annoying begginer questions...Pentax Camera

[CharacterFan]

Thanks to my local Wolf Camera's closing. I was able to finally get a Digital SLR about a year before I thought I would.

I got a Pentax K100D Super and a Pentax DA 18-55mm F3.5-5/6 AL lens

A couple of days later I went to a different Wolf to get filters and got a Sigma 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 mini zoom macro lens for a great price.

What other lenses should I consider and put on my list. Also, is there anything else I should get for my camera for the parks. I've got a couple of months before my next trip, and I'm hoping to get some great pictures of fireworks, rides, and all that good stuff. So I can start posting on this board more.

Thanks.

 

[ukcatfan]

The best bang for the buck is the 50mm f/1.4 in my opinion (~$175). I love that lens! Another good companion to your kit lens is the DA 50-200mm (~$200). Those three are my main setup. If you have the money left in your budget, the 10-17mm fisheye is a fun lens for about $400. FWIW, I suggest only using the Sigma for actual macro shots b/c the 18-55mm is going to be a better normal zoom you you. Starting at 28mm is not very wide.

 

[MICKEY88]

Ok I'm going to confuse the issue with an opposing opinion..LOL

unless you are shooting a lot of landscapes or architectural stuff, 28 should be wide enough, for a walk around lens..

in the days before zoom lenses, 50mm was the standard lens that came with all 35 mm cameras,
with the crop factor, {which I'm not 100% sure on , since I found conflicting info, it's either 1.5 or 1.6} it yields the same field of view as either a 42 or 44 mm lens on a 35mm camera or full frame sensor dslr, and it gives you more zoom,

 

[WVDisGeek]

Welcome to the Pentax family! I second ukcatfan's comment on the 50mm f/1.4. I just got mine last week and I am loving this lens. I can't wait to get it to Disney in December to try some low light ride shots. I am leaving for the beach in a couple of weeks and plan to try some low light work at the beach.

Another lens that I use a lot is my 18-250 zoom. It is a pretty good walking around lens and gives you a lot of range. It's only downside is it is not good in really low light. I have some older glass at 2.8 for those situations. (and the new 1.4!)

That is one of the nice things about the Pentax mount is you can find some older lenses (if you don't mind manual settings) for not a lot of money that are very good lenses.

Enjoy your new camera!

 

[RBennett]

I will "third" uk's line-up!! That's pretty well the exact lenses that I use and I am LOVING them! The only thing I did different was cut the cost back and went with the Tamron 70-300mm lens. I will say this for all you f/1.4 users out there; it's great for low lit shots, but don't put it away necessarily in WELL lit shots!! This is a great lens for depth of field shots and it's great to break out of the normal apertures!

 

[ukcatfan]

Ok I'm going to confuse the issue with an opposing opinion..LOL

unless you are shooting a lot of landscapes or architectural stuff, 28 should be wide enough, for a walk around lens..

in the days before zoom lenses, 50mm was the standard lens that came with all 35 mm cameras,
with the crop factor, {which I'm not 100% sure on , since I found conflicting info, it's either 1.5 or 1.6} it yields the same field of view as either a 42 or 44 mm lens on a 35mm camera or full frame sensor dslr, and it gives you more zoom,

I will agree with that for most situations. Where I disagree is at WDW. I believe that there are tons of opportunities for the 18-28mm range there. On a side note, even though I do not know the specifics of the other lens, it is unlikely that it is as good as the Pentax kit.

 

[Groucho]

I would agree with Kevin - I doubt that Sigma is going to be as good of a lens as the kit 18-55mm. The main advantage would be the extra zoom. I would also agree that 28mm is going to be a little too narrow; that was one of my issues with my Tamron 28-75mm. (I finally found the instructions so that baby is officially for sale now! ) Obviously that's not an issue with the 16-50mm that I replaced it with.

Mickey - only Canons have a 1.6 crop factor, Olympus/Panasonic have 2.0, everything else is 1.5. (Makes sense as until recently, Pentax and Nikon were using Sony sensors exclusively.) On film, the 50mm was the "normal" lens but certainly not the "wide" lens, that was a 35mm or later a 28mm.

