PDA

View Full Version : K100D Two lens kit or Body/Tamron



nbs2
08-28-2006, 05:12 PM
I'm pretty sure I will be getting the K100D - as soon as my wife lets me. I have been looking at various options, and think I will do one of the following:

a) get the two lens kit (18-55/3.5-5.6 and 50-200/? - I think 4-5.6) from Berger Brothers - they are the only place I have seen this in the US...

b) get the K100D body and a Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3

With either, I will have the 50/1.7 that my sister-in-law is giving me.

Which of those two packages, which I estimate will be about $100 or so apart, would be a better idea?

MatH
08-29-2006, 01:10 AM
I'd go with the double kit. These ultra zoom lensens tend o get soft at tele or wide end plus Pentax 50-200 is brighter at tele end than Tamron is.

coldrain
08-29-2006, 01:46 AM
I remember a FotoMagazin (german pro photo mag) that showed the 50-200 come out on bottom when they tested all the 55-200 lenses from Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron with it. This breed of lens is not great, and loses quite a bit at the 200mm end.

The 18-55 kitlens is also not all that great, but it being so cheap may make it worthwhile to start with anyway.

I guess the price of the Pentax 16-45mm f4 lens is out of the question? I's rather go for that (or even the kit lens) with a Sigma 70-300 APO DG which costs around 220$ (at least for the Canon and Nikon mounts). It offers better image quality, even upto 300mm, and a nice 1:2 macro mode.

Otherwise you could also consider the Sigma 18-200, it is image quality wise a bit better than the tamron you mention.

MatH
08-29-2006, 03:25 AM
Can't agree with Coldrain. Pentax kit combo is very well thought of. An older post about 50-200 lens: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9605

This review (http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_1154.shtml) of K100D also commends Pentax kit lenses.

coldrain
08-29-2006, 06:14 AM
Sorry MatH, I have to correct myself. While all 50/55-200 lenses are nothing special, the Pentax did not really come out on bottom. I just dug through a huge pile of magazines to find the test :o .

While not being very sharp, the Pentax is quite consistent over its entire focal length, only losing a bit at 200mm.
Tested in resolution, vignetting and distortion the Pentax scored a 73% total in their rating system, the Nikon also 73%, the Sigma 74%, the Tamron 76% and the Canon 80%. The Nikon is the least consitent, scoring amazingly good at 55mm, but falling off at 200mm. The Canon is the most consistent, its the only one that is not APS-C though.

Mechanically (construction) the Pentax comes out on top with 77%, the Sigma follows with 73%, Nikon 68%, Tamron 66% and Canon 62%.

It is just not a great class of lens, you get what you pay for basically.
I'd definately go for that Simga 70-300 APO DG.

jeisner
08-29-2006, 06:34 AM
Regarding the DA 50-200...

I have this lens and it is not bad at all.. Very good colour/contrast in my opinion and OK it is not the sharpest lens I have, but for the price range it is very consistant across both the apeture range and focal length range...

Of course it is not in the same class as the 16-45/4 or my primes, but for a small 50-200 4-5.6 lens it isn't bad at all, and so small...

P.S. Its biggest weakness in my opinion is distortion...

nbs2
08-29-2006, 03:08 PM
Regarding the DA 50-200...

I have this lens and it is not bad at all.. Very good colour/contrast in my opinion and OK it is not the sharpest lens I have, but for the price range it is very consistant across both the apeture range and focal length range...

Of course it is not in the same class as the 16-45/4 or my primes, but for a small 50-200 4-5.6 lens it isn't bad at all, and so small...
Then what would you suggest? A Tamron or Sigma 18-200? Or some other option, holding off on all three while making do with the 18-55? My primary reason for looking at the 50-200 is that if I do get the kit, I would save a good amount compared to buying it later...

jeisner
08-29-2006, 05:07 PM
Then what would you suggest? A Tamron or Sigma 18-200? Or some other option, holding off on all three while making do with the 18-55? My primary reason for looking at the 50-200 is that if I do get the kit, I would save a good amount compared to buying it later...

Umm, the 18-200s are worse in my opinion than the 50-200, especially in regards to the 50-200s weakest point being distortion...

The 50-200 is no pro (or even semi pro) lens, but to start off with (until you can justify a high end lens) it will do fine.. I know many people with highr end constant f2.8 70-200s (or 80-200s) that still bought/use the 50-200 when they want to travel lighter.. (as did I)

Some comparion shots between the 50-200 with the 1.4x compared to the Sigma 70-300 and some other lenses here...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=19800851