Which to keep, what else to buy...

Hi,

After only a few months with my K100d and then my *istDS I have, erm, accrued, the following lenses.

Ok, I got a bit excited on ebay a few times but they are all quite similar and I'd like opinion on which to keep, and what may be best to spend the money on.

I take a lot of 'people photos' not so much portraits but more action..or candid stuff, also air shows, sporting events, and landscapes when I'm in the 'outdoors'...oh, and the squirrels in the back garden....

These were all cheap, a couple were free, but I think selling a few and getting something more suitable for my needs is the way to go.

Here goes..

18-55 kit lens - ok but don't find it spectacular

SMC-M 1:1.7 50mm - came with a camera I bought so is a spare

SMC-A 1:1.7 50mm - love this, my favourite when I have the time to use it

SMC-A 1:2.8 24mm - OK..most expensive lens I've bought, hasn't over impressed me

SMC-M 1:2.8 40mm - this is new to me so will play for a while at least

Sigma mini wide 1:2.8 28mm - again, OK

Miranda 1:2.8 24mm - has a spec of paint[?] inside, does not affect IQ but a minus point if selling...

Petri 1:2 28mm - soft at f2 and not a smooth focus at all

Super Takumar 1:3.5 28mm - I like it, but changing lenses is a hassle...if it goes on it has to stay on all day.

Beck 1:2.8 135mm - was cheap and I like it, focal length, IQ and price!

Sigma UC 1:4-5.6 28-105mm - my standard lens, not too good at far end of zoom

Sigma zoom 1:4.5-6.7 100-300 - has done ok but never sharp..could just be me!

and, another new one...

SMC-FA 1:4 28-70 - doing ok so far, but only had it a few days so not really got an opinion.

I probably could have spent all that money on one good lens, but I didn't know what to get, and I'm sure these all have a resale value close to what I paid anyway.

Any opinions welcome!

Thanks

Andy

I can't comment on the others, but I would say to keep the Pentax ones. If you're keen to shed one then sell the M 50mm f1.7, although, that said, I have two of these and an A series version. The M series is much nicer to use on film bodies as it has a metal aperture ring, while the plastic one on the A series can be a bit rough.

If it came with a body then it was probably the original kit lens - I always feel it a shame to split these things up after so many years.

Which version is the 18-55mm? The DA L/WR/MK2 version has much better reviews than the MK1, I was quite happy with mine for some time and still use it if I need an ultra wide angle lens.

I would say to look for a Pentax-F 35-70mm if you can find one for sane money, they're great performers and make an excellent walkabout lens due to weighing next to nothing and being fairly compact.

OK - here's what I'd do but others may disagree strongly!

If you're OK about manual focus I'd replace the 28-105 and 28-70 with Pentax 35-105 SMC-A which is like having a pile of primes all wrapped up into one lens (but it is quite heavy). Nice constant aperture of f3.5 too, and you should be able to pick a decent one up for around the £100 mark.

As for the others:

Keep the kit lens as you're otherwise stuffed if you want wide angle.

If the Miranda 24mm lens does the job for you, why not sell the Pentax because Pentax 24mm lenses go for serious money, especially fast ones?

Given you don't appear to love any of them, get rid of all of your 28mm lenses and try and find a Pentax 28mm f3.5. SMCK is the best, but SMCM is still very good. The 28/2.8 SMCA is also a pretty decent lens and readily available.

Play with the 40mm lens and decide based on your experience. The focal length is not one that I tend to use terribly much so this one would be pretty optional for me.

Sell one of your 50s. I'd keep the SMCM as I prefer the build quality, but if you like the SMCA then that's probably the one to keep.

Keep your 135 because it's fast and you like it.

Buy a 200mm prime - either the f4 SMCM or possibly Tamron Adaptall f3.5. I picked up the latter last week, complete with PKM adapter, from local camera shop. It's pretty much mint condition and cost £35 including the adapter. It's surprisingly sharp even at f3.5: much better than I expected it was going to be, and I suspect much better than your Sigma telezoom.

Best bang for buck longer zoom is the Tamron 70-300. Better if you can afford it is the Pentax 55-300, but not that much better.

Does this help?

Jon

With you on the 28mm f3.5 - why on earth did Pentax turn the f2.8 version into an A series rather than the f3.5? The slower lens is much better!

If I ever see the K series for sane money I'll probably snap it up, I have the M series but can always find space for more K series primes.

Looking at that list of lenses I have rarely seen such a strange selection, probably not the best way to start off in digital SLR photography.

I'd have an interesting time selling most of them on eBay, after which you will get better photographic resulots by looking at some basic Pentax digital lenses.

For low cost, 18-55mm WR and 50-200mm WR lenses, plus keep a fast manual focus 50mm.

For wider versatility, 55-300mm instead of the 50-200mm.

For added wide angle capability add 12-24mm.

For added close up capability add 100mm f2.8 Macro, WR version if you can afford the extra.

If you just enjoy lenses and want to play with them and experiment a lot, then keep on buying like you have done and see what you can find and what it's like.

It's meant to be fun, so go for it!

I'd stick to primes that correspond to the classic focal lengths on film slrs. This might mean a 24, a 35 and a 50 to provide the equivalent of 35/50/80. But only one of each lens would be plenty! Check out the lens database on the 'other forum' for a run down of the best ones to get. There isn't any reasonably priced prime to give you the equivalent of 28mm unfortunately! Zooms, i'd go for a Pentax F 70-210 or DA50-200 and either the Pentax DA 16-45 or 17-70.

Thanks for all the feedback!


Next question...a DA 50-200 has come up on the forum for £70 and I can get a DAL 55-300 for £125 from LCE or £279 from SRS.

I do want to use all the zoom including the longer end of the zoom, and from the reviews I have read, quality can fall off towards the long end, so is the 55-300 the better option...reviews say it is, but you guys actually use the kit day to day so I value your opinions more.

Secondly, i realise the £125 lens has a plastic mount and no hood, but is it really the same lens?

http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/SHdetails.asp?Item=21488

http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/109/Pentax-smc-DA-55-300mm-f4-0-5-8-ED-Lens-.ht...

Thanks

Andy

I understand it's the same optically but has a simplified construction. Plastic mount, no hood and no Quick Shift feature all help to reduce the cost.

i have the 55-300 dal with plastic mount no quick shift and no hood i managed to find a hood of e/bay tamron ones fit a very good and sharp lens £125 is a very good price

The 55-300 does seem to reduce slightly in quality from about 200mm on, but reportedly less so than the alternatives from Tamron and especially Sigma. Like most long consumer zooms it focuses maddeningly slowly and noisily.

I don't think the 50-200mm reduces in quality toward the long end in the same way (but of course it doesn't even cover the long end of the 55-300mm's range so not a fair comparison). It's a MUCH more compact lens too.