CharacterFan, the 50mm F1.4 is certainly a great bargain, it's hard to go wrong with it. If you want more zoom and can dig slightly deeper, I've heard a lot of great things about the Pentax 50-300mm lens - only slightly larger than their 50-200mm (which I have) and as good or better image quality. I'm actually possibly considering one - I recently picked up an old manual-focus Sears 80-300mm lens for $30 - and boy, is the image quality horrible! I didn't expect much but it's pretty much unusable. It would be nice to have something in the 300mm range for occasion use.

Like Kevin, my main setup when I was getting started was the 18-5mm, 50-200mm, and 50mm F1.4. They served me very well on my first WDW trip w/a DSLR; I am still very happy with many of those shots. It's a nice all-around package, and you can see what kind of lens you'd benefit from most to buy next. (My other main lens on my first trip was my Zenitar 16mm fisheye, but that's a whole different beast!)

Re: filters - hopefully not UV. By and large, they can only degrade your image, and your kit lens already has a nice lens hood which gives good protection (as well as improves the quality of your photos.)

Re: other stuff... if you want to do firework photos, you'll need some sort of tripod and a remote shutter release (a cheapie eBay third-party one will work fine, or you can make your own easily) - set the camera to Bulb mode, ISO 200, F8 or F11, and hold down the shutter with the remote as needed to capture a full burst.

 

[MICKEY88]

I will agree with that for most situations. Where I disagree is at WDW. I believe that there are tons of opportunities for the 18-28mm range there. On a side note, even though I do not know the specifics of the other lens, it is unlikely that it is as good as the Pentax kit.

it comes down to personal shooting style and the things you want to photograph, I have an 18-70 but never felt that I needed it, I don't do much architectural, and like close tight shots for the parade

 

[MICKEY88]

Mickey - only Canons have a 1.6 crop factor, Olympus/Panasonic have 2.0, everything else is 1.5. (Makes sense as until recently, Pentax and Nikon were using Sony sensors exclusively.) On film, the 50mm was the "normal" lens but certainly not the "wide" lens, that was a 35mm or later a 28mm.

.

thanks for the clarification on the crop factor I didn't know what it was so I googled it and came up with 1.5 or 1.6 depending on which article I read..

as for the 50mm I know it was the normal, not wide that's why I said it would work if you're not shooting landscapes or architectural

 

[iggbees]

i have the 50-200 mm pentax lens and i was surprised at how grainy my images come out in semi-low light situations. my pictures come out absolutely horrible. am i doing something wrong? i use program mode, i adjust the white balance, and i probably shouldn't but i use auto iso.

 

[DisneydaveCT]

Like the OP, I have the Pentax 18-55 and the Sigma 28-80. I was surprised at how similar the IQ was between the two lenses. During my last trip to WDW, my 28-80 was on my camera as much at the 18-55. If I were to replace my 28-80, I would still hold on to it for the macro function. While I would like a little more speed than my 28-80 offers, I would also like a little more reach on the long end.

Now to other people's advice on this thread, I agree with the suggestion to get a fast 50. I have a Pentax-A 50, f1.7. While I like the control of manual focus, I sometimes wish I had the AF version of the lens when I am photographing my DD's doing their cheerleading.

On the long end, I have the Pentax-F 70-210, which I love. Unfortunately, I did find it is a bit short for certain photos in AK. So if the OP's budget allows for the longer zoom, I would agree strongly with that suggestion.

 

[ukcatfan]

i have the 50-200 mm pentax lens and i was surprised at how grainy my images come out in semi-low light situations. my pictures come out absolutely horrible. am i doing something wrong? i use program mode, i adjust the white balance, and i probably shouldn't but i use auto iso.

Question answered right there. You should venture out of program mode and off auto ISO. The longer focal lengths do not have as much light entering the lens, so it needs the shutter to stay open longer or the ISO to be higher to compensate and get a proper exposure (might now need a tripod or monopod). If you go into a more manual mode, you can control how fast the shutter is and possibly not need the ISO to go so high. Also keep in mind that the 50-200mm is not a lens intended for low light. You need one that has a f/2.8 throughout the range. The problem is that they are at least $750-1,000

 

[iggbees]

Question answered right there. You should venture out of program mode and off auto ISO. The longer focal lengths do not have as much light entering the lens, so it needs the shutter to stay open longer or the ISO to be higher to compensate and get a proper exposure (might now need a tripod or monopod). If you go into a more manual mode, you can control how fast the shutter is and possibly not need the ISO to go so high. Also keep in mind that the 50-200mm is not a lens intended for low light. You need one that has a f/2.8 throughout the range. The problem is that they are at least $750-1,000

ah, the problem is that i was trying to get some shots at a hockey game, which in actuality is not really that low of a light condition. i tried a couple of shots changing the iso manually, still grainy. i guess it's just not the greatest lens to use and i'm going to have to go back to my manual focus 200 mm lens for the games, which stinks. i'm sure that i'll use my 50-200 mm for many other things though.

