I'd agree with the previous comments regarding ball heads, slacken it off to tweak it in one plane and you will lose the bit you just got right in another plane. I'd suggest for your kind of usage a 3-way pan-tilt head such as the Manfrotto MN804RC2 or the MN460MG (very compact for packing and no levers sticking out to get caught/bent in transport).

When you said "pan&tilt" I immediately thought you were considering a two-way pan/tilt head such as those used for video work, I wouldn't consider these to be suitable for your kind of usage.

Duncan

I tried the K10D + 50-200 in the TLZ mini bag when I got home last night, it fits neatly and snug, but not a problem, There'll be a bit more room if you're using the 18-55 kit lens on it.

I used a TLZ Mini with my *istDS, I passed both camera and bag to my wife when I bought a K10D. I have borrowed the bag now and again to use with my K10D when I've needed it. With the 16-45 lens on the K10D, it's a very tight squeeze, but it does go.

My wife uses the TLZ mini bag regularly with the *istDS and her favourite lens the 50-200, it fits with PLENTY of room. Whilst I've not tried the K10D with the 50-200 in the TLZ Mini bag, I wouldn't envisage any problems with this combo. It'll be snug, but not uncomfortably so.

Hope this helps.

Duncan

Very happy with the 10-20. Some samples

I have both these lenses, though the kit lens is rarely used these days. From my own experience, there is no hard and fast answer to your question. Overall, I'd say the Tamron is slightly sharper and more contrasty than the kit, but not massively, and it is very much depended on the exact circumstances in which you are shooting.

If you are comparing the kit lens at 55mm with the Tamron at 135, then the kit is probably sharper, but factors such as whether you are using a tripod, mirror lock-up, etc. and which aperture you are using will make much more difference than the lens IMHO. It's easier to hand hold and get a sharp shot at 55mm than it is to do the same at 135mm. Used in the middle of their zoom ranges and well stopped down, the Tamron wins, but we're not talking night and day here and good technique will make more difference than which lens you have on.

The Tamron is (for me) a good all-purpose lens. If I am limiting myself to only one lens to carry around, then as often as not it is this one. But, it all depends on what sort of things you take pictures of. I use both the 24-135 and the 16-45 (which I bought to use instead of the 18-55) for different situations, the sharpness/contrast factor of any lens is of far less concern to me than having a useful focal length fitted. Better to get out there taking pictures rather than worrying about small differences in lens performance.

If you have the kit lens and are thinking of getting the 24-135 then I'd say keep the kit lens (you won't get a huge amount of cash for it if you sold it) and use each lens to suit the subject.

Regards,

Duncan

I used to think the Velbon PH-157Q head was good, until I used a Manfrotto. To be fair, it's an ok head for lenses of less than 100mm, as long as you're not using it for macro. I have the Sherpa 600, which gets used primarily as a lighting stand these days. The Velbon Sherpa range is good entry level stuff, and a whole lot better than not having a tripod at all. The legs are good value for money, but the head really could be better.

Duncan

Take the filter off, it may well be the root cause of your problems, it certainly can't be helping. I used to use a UV filter for years on film cameras, as soom as I stopped using them, my shots got a lot sharper.

I've never used an 18-55MkII, but I know my 16-45 is a great bit of kit.

Mike,

As others have said, it all depends on your personal opinion. What is right for one person may well be wrong for someone else. It's up to you to experiment. Though you may want someone to give you a specific set of image parameters that you can go away with happy in the knowledge that these were the "best" settings, if there was only one correct set of parameters that were "right" then the manufacturer would apply those settings fixed in the design and not make them adjustable.

As others have said, shooting in raw mode is a good start. By doing this, you can install the Pentax Photo Laboratory software that came bundled with your camera and then see the effect of the different settings to be applied.

Try this:
Take a single image with your camera and then open it up using the Pentax Photo Lab (PPL) software. In PPL, select "Custom Processing" mode from the drop down buttons or by typing Alt + C. From the toolbar select "View" and, as a minimum, ensure that the boxes for
Preview
White balance
Tone
Other Settings
have been ticked.

In Custom Processing mode, you can vary a whole range of parameters as though you'd changed those settings on the camera before you took the picture. By changing these settings in PPL, processing the output, and looking at the difference it makes to the result on a single image, you will be able to decide which settings work best for you. What's more, if you keep the camera set to raw mode, you'll be able to retrospectively apply different settings later if your tastes change or a specific scene suits something different.

Once you've got the hang of doing this in PPL you can move on to a more advance raw processing package if you like, but PPL will get you going for starters.

Hope this helps.

Duncan

I'd say the mixed reviews are entirely accurate. Used in the middle of the zoom range, well stopped down on the aperture, it is good. BUT, and this is a big but, wide open it's 'pants', especially so at full zoom. Also, don't even think about using this lens with a t/con.

If you live somewhere where the sun shines brightly, and you really only need 300mm most of the time, then go ahead and buy one, you'll be pleased. If you live in gloomy Northern Europe, and want to take pictures of small birds in winter, then forget it, you'll be disappointed. I'd imagine the user reviews are very mixed because of these differing scenarios.

Be aware that this lens has been, or is about to be, discontinued, you may struggle to find one, especially in Pentax fit, before very long.

If I did enough photography to warrant long lens use all the time, I'd buy something better. The cost of a high quality long lens is high, and I really can't justify spending the £££ for the amount of use it gets. If you want to use a long lens a lot, I recomment you skip the 135-400 and buy something better. For now and again use in bright conditions, it's fine.

Duncan

I have one of these and use it for airshows. If it's bright conditions and you can stop it down to f/8 or smaller, then it is a fine lens - especially for the money. If you're using it in less than ideal conditions and have to use it wide open, then at either extremity of the zoom it shows it's budget roots. Wide open on anything over 300mm it's pretty dire. Give it plenty of light and shoot between f/8 and f/16 I have no major issues though it still gives its best if you knock it back a touch from 400mm. I don't know if this link will work, if not, I'll upload an example later when I'm at home.

Duncan