Lenses

[Zeroset]

I recently got a Pentax K100D with a kit lens. However, I already feel limited a bit. I'd definitely like to take better macro shots. And I think I'd also like a lens with more zoom length (telephoto?). However, I'm somewhat new to photography, and completely new to the DSLR world, and know next to nothing about lenses. So I'm just looking for recommendations. I am on a budget and would like to not spend too much, but I also definitely want good quality lenses. And quality is more important to me than my budget. But I also know that the K100D can take just about any Pentax lens out there, so I'm sure there's some bargains to be found. Any suggestions, help, advice, etc.?

I'd greatly appreciate any responses.

[SpecialK]

Sigma makes the 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro APO lens that is decent but not great, and realtively inexpensive at about $219. It has a "macro" mode in the 200-300mm range allowing you to get as close as 1:2 ratio - good for flowers and that type of thing, but not so good for small bugs.

The 70-300mm is a good range for the telephoto end, though the image quality is average at the long end. It is not very fast, so low light shots could be a problem, though it is fine in daylight.

The Pentax 50-200mm seems a bit better over the common zoom range, but lacks the close focusing ability.

A dedicated macro lens will run about $250-$400 by itself, but should provide better quality shots. They do not zoom, so you would still need that lens.

[Zeroset]

I prefer to not zoom in on my macro shoots whenever possible anyway, so that wouldn't be a problem. I've been reading recommendations for the Pentax 50-200mm lens. Would that be a good option over the kit lens for being able to zoom in on more distant shots, without going to a telephoto lens? I honestly know very little about lenses, so I'm not sure if that even makes sense. I'm learning as I go here. Also, what about a prime lens for macro shots? Would that make any sense?

[SpecialK]

You really need to read a few lens reviews for terminology - no offense :-)

I link to Canon only for examples.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=155

"Zoom" means a lens can change the focal length (measured in milllimeters, such as 50-200mm). A zoom can be a "wide angle", such as for landscapes, or a "telephoto" such as for a car in the distance.

The Pentax 50-200 is a telephoto zoom, so yes, it is good for bringing distant subjects closer. It is not good for photographing small things close up (macro).

A "prime" is a lens that does not change the focal length and therefore the angel of view).

Many people prefer primes as they are reputedly sharper and in most cases are "faster" meaning they have a larger maximum aperture to allow more light in (helpful in low light situations). However, good zooms are good lenses, and for many people the convenience of being able to change the angle of view outweighs the minor possible image quality difference.

As I said before, true macro lenses are primes, though some zooms have a close focusing feature.

[Zeroset]

Yeah, I knew primes were fixed. I was a little mixed up on the telephoto term though. Thanks. I may check out the 50-200mm then, but right now a macro lens is more important to me. So would you recommend a prime then for macro photography? And if so, is there any certain ones I should be looking at? And thanks for your help so far, I really appreciate it.

[Zeroset]

I just looked up the Pentax 50-200mm on Amazon and found another lens, the Sigma 70-300mm. However, in the description it says it's both a telephoto and a macro lens. So now I'm confused again, as I thought the two were opposite. I thought telephoto was for zooming in on distant objects, and macro was for taking shots of objects up close to the camera (which you wouldn't need zoom for). Also, what do the numbers mean exactly? The higher the high (300 in this case), the further it can zoom? And the lower the low (50), the closer focal range it has (for macro)? Or am I confused on that as well? That link you posted didn't work by the way.

[rhermans]

Hi Zeroset

"telephoto was for zooming in on distant objects, and macro was for taking shots of objects up close to the camera"

Close enough, but you miss the fact that you can focus. Telephoto means that you can focus the camera on distanct objects, macro means that you can focus much closer. So a telephoto lens that can focus close enough would be a macro lens.

This macro focussing mostly requires that the focus range has to be extended. I've got a Tamron 70_300 telelens that can do macros.
So above the 150mm range I've got to change a switch and I can then focus on objects at 1m to get a 1:4 macro.

Just the same as the sigma although I don't know if it has a switch.

Then you've got the macro setting: (1:4) (1:2) (1:1)
this means that the object you are trying to photograph is shown at a 1/4 ratio on you sensor, so if the 'ant' is 1cm then the resulting image on the sensor = 0.25cm. A 1:1 is imo the closest you can get with a macro lens without some extra help.

Hope this helps a bit

Ronny




No macro means also something else,

[Zeroset]

So would a telephoto with the ability to focus on macro be kind of an all-in-one option? Or would it still be a better idea to go with one zoom lens dedicated for regular/telephoto shooting (such as the Pentax 50-200) and one prime lens for macro? If all else fails I'll probably be going into the local camera shop on Monday or Tuesday to ask them similar questions, but I appreciate the help here so far.

[rhermans]

Personally I would go for the telephoto + macro and ... the dedicated macro lens. The first is good to start with and then later on add a dedicated macro.

Now there is another question that hasn't come up in this post, what are you planning to do with the tele lens.

If you're going to use it for bird shots then you'll soon find the 200mm a bit short. A 300mm is here more than usefull.

The sigma / tamron are not really expensive lenses (tamron being the cheapest of the two) and the ability to change from tele to macro without changing lenses is great.

I've got the tamron 70-300 macro 1:4 and a kiron 105mm 1:1 and although the later is much better for macro the tamron really can hold it's own with large enough insects.

for example I've got two peacock shots the first with the tamron, the second with the kiron, and for me they can compete.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/442382928_87047d437a_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/446304357_a3bbf14fde_b.jpg

Hope this helps. Ronny

[andrei46]

So would a telephoto with the ability to focus on macro be kind of an all-in-one option? Or would it still be a better idea to go with one zoom lens dedicated for regular/telephoto shooting (such as the Pentax 50-200) and one prime lens for macro? If all else fails I'll probably be going into the local camera shop on Monday or Tuesday to ask them similar questions, but I appreciate the help here so far.

I appreciate 50-200 I own. A simple/low cost macro complement would be Canon 250D: easy to mount on 18-55 or 50-200. Try it! Good luck!
Regards,
Andrei

[Zeroset]

Thank you all for the help. I went into the camera shop today and asked similar questions, and that helped as well. I think I'm going to go with either the Tamron or Sigma 70-300 with a 1:2 ratio. I think what I wasn't understanding was the meaning of the numbers. I thought 70mm was the minimum focal length and 300mm was the maximum. I didn't know the first number, in this case 70, has nothing to do with focal length and is actually the width of it's view. Thanks again for the responses here.

[SpecialK]

Wow, you got some really wrong information somewhere about "width of view".

[coldrain]

Thank you all for the help. I went into the camera shop today and asked similar questions, and that helped as well. I think I'm going to go with either the Tamron or Sigma 70-300 with a 1:2 ratio. I think what I wasn't understanding was the meaning of the numbers. I thought 70mm was the minimum focal length and 300mm was the maximum. I didn't know the first number, in this case 70, has nothing to do with focal length and is actually the width of it's view. Thanks again for the responses here.
Go for the Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG macro. This lens is better than the tamrons or the non-APO Sigma. It is well worth the price difference.

70mm is the minimum focal length, 300mm is the maximum focal length. It is a zoom lens...

[EricJames]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Corporation

That site lists the common Sigma lens terms. Study, study!