhaps the DA18-135
Sorry to contradict David but I find the DA12-24 a little cooler than the Pentax colours, it's a Tokina lens with a pentax coating..to be honest though it's pretty much spliting hairs as the DA12-24 is a no brainer for me (cost aside), terrific lens
Simon
Lightweight backpacking option is easy, the DA21mm
General purpose...I wouldn't class an UWA lens as this so 8-16/12-24 wouldn't be on my list, I'd be looking at the DA17-70 or perhaps the DA18-135
Sorry to contradict David but I find the DA12-24 a little cooler than the Pentax colours, it's a Tokina lens with a pentax coating..to be honest though it's pretty much spliting hairs as the DA12-24 is a no brainer for me (cost aside), terrific lens
Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Posted 27/06/2013 - 09:02
Link
Cheers Simon, It's exactly the kind of info I'm after, I admire your work! You've just got on with it whereas I've managed a "nervy b" and a million kit changes but the K5 keeps drawing me back, as an aside and I hope you don't mind. I know your looking to "FF" (Hate the term!) but with lenses on the horizon like the new Sigma 18-35 F1.8, I'm no longer seeing the draw, my D600 doesn't do anything for me my K5 couldn't...
D800 may be different still but the grass is rarely greener, and I've tried most of the grass...
D800 may be different still but the grass is rarely greener, and I've tried most of the grass...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 27/06/2013 - 09:58
Link
My lenses range from Sigma 10-20 up to 50-500 and when "out photographing" they go with me and my K5 and nice new K5iiS but this year I bought an 18-250 Pentax to use as a holiday light weight "HAPPY SNAPPER". One lens does all. I used it yesterday at Mallory Park as well as my 50-500 and so far after a quick look at my photos they all seem sharp and more than acceptable. SO for light weight travelling for me it's a no brainer.
CHEERS Vic.
CHEERS Vic.
Born again biker with lots of Pentax bits. Every day I wake up is a good day. I'm so old I don't even buy green bananas.
Posted 27/06/2013 - 10:10
Link
Sue uses the 18-250mm and it's a great lens. If we were buying new now then the 18-270mm is a slight improvement.
Best regards, John
Posted 27/06/2013 - 11:00
Link
simonkit wrote:
Lightweight backpacking option is easy, the DA21mm
That's my view too. And when I look back through the favourite shots I've taken, many of them were with this combo.Lightweight backpacking option is easy, the DA21mm
But then I'm a big fan of the DA Ltds; compact, lightweight, well engineered and a joy to use. I take out the 15-21-40-70 combo and it all fits into a ThinkTank 20 holster. I did acquire a 12-24 for a while. Absolutely great lens, but I could not justify owning it and the 15+21 Ltds... and to my subjective eye the images did not quite have the 'pop' of the Ltds. And as David implies, if you want full coverage (so also need to take out something to cover to standard to short telephoto range) you'll need at least one more lens a fair bit bulkier than the Ltds. But for filter work the 12-24 is much easier.
But Jules, you know all this . After all, I got addicted to the Ltds after seeing posts in 2010 by a certain... Jules
Posted 27/06/2013 - 12:25
Link
jules wrote:
I know your looking to "FF" (Hate the term!) but with lenses on the horizon like the new Sigma 18-35 F1.8, I'm no longer seeing the draw, my D600 doesn't do anything for me my K5 couldn't...
D800 may be different still but the grass is rarely greener, and I've tried most of the grass...
Must admit Jules that if FF wasn't in my mind I certainly wouldn't look elsewhere, I don't think there's much out there by anyone that has the allround abilities of the K5. Just read one of your earlier threads comparing the D800/600 and it's definitely food for thought, I'd certainly miss the build quality & ergonomics of the K5I know your looking to "FF" (Hate the term!) but with lenses on the horizon like the new Sigma 18-35 F1.8, I'm no longer seeing the draw, my D600 doesn't do anything for me my K5 couldn't...
D800 may be different still but the grass is rarely greener, and I've tried most of the grass...
Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Posted 27/06/2013 - 13:00
Link
For a "lightweight" outing I take the DA 15 Ltd, FA 20-35 and DFA 100 WR Macro, and remove the battery grip. It covers most of my 'needs' on a landscape outing, but I can guarantee there will always be something that makes you say "I wish I'd brought my....[insert lens of choice]...."
...oh yeah, and I put it all in a lovely ThinkTank bag
...oh yeah, and I put it all in a lovely ThinkTank bag
LennyBloke
Posted 27/06/2013 - 13:51
Link
If I'm going on a planned landscape trip then the 12-24mm with large format filters and some longer primes would be the choice, plus heavy tripod, etc.
For a lightweight trip or where I am going for another purpose or a mixed purpose then DA15 and K30mm + small format filters would be the choice. However, I am seriously thinking of a Ricoh GR to use instead of the wide prime. No changing lenses and very versatile on a gorillapod.
For a lightweight trip or where I am going for another purpose or a mixed purpose then DA15 and K30mm + small format filters would be the choice. However, I am seriously thinking of a Ricoh GR to use instead of the wide prime. No changing lenses and very versatile on a gorillapod.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2342 posts
16 years
Storbritannia
So what did you go with and why?
Light could well be 21/35/70 Ltd or maybe something totally different?
Favourites for the main set up are the Siggy 8-16/50-500 but I'd need something for the middle of those two but I just don't know what?
Or Pentax 12-24/17-70/50-135/300
Or again something totally different, would love to hear about your choices and rationale...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com