All Forum Comments
Be even better if you could get £25.00 cash back!
Comment by Rees posted on Possible misprice Jessops Pentax 50-200mm f/4-5.6 DA ED Lens at 15/12/2008 - 11:49
cabstar wrote:
Just looking on Jessops website & saw the Pentax 50-200mm f/4-5.6 DA ED Lens is just £49.99 bargain for someone
link
Just looking on Jessops website & saw the Pentax 50-200mm f/4-5.6 DA ED Lens is just £49.99 bargain for someone
link
Comment by Rees posted on Possible misprice Jessops Pentax 50-200mm f/4-5.6 DA ED Lens at 15/12/2008 - 11:47
Without wishing to tell everyone how to suck eggs, the "Glass" as you refer to it, is the most important part of your photography. It places your image onto the film/sensor and the optics need to be the best you can afford. In your options you have made some excellent choices, do not spoil the optics. I agree with John Riley, I have always saved and purchased Pentax optics, only once, a brain lapse, did I buy a Sigma wide angle and regretted it ever since, no comparison to the Pentax. Purchase your selection, but save for the better optics.
Comment by Rees posted on Which lenses for new K20d owner. at 15/12/2008 - 11:34
RR wrote:
I bet you're all thinking "not another which lens thread" but please bear with me.
I'll be looking to get some better glass to go with my newly acquired K20d. I'm basically looking at covering super-wide to mid-tele with a couple of zoom lenses. I want to get a good quality kit to cover most situations to start with. I can then later save to add some ltd primes / macro / fisheye etc. as & when I feel the need. My initial budget is around £1500 (some flexibility in this) value for money is important, eg: if lense 1 is 98% as good as lens 2 but is 75% of the price then lens 1 gets my vote:
The options I was thinking of are:
Wide:
Pentax 12-24, Sigma 10-20 or maybe new Tamron 10-24 (dependent on reviews/results)
Standard:
Pentax 16-50 f2.8, Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (new HSM)
Tele:
Pentax 50-135 f2.8, Tamron 70-200 f2.8 or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM
I'm currently thinking,
Pentax 12-24
Sigma 24-70
Tamron 70-200
The Pentax lenses look better built but with the 50mm start/end I'm worried I'd be chopping and changing too much, plus I'd like a little more at the long end.
The Tamron 70-200 looks sharper than the Sigma equivalent but I'd like to try both on the same day to see the difference the HSM makes to focus speed & accuracy.
Any advice on my dilemma ? Any experiences you'd like to pass on to me or am I gonna learn the hard way as usual ??
I bet you're all thinking "not another which lens thread" but please bear with me.
I'll be looking to get some better glass to go with my newly acquired K20d. I'm basically looking at covering super-wide to mid-tele with a couple of zoom lenses. I want to get a good quality kit to cover most situations to start with. I can then later save to add some ltd primes / macro / fisheye etc. as & when I feel the need. My initial budget is around £1500 (some flexibility in this) value for money is important, eg: if lense 1 is 98% as good as lens 2 but is 75% of the price then lens 1 gets my vote:
The options I was thinking of are:
Wide:
Pentax 12-24, Sigma 10-20 or maybe new Tamron 10-24 (dependent on reviews/results)
Standard:
Pentax 16-50 f2.8, Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (new HSM)
Tele:
Pentax 50-135 f2.8, Tamron 70-200 f2.8 or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM
I'm currently thinking,
Pentax 12-24
Sigma 24-70
Tamron 70-200
The Pentax lenses look better built but with the 50mm start/end I'm worried I'd be chopping and changing too much, plus I'd like a little more at the long end.
The Tamron 70-200 looks sharper than the Sigma equivalent but I'd like to try both on the same day to see the difference the HSM makes to focus speed & accuracy.
Any advice on my dilemma ? Any experiences you'd like to pass on to me or am I gonna learn the hard way as usual ??
Comment by Rees posted on Which lenses for new K20d owner. at 15/12/2008 - 11:26
The price of £130 for the lens, if in good condition is a steal, buy it, you will not be disappointed, I have one, there is no comparison between the two lenses.
Comment by Rees posted on 18-55 II or 16-45? at 15/12/2008 - 11:08
madactuary wrote:
Hello all,
I am a K100D Super owner, which is my first SLR of any kind. The deal SRS was offering meant it was cheaper than most decent compact cameras so I took the plunge.
I have been using the 18-55 mk I kit lens, mainly taking landscapes and general pics on walkabout at the weekends (still mainly on auto but I am starting to figure out what the rest does). I have to admit it has been great fun and the pictures are better than anything I have ever taken before.
I have been offered the mk II kit lens for about 15 quid or the 16-45 for about 130 Quid and I was wondering if either would be a real upgrade on my current kit lens? Is there somewhere I can see a comparison of IQ between the two?
Given the price difference I am tempted to go with the mk II 18-55 and keep some money away for a prime lens (or a K20D) in the near future, assuming I get more serious about photography, but I am not sure the mk II will give me a significant improvement on my current lens.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Hello all,
I am a K100D Super owner, which is my first SLR of any kind. The deal SRS was offering meant it was cheaper than most decent compact cameras so I took the plunge.
I have been using the 18-55 mk I kit lens, mainly taking landscapes and general pics on walkabout at the weekends (still mainly on auto but I am starting to figure out what the rest does). I have to admit it has been great fun and the pictures are better than anything I have ever taken before.
I have been offered the mk II kit lens for about 15 quid or the 16-45 for about 130 Quid and I was wondering if either would be a real upgrade on my current kit lens? Is there somewhere I can see a comparison of IQ between the two?
Given the price difference I am tempted to go with the mk II 18-55 and keep some money away for a prime lens (or a K20D) in the near future, assuming I get more serious about photography, but I am not sure the mk II will give me a significant improvement on my current lens.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Comment by Rees posted on 18-55 II or 16-45? at 15/12/2008 - 11:06
If you do decide to purchase the 35mm Macro, all I can say Ben 76, you will definitely NOT be disappointed. I have one, and for macro work it is excellent and excels with its high definition.
Comment by Rees posted on smc DA 35mm f/2,8 Macro Limited? at 15/12/2008 - 10:55