 

[ukcatfan]

ah, the problem is that i was trying to get some shots at a hockey game, which in actuality is not really that low of a light condition. i tried a couple of shots changing the iso manually, still grainy. i guess it's just not the greatest lens to use and i'm going to have to go back to my manual focus 200 mm lens for the games, which stinks. i'm sure that i'll use my 50-200 mm for many other things though.

Not to completely contradict you, but you should consider every indoor sporting event to be a low light situation. Your eyes adjust very well and your perception of the light level can be affected. With hockey, you also need to consider that all the white ice will confuse the exposure sensor and could cause it to underexpose. Noise always looks worse in underexposed shots. One last thing, are you by any chance using a K10D in JPG? That model is known to not have the best default JPG settings and should be adjusted or use RAW.

 

[iggbees]

Not to completely contradict you, but you should consider every indoor sporting event to be a low light situation. Your eyes adjust very well and your perception of the light level can be affected. With hockey, you also need to consider that all the white ice will confuse the exposure sensor and could cause it to underexpose. Noise always looks worse in underexposed shots. One last thing, are you by any chance using a K10D in JPG? That model is known to not have the best default JPG settings and should be adjusted or use RAW.

i've got a k100D and i've tried both raw and jpeg with that lens. haha. you're right that the ice is super white and the camera definitely has issues unless i manually change the white balance setting (which i definitely do to get crisp colors). you're also right that it's not as bright as being outside that's for sure. i always find indoor situations harder to shoot. maybe i'll try playing around some more with the exposure and see what i can get. my old manual 200 lens is a F/1.4 and takes absolutely gorgeous pictures (i have even gotten some really interesting hockey shots!). i'm too cheap to buy myself an equivalent auto lens. maybe some day if i win the lottery. anyway, thanks for the advice. i've got a lot to learn still, so all advice is very helpful.

 

[Groucho]

my old manual 200 lens is a F/1.4 and takes absolutely gorgeous pictures (i have even gotten some really interesting hockey shots!). i'm too cheap to buy myself an equivalent auto lens. maybe some day if i win the lottery. anyway, thanks for the advice. i've got a lot to learn still, so all advice is very helpful.

??????? That can't be right! If so, you'd have one seriously awesome lens.

As far as I know, no one has ever made a 200mm F1.4 lens. Most older 200mm lenses are F3.5 or F2.8. At 200mm, your 50-200mm lens can only do F5.6. A 200mm F2.8 would be two full stops faster - for example, a shot taken at 1600 ISO with the 50-200mm could be taken at 400 ISO with the 200mm F2.8. That's will make a huge difference in the noise levels you see!

The high noise levels aren't really caused by a particular lens, they're more a by-product of it. Unfortunately it's always a compromise... the 50-200mm is nice for pretty decent image quality and it's very small and light and affordable. The downside is that at 200mm, you need a good amount of light if you want to avoid slow shutter speeds and high ISOs!

 

[iggbees]

??????? That can't be right! If so, you'd have one seriously awesome lens.

As far as I know, no one has ever made a 200mm F1.4 lens. Most older 200mm lenses are F3.5 or F2.8. At 200mm, your 50-200mm lens can only do F5.6. A 200mm F2.8 would be two full stops faster - for example, a shot taken at 1600 ISO with the 50-200mm could be taken at 400 ISO with the 200mm F2.8. That's will make a huge difference in the noise levels you see!

The high noise levels aren't really caused by a particular lens, they're more a by-product of it. Unfortunately it's always a compromise... the 50-200mm is nice for pretty decent image quality and it's very small and light and affordable. The downside is that at 200mm, you need a good amount of light if you want to avoid slow shutter speeds and high ISOs!

haha. whoops, i wasn't looking at my lens when i wrote that. yeah, it's really only a 2.8, but it's still an absolutely amazing lens. i got it for free too so i can't complain. thanks for the advice. i honestly haven't had time to sit and read the books i have on my camera and i haven't had time to really play around with the camera either. i'm hoping this summer when classes are all said and done i'll get that chance!