new lens on budget

Hi, just bought the k100d super off of neil (photographtheworld) got the 18-55mm with it but really need more zoom because I mainly photograph birds/wildlife etc. Trouble is funds are really limited, I can get a used 50-200mm for £70 off of my local camera shop tomorrow, do you think this is probably my best choice for now. Can't really afford to go too much more than this. How is this lens? Any thoughts? thanks.

I would try and stretch to a 300mm, the sigma 70-300mm lens is very good, also the same from Tamron. I have had the Tamron lens and it also has a good macro ability. Keep an eye on ebay, there is usually a Tamron 70-300 going cheap on there.

Here you go, Tamron 70-300mm

When I bought my K-M I already had a manual focus Pentax 75-150, but needed more reach on a budget - ended up with a used 80-320mm from SRS with a small waranty - it cost £120 & is still working ok after a year & half ownership. Results are surprisingly good (& it works on my 35mm film Pentax), from 80 to 200mm its quite sharp & contrasty - though I understand the 55-300 digital is better overall but for a lot more cash at the time (55-300's can be bought unboxed now).
Some 80-320's can have problems with their aperture rings plus beware of fungus.

Some of my 80-320 samples: (I am a DSLR learner too so no expert)!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28204187@N08/sets/72157622639681232/

The old Pentax-F 100-300mm isn't a bad lens either, there's also an FA version with Power Zoom although I'm not sure whether the K100D supports this. Again, the new 55-300mm is probably better but for £60 a year or so ago I'm happy with it, shows no signs of trouble and will work on all my K mount bodies.

I would go for the Tamron as well, the 50-200mm is a pretty good lens but not really long enough for birds/wildlife.

Gareth had one HERE .. send him a PM and make an offer if he still has it.

Hello Jacqui

In terms of budget and if you don't mind mf lenses why not try to pick one from the wealth of stuff avialable.

I have a Tokina 300mm m42 lens and an NPS 400mm m42 lens - the Tokina cost £16.02 + postage and the NPS £29.99 plus postage both from ebay - neither is for sale - the M42 adapter cost me around £30 from Clarky (a bargain I may add).

If you check out my flickr page it will give you an idea of what you could expect when these lenses are coupled to a K10D with an idiot pressing the shutter button

I won't pretend that mf lenses are perfect but I love them - I also have a Vivitar 28mm (cost around £18 I may have remebered this incorrectly)

Bwlchmawr uses an mf zoom lens that cost him less than £5.00 - just check put his excellent photo's if there is any doubt (although rust is more his thing than birds - it would seem)

I have the Sigma 70-300mm apo dg macro (yes it's af) - a cracking lens up to 200mm at f11 but my copy is poor at 300mm regardless of the apeture - the Tokina batters it at 300mm without any doubt.

My 400mm lens needs a little help by sliding the black slider to the right in adobe camera raw if the shots are in low light but other than that it's a nice lens

Hope this helps


Cheers



Stu

Thanks everyone, I will have good think. The only thing I was thinking about the 50-200m is that I am likely to be able to leave it on the camera a bit more because although it's not exactly wide, it's a bit wider than the 70-300mm and because I don't use wide very often I thought I may just get away with this being on most of the time. would get the 55-300m if funds allowed, but that would have to wait a while. just want something for now. Anyway I will have a think on what you have all said.

I notice nobody is mentioning any of the 28-300mm lenses. I've seen a few on eBay recently, but won't be purchasing any new lenses 'til my hobby-account gets a bit of replenishing.

But my regular browsing of what's out there doesn't seem to be stoppable.

I've looked at the FA 28-200mm and if I see a good one for sensible money I may well buy it. I realise the quality isn't wonderful but it'd be handy to have one fairly light and compact lens covering those lengths. The last one I saw had marks on the front element, I suspect these megazooms are pushing the technology so far that any imperfections will cause major problems so passed on that one.

Hi Jacqui

I love my Tamron 70-300mm. Great reach and good enough for me. But since acquiring the 50-200mm WR I have hardly taken it out.

Why?

Just because of the size -

The DA50-200 is not much larger than the DA18-55 and together they make a great compact kit and if I can't get the Chance Shot with 18-200mm covered when out and about for the day, then there's something wrong with me!!

As a dedicated bird or wildlife lens it's not the best but it is compact.

But I think I'd tolerate the extra size and go for 300mm (at the long end) if I had to choose.

Cheers

MZ

I like the 50-200 for the reasons MZ stated above, but to be honest if the lens is for birds and wildlife, 200mm is simply not going to be long enough (esp as you'll need to stop the lens down a lot to get the most out of it at that length).

I think you'd be much better going for a 70-300 - and for sharpness at longer lengths, I'd choose the Tamron over the Sigma.

If you find the Tamron for around the kind of money you want to spend, you shouldn't find it too hard to sell later on if you decide to trade up for the 55-300 Pentax lens (which is a great buy).

Well I got the 50-200mm for £70, actually I am really pleased with it and it will do me for now until I can afford 55-300mm. Thanks for all your advice.