Kit or no kit

[Gantenbein]

Hi folks

It's time for me to upgrade from a point & shoot (Digital Ixus 500 bought in Europe) to a DSLR.

I am planning to get the K100d Super when it's available.

I've seen the vignetting of the kit lense in Jeff's review of the camera, and in fact the kit lense's quality is pretty much the only "What I didn't care for" item that bothers me.

Should I get the kit for starters or just buy the body with a better lense? I am thinking of getting two lenses anyway, a small one for everyday use and a "zoom" or telephoto lense for hiking in the woods.

Cost is a secondary factor. It's okay to spend money for quality, but I also do not want to spend a fortune.

Thank you.

Gantenbein

[BLWNHR]

What sort of focal length would you be looking for in the short lens?

Despite the claims of barrel distortion and high vignetting I am extremely impressed with the Sigma 18-125. Very flexible lens. Perhaps get that as a kit lens instead (as I did with my *istDL a while ago) and then look at a Pentax 16-50 SDM and a zoom such as the 70-200 Sigma down the track.

[coldrain]

I would not choose the kit lens.

Options:

Sigma 18-125 if the bigger range appeals to you

Pentax 16-40 f4

Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DG macro.

Cheap but ok-ish (best of the cheap stuff) tele zoom: Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG macro.
Great tele zoom: Sigma 100-300mm f4. I do not know if this lens is available for Pentax. Costs a bit over $1000.

[Gantenbein]

OK, thank you! I think I won't get the kit then.

[ajk]

I would not choose the kit lens.

Options:

Sigma 18-125 if the bigger range appeals to you

Pentax 16-40 f4

Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DG macro.

Cheap but ok-ish (best of the cheap stuff) tele zoom: Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG macro.
Great tele zoom: Sigma 100-300mm f4. I do not know if this lens is available for Pentax. Costs a bit over $1000.

I'm also planning on purchasing a Pentax (in this case the K10D, after MUCH deliberation). Pentax is offering a rebate on the 16-45....would end up being $270. I've read a few reviews of the lens, and it certainly seems pretty decent. And for that price I'm not going to find anything comparable....right? (I'm fine with the range of the lens)

[coldrain]

Oops yes, I meant 16-45 f4.
No, for that price you will not find anything comparable.

[Gantenbein]

Hm... It appears that the Sigma 18-125 is no longer made for the Pentax cameras.

I would like to have at least some "zoom" in the everyday lens, as my old Digital Ixus 500 has a 36-108 (35-mm equivalent) and that can be quite handy sometimes.

BTW, what about the Pentax DA 50-200 f/4-5.6 ED lens?

[JPRATT]

If i had to do it all over again, I would skip the kit lens, and I would have got the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 or sigma 28-70 f/2.8...

I have a bunch of lenses now. Only others I want to add to the collection for now. Sigma 70-300 apo, tamron 28-75, and pentax 50mm. I have a manual 50mm right now, but want autofocus.

[SpecialK]

I would (and did) skip the kit lens if you are planning on getting more lenses. I like the Pentax 50-200 better than the Sigma 70-300, though obviously it has less range and no close focusing.

[JPRATT]

I would (and did) skip the kit lens if you are planning on getting more lenses. I like the Pentax 50-200 better than the Sigma 70-300, though obviously it has less range and no close focusing.

I thought about the 50-200... What is it about the 50-200 you like over the 70-300?

[SpecialK]

I thought about the 50-200... What is it about the 50-200 you like over the 70-300?


Image quality seemed a little bit better. Also, I had to bump the contrast way up on the Sigma at the longer focal lengths. Plus, the Pentax is about 1/2 the bulk.

Here's my informal test from a few months ago:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/4768-lens-comparison-p-50-200-vs-s-18-50-s-70-300-a.html

[stevage]

I got the kit lens with my Samsung GX10 (K10D rebadged) - some sites say it's the same as the K10D kit lens, some say it's worse. Either way, it's certainly not great (lots of vignetting when wide open and max wide angle), but for me it's been a good way to start learning. And I'm really appreciating the value of starting with equipment that has limitations, and learning how to get around those limitations. If that makes sense :)

Also, I don't know if vignetting is really that big a problem anyway - the Adobe Raw converter can compensate for it, and there are probably other programs that can do it on JPEGs. I can't really speak for barrel distortion or soft corners. In practice the bigger problem for me is just the properties of the lens: F3.5 is too slow for a lot of what I want to do, and I now realise that I would have loved a couple of extra millimetres at the wide end.

So, in some ways I guess I wish I'd gotten the K10D with Sigma 17-70mm, but I've got a lot of learning to do before I can really start blaming the equipment :)

[the main reason I didn't was the GX10 with kit lens was on special at the local camera place - cheaper than the K10D body only]

Steve