suggestions about lenses


claudio

Link Posted 04/11/2007 - 10:38
Hi all, i need some help regarding lenses to buy. i would like a wide for landscape ( i not sure if the 14mm or the 12-24 ) and a zoom ( 16-45 or the star ) im a notice so any suggestions will be really appreciated.

does anyone knows about availability of star lenses in uk

thanks

claudio

George Lazarette

Link Posted 04/11/2007 - 11:18
claudio wrote:
Hi all, i need some help regarding lenses to buy. i would like a wide for landscape ( i not sure if the 14mm or the 12-24 ) and a zoom ( 16-45 or the star ) im a notice so any suggestions will be really appreciated.

does anyone knows about availability of star lenses in uk

thanks

claudio

To answer this, one really needs to know your budget.

But, for me, I would get the 12-24 rather than the 14. The quality is not greatly different, and the greater speed of the 14 is not important for landscapes, where you will usually want to maximise DOF. Plus, you would have the flexibility of the zoom.

For the 16-45/50 zoom, the choice will depend partly on budget (16-45 is cheaper), partly on size/weight (the 16-45 is smaller and lighter), partly on speed (the 16-50 is faster), and partly on image quality (both are excellent, but the 16-50 is perhaps a little better).

Of course, the 16-50 is weather-sealed (not significant unless you are using it on a weather-sealed body), and it has faster, quieter, SDM focussing.

Only you can decide, but both are excellent lenses. You should not be unhappy with the image quality of the 16-45 (and at the end of the day, image quality is arguably the single most important thing, for most people).

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

claudio

Link Posted 04/11/2007 - 11:47
thanks for your help George, my budget is a 1000 pounds, and i have a K10 with the kit lense and a 50 200.
my only concern about the star one is what i have read on the forum, it seems have some problems, i was infact thinking to buy the 16-45 for that reason, if there is not so much difference between the two. and in case i buy the 12-24 and the 16-45 i will still have some money to use for something else.

am i doing right ?


thanks

claudio

Clarky

Link Posted 04/11/2007 - 11:55
The Sigma 10-20 is also very good as i understand. (i want one )
Camera:|K-7|
Pentax Lenses:|DA12-24/f4 ED AL|DA35Ltd Macro|FA31Ltd|FA77Ltd|FA50/1.4|F70-210|FA20-35 f4/AL|A*200/f4 Macro ED|A50/1.7|A50 Macro f2.8|1.7xAF adapter|
Voigtlander|125/f2.5SL Macro APO Lanthar|
Sigma Lenses:|EX DG 100-300 f4|2X & 1.4X TC|
Flashes:|AF540FGZx2|RingFlash AF160FC|

niblue

Link Posted 04/11/2007 - 12:04
With 1000 pounds to spend on lenses for the K10D I'd buy something like:

Pentax DA 16-45 F4
Sigma 10-20mm F4.5-5.6
Sigma 70-300 APO Macro
Sigma 105mm macro

Totting all them up at warehouseexpress.com came to 1020. That would give you a comprehensive system plus you could sell the 18-55 and 50-200 and spend the proceeds (100-150) on perhaps a tripod and a filter or two.

Kim C

Link Posted 04/11/2007 - 12:13
I would go with the 16-45 at around 229 from SRS with free postage as you are a member. If that didn't go quite wide enough, I would then consider the 12-24 having tried out the 16-45. The 14DA is only 2mm wider than the 16-45 so unless you are desperate for the speed, I wouldn't bother. After that I would see where you interests are before spending the rest of the budget. You may want to go long, macro or prime. You may find that a good flash in more important to you than spending the whole lot on glass.

Kim

George Lazarette

Link Posted 04/11/2007 - 12:52
claudio wrote:
thanks for your help George, my budget is a 1000 pounds, and i have a K10 with the kit lense and a 50 200.
my only concern about the star one is what i have read on the forum, it seems have some problems, i was infact thinking to buy the 16-45 for that reason, if there is not so much difference between the two. and in case i buy the 12-24 and the 16-45 i will still have some money to use for something else.

am i doing right ?


thanks

claudio

Generally, it's people that have problems, not equipment.

In my experience, reported "problems" fall into one of four categories:

1 Uncommon problems magnified by over-repetition. A recent example was that of the leaning viewfinder. Very few people actually have this problem, but they post everywhere about it. Including here, sadly, until JR wisely stopped it. Result: people get the impression that a very rare manufacturing error is commonplace.

2 Non-problems experienced by insecure pixel-peepers who push their equipment beyond its limits and then complain when it finally expires. This is equivalent to driving flat-out in first gear for two hundred miles and then complaining when the engine over-heats. The so-called "vertical banding problem" is a case in point.

3 Know-it-all newbies, who haven't got a clue what they are doing, find that their camera over-exposes/under-exposes, shakes, doesn't focus, you name it. There have been two examples on the forum in the past two days.

4 Real problems. These account for perhaps 1% of all reported problems with (D)SLR cameras (p&s cameras are another matter). I am aware of two real (but very minor) issues affecting the K10D, for instance, but they weren't significant enough to stop me buying a second one. They are: inaccurate metering with old non-A lenses, and a rather ineffectual dust-removal system.

I have the 16-50 lens. It works fine. Maybe one or two people in a thousand have a problem, but if so, the answer is to take it back and ask for another.

Don't let the pixel-peepers and whingers alter your buying choices, and most of all, don't believe a word you read on DPReview (which, incidentally, performs a valuable service by providing a home for these nut-cases).

So to answer your question, don't rule out the 16-50. It is the better lens, but bigger and more expensive. The 16-45 is a very good alternative, and it is nice to have a real choice.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.