Various Lenses & Their Uses.

Would it be possbile for an experienced member to possibley list a selection of different lenses and their best uses for different types of photography (sports,landscape,studio etc) , condition (light,location ,indoors & outdoors) , positives/negatives etc Please?

I have a kit 18/55 & tamron 70/300mm with a k10 & grip.

In the near future i will be doing portraits, martial arts indoors & fairly close to the subjects, more creative/natural wood flooring pics,
general studio work and some night photography thown in for good measure.

I understand that the quality of glass and correct lens has a big impact on your results so would like to upgrade but dont want to waste money.

Many Thanks.

Well, I don't consider myself experienced, but I think your question is a bit hard to answer. I'll guess you can use almost every lens for every purpose.
The best way to answer this question for yourself is finding out if your existing set is capable for the job at hand. Faster variations of zoom lenses or prime (fast) lenses can make your job easier, but they are no must. And with the tools you have right now, the most logical investment ( and maybe cheapest) could be an external flash gun.(if you don't own one already)
And if you want a quality upgrade in optics, covering the same FOV as you have now,
You could consider the DA 16-45 and DA 55-300. Than.....you would probably still keep some money in the bank.As an extra for portraits, or available light photography you could add the FA 1.4/50mm prime to your set.

Martin.

Pretty open ended question that could fill several books, and probably has.
Deciding on which The lens you want to use really requires you know what you want to achieve.
Obviously for portrait work, if your going to be very close, a 16 mm lens is right out due to distortion. But if you're doing full length in limited space, the lens may be perfectly acceptable.
The same lens may give you a lot of background, or if not desired, use a longer focal length, and back off away from the subject. You get a similar image of the subject but a lot less clutter in the background.

Generally 50mm is thought of as a "normal" lens giving you a similar view as what the human eye creates. On a DSLR the angle of view is that of 75mm but DOF and distortion is still pretty much that of a 50mm lens.
Some prefer 100mm if they can get far enough away from the subject because of the effect it has on the subject.

I have used my 16-50mm most for martial arts competition photos since I am within 6-15 feet of the subject at most times. I've switched to the longer lenses, obviously, when on a stage that is further away.

I have been quite happy with the 16-50 for static portraits where I can get in close or back off for full length. You may want to go as far as 70-100 if you have the space.


For indoor shots, you may want something ultra wide like a 10mmm if you don't mind the fish eye look. otherwise plan on stitching photos to get more than a small corner of the room. I find 16mm good, but still limits me to a small area of a room.

edit: he, he, took to long to type. Looks like Malo1961 beat me to it...

Hi guys yes it is a little open ended im showing my amateur tendencies!

Good Advice given though, im liking the suggestion of perhaps going for a external flash ive seen the 540 for £249.99 delivered so that might be my first port of call - i understand why i think! more light gives you better flexibility on shutter and aperture settings, so for fast shooting ie sports this would help a great deal -right?

If i then decided i still wanted better quality by going for the DA 16-45 and DA 55-300 would i see a HUGE difference in quality compared to what i have now? if i do then it could be worth it.

The pictures below were taken the other night with the stock 18-55mm lens im happy with the outcome but with a different type of lens (not fish eye) would i see an improved quality and aspect in my shot so id feel it had been worth the extra few hundred quid?

Cheers.

I atually don't think it is possible to answer your many questions.
General questions find general answers, and you are really not looking for much detail in what you are asking.

Yet, I am happy to give you my opinions on some of the issues you've raised.

Flash:
You don't need the expensive af540 if you are only starting - you can do very well and take a good 2/3 months of extensive use to master the smaller af360 - which gives you about the same specs at about half the cost.

Lenses:
Generally speaking a more expensive lens is better than a less expensive lens. If this sounds generalised, and 'stupid' its because it answers your questions!
You will find better quality in more expensive zooms. The 16-45 is an improvement on the kit lens, and the 16-50 is a great improvement on the kit lens. Probably (even if I haven't tried them) Tamron and Sigma fixed aperture lenses are also better quality.

Tele:
The 70-300 is quite a good lens, actually. The Tamron you have is very very respectable, so I would think that you could be happy with it for a long time.

On the other hand you can experience great satisfaction by buying a Prime lens, say the FA 50mm f1.4, or one of the ltd's, or a 35mm. With these lenses you will experience a completely different type of image, from what you can achieve with the kit lens.

In conclusion;
To get a good idea of what real good IQ is, probably get a small prime lens, possibly the 50 or 35. Flash wise I think you could get a af 360 and enjoy the immense range of settings and learn a whole lot with time.

Hope this helps,

Nathan

Thankyou Nathan for the time spent compiling your post

I think these are amazing. Did you have the camera on a bracket?
Honestly, without seeing the full sized images, it would be difficult to tell if you might get better results with another lens. The images look quite acceptably sharp (other than the hand scribbling at the top of the first one). Either way, with long exposure in the dark, noise is going to kick in. If you an shorten your exposure with a faster lens, then less noise. If you're intent is to make long streaks of light, then you need the same number of seconds anyway and the lower f/stop of a faster lens will not likely come into play.
A higher quality lens would probably have limited effect on resolving past the noise.

I have used the 18-55 for a while before getting the DA* 16-50. Honestly, the only time I see that the DA* is better is when I take two identical images and put them side by side. (may just be my lack of ability to see the difference... I used to like the quality of my tamron 28-300... now it is clear that it is quite a crappy lens :blush
Anyway, I got the 18-55 for $10 more when I bought my K10D body. For the $989 difference against the DA* 16-50, I would have stayed with the 18-55 or perhaps upgraded to the 16-45.
But -- I REALLY REALLY REALLY appreciate the water seals and slightly lower light capability that the DA* gives me.

