Maybe a silly question..........

Please bear with me - as you will see from join date and no of posts, I am "new"(ish) to DSLR photgraphy, and to here and Talk Photography - two excellent forums - even though "the other lot" are fixated with Canon and Nikons.......

Seems to be hundreds of comments around good quality lenses, and my K-m came with stock twin lens kit - 18-55 and 50-200, and have since bought a Sigma 70-300 for that bit more reach (though its disappointing at full length)

Anyhow, what is the different in quality to say the standard 50-200 Kit lens and something with similar range but a lot more expensive "glassware" -

does anyone on here have both lenses and can take a pic with each of them so can see the difference?

I am sure there is loads, and in the golfing world am sure its the difference between a donnay and a callaway, but to a newbie, I cannot appreciate the difference.

Ta.


Lynton

Hi Lynton I can't understand why you sigma 70-300mm would be disappointing at the 300 end.When i owned one i had some excellent quality images at the 300macro end.

Advancements over cheaper kit lenses would be speed i.e f2.8 as opposed to f4' less chromatic aberrations' better quality glass and materials.That said it doesn't mean you can't get some awesome images from cheap or less expensive lenses.

Back to the sigma it's quite hard to hold steady when fully zoomed and requires a bit of light down the barrell.So do percivere

only my opinion

A better quality lens should give you improvement in colour, contrast and sharpness, it should also show less distortion and be less prone to flare, and if you go well over the top with price it should be a hell of a lot faster.
After saying all that Pentax kit lenses can be very good for the money and produce outstanding results, I think my £150 Pentax 80-320 produces nicer pics than my £700+ Sigma 50-500.

Well I dont own a sigma but from what I understand my tamron 70-300 is a siilar lens.
If that is the case I have to agree with Martin, They are extremely sensitive when on max mag, I found I have to use a tripod and a remote or else the image becomes blured. Upto sort of 150mmish not to bad hand held.
Hope thats some sort of help to you, Oh also if you dont have one I got my remote from ebay.
£3 unofficial universal remote works fine

As has been said before, don't discount the kit lens. They seem to vary a bit in quality and I have been lucky in having a good one. My photo in the "Inconvenient Truth" competition was taken with the kit lens, for example.

Pentax 50-200mm: link

Much more expensive Sigma 70-200mm f2.8: link

My opinion is the difference in image quality is hardly like day and night. While the dearer f2.8 lens will let you shoot in lower light, action etc, the Pentax is far more portable and a good bet for general shooting.

To be honest, I would have gone for EITHER a 50-200 or a 70-300mm zoom, not both, but that's me, ever frugal!

cheers pentaxophile - great site, and useful for what I was asking about.......

In time either the 50-200 or the 70-300 will go........ wanted something longer than the 200, and at £70 s/h bought the Sigma.