For long exposures, the extra f/stop may or may not be desired. You may be shifting down the aperture anyway to get better DOF so why pay for f2.8 when you'll probably use f/11 or higher.

Dunno if that helps or not, but gives one more opinion to wade through.

I think I'd have to agree with the 360 flash over the 540 if mere power is concerned. But if you're doing indoor portraits, the swivel head on the 540 is quite useful. Worth the extra couple hundred bucks?? Maybe not. Another one that really depends on what you feel is important or required for the result you want to achieve.

Right. But consider the fact that a lot of indoor activities are not to happy with those big flash guns going of. So check first, to keep the competitors happy

No guarantee here. You should expect(taking into account the price difference) that there is a huge difference in IQ. But that doesn't guarantee immediate payoff in your results. It needs practice, to get the most out of your equipment, I'll guess. A kit lens in the hands of a skilled Pro.......vs a Super duper DA* 16-50 in the hands of a beginner....You know what I mean
So no definitive answers, I'm afraid. Just some more questions.

Martin.

Good point. Most competitions I've been in or photographed allowed flash, but there are cases like sparring or some of the acrobatics where I just wont use flash out of concern for the participant's safety. (or at least I'll try to be in a position where the flash won't momentarily blind someone.)

Being in the ring, I've never noticed cameras or flash, but I'm still hesitant to subject others to flash and potentially cause a problem.

Amazing! wow thankyou, i might be inexperienced at this but im using this forum, magazines and the web to gain knowledge and put into practice with a little trial and error.
Lol no bracket amoringello! i took my boot shelf out stood the tripd in the boot and wedged in place with rucksacks, cardboard tubes and whatever else was close to hand! but i have my eye on a proper suction camera mount.As for the hand scribbling i obviously hadnt match my brush colour correctly (something learnt there).

Reading other posts and sections about the 16-45mm it appears there is a mixed response to it in terms of seeing actual quality differences so i might just stick with the kit for now.

My reason for using the 540 would be power and range so i can keep my frame rate up when shooting indoor martial arts and contact sports possibly with both my kit and tamron 70-300mm lens or am i still better sticking with the 360.I have recently bought a studio light kit for portrait stuff.

As for the zoom , it seems to be light hungry - in continous hand held shots exposure can be quite poor - i cant expect to much for £99 i guess. So im putting myself in the firing line again for asking a vague question but for the purposes of taking say indoor fast martial arts and general outdoor shots what would suit me best out the following and give me an improvent over the tamron 70-300mm?

1.Pentax smc-DA 18 – 250mm or Tamron version
2.Pentax smc DA 55-300mm or Tamron Version.

Cheers Again.

Buy different lenses for each activity. Wide-range zooms are slow and heavy and full of compromises.

TINSSTAAFL.

G

Point taken i had this is mind as well but im fortunate to know several acomplished Mixed martial artists and they are happy to compete against one another in general practice so i can get some cracking shots with flash.

For whatever lighting is in your environment, you'll probably want your shutter speed to be about 1/250 or faster. For long zoom lenses, you will want even faster shutter speeds since the subject will move through the field of view so much quicker.

That is assuming you want to freeze the action of course.
Blurred action is often acceptable and even important in order to show the speed of the movements, but you usually need/want to obtain some portion of the image to be as sharp as possible.

That is likely going to be out of range for most zoom lenses in a room with standard florescent tubes for lighting if your f/stop of 6.3 or greater.
I would suggest going to the arena or similarly lighted location and see what your current lenses can do. Shut them down to f6.3 or f8 and see what sort of shutter speed you'll need.

If the zoom you're interested will function in that range of lighting, go for it.

How far away from the subjects do you plan on being?
Personally, I think 55mm might limit your use unless you have two cameras or have the freedom to change lenses. But that does depend on your position from the subject.
Out of the two suggested I'd go with the 18-250 for ease of use.
Of course, if you're going to do this professionally I'd suggest two cameras, each with a shorter and longer range lens, so you don't have to sacrifice quality for ease of use.

I used to take my 18-200 to matches but eventually settled on my 16-50 just for quality and constant f2.8. When it went from rignside seats (2 feet from the matt edge) to further back in the crowd or when the subjects went on stage and seats were further from ringside I'd switch over to the longer range lens like the 50-135. A longer lens would have been nice but I got away with that for most shots.
And for the twist...
If your'e looking mainly for closeups rather than full body shots, then the 50-300, definitely, regardless!

IMO?? The DA 55-300. And as a cheap alternative if you don't mind manual focusing
the very much praised SMC A 4.0/70-210 mm. Constant aperture all the way, tack sharp, a bokeh to die for and a full stop faster as the DA 55-300 at the long end.
The 18-250 has F6.3, I believe

Martin.

Ok cheers guys ,well i think the next step is to go down to my friends dojo's with my kit and 70-300mm lens fire some shots off and see what i get , from there i will have a better idea on light, distance , f and shutter settings.Itll be a few weeks yet but ill post the test shots when i have them.

Out of interest my reason for choosing the 540 over the 360 was primarily so i had more light ,better shutter speeds and apertures for martial arts photography - is this the case or am i still better going for the 360 i dont want to buy one flash then have to sell it on to upgrade to the 540.

By the way anyone that saw my wood flooring shoot pics the company are really chuffed with them and want me to do more and pay me this time!!!
I still dont know what to charge them?