heavy duty low light suggestions?

[zinneken]

I need to take 2 kinds of pictures, being landscape views (in any kind of weather from bright sunchine to rain) and very low light conditions (in wine cellars and museums, both without flash).

Don't care for many fancy features - if there are, all the better, but all I need is a high quality picture showing fine detail in landscape views and very low light conditions without flash.

Now, since I'm not a photographer I don't really know what I talk about and I'm a bit lost with all the reviews around. So can anyone, from their experience, tell me which camera I should go for? I don't mind a large camera or higher budget, all I need is quality pics. Thanks for helping out!

[TheObiJuan]

Need more info.
Price range also.

Are you able to setup hot lamps to increase ambient illumination?

Canon 50mm f/1.2L or Canon 85 f/1.2L both will give superior low light performance and incredible background blur.

You would need a 350D, 30D, 400D, or 40D to use those lenses.

350D is running for $450 at B&H and the 50 f/1.2L is going for $1350 or so.
If you need wider there are other fast, prime lenses out there too.

The 40D does have better weather sealing and so do the L lenses. This would help for your bad weather shots.

[Rooz]

lol glad your not spending my money obi.

[zinneken]

Need more info.
Price range also.

Are you able to setup hot lamps to increase ambient illumination?

Canon 50mm f/1.2L or Canon 85 f/1.2L both will give superior low light performance and incredible background blur.

You would need a 350D, 30D, 400D, or 40D to use those lenses.

350D is running for $450 at B&H and the 50 f/1.2L is going for $1350 or so.
If you need wider there are other fast, prime lenses out there too.

The 40D does have better weather sealing and so do the L lenses. This would help for your bad weather shots.

oups, did I forget to mention I'm not a photographer? Sorry, I didn't understand much from your suggestion. The only thing I can say is that I can't use lamps or a tripod in my situations, and 1350 is a little out of budget. I'm looking more in the 500 euro maximum (700 USD).

[Nickcanada]

Ya the 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2 is a little overboard me think. :D

I'll suggest Canon because that's what I have and know about. You could pick up a used 20D or 30D for relatively cheep or you could go with the lighter smaller Rebel XT or XTi.

As for lenses I would suggest the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. It has a large aperature for a zoom lens and it also has Image stabilization.

I think it would fit your stated usage the best out of the canon line up. Make sure to save some money for a good tripod and some filters like a Neutral density Graduated filter, and a Polarizing filter.

I hope that all made sense. I just woke up. :D

[TheObiJuan]

When you NEED something, then you get it.
I need to eat, so I pay for food.
If a client needs a specific shot and I don't have the gear, they make it worthwhile for me to get the gear, or shop around.

I shoot paintball photography and a simple request was made of me: be inside the netted field for closer, wide angle shots, instead of shooting through the net or above it. :eek:
I told the client the risk to the equipment would be too high, and the lady said how much would it take to get the shots she needed of her kids.
I told her I would need a waterproof bag for my dslr and lenses. She took care of it and thus far I have yet to have my gear hit.

LOL at this:
I tested the kit len on a vise, with a UV filter and the bag. I shot at the lens element, at the sides and what not from 10 feet and 5 feet away. No damage! :D
I would not dare shoot without a UV or Polarizing filter since the paint could get force fed into the barrel.:p

[TheObiJuan]

oups, did I forget to mention I'm not a photographer? Sorry, I didn't understand much from your suggestion. The only thing I can say is that I can't use lamps or a tripod in my situations, and 1350 is a little out of budget. I'm looking more in the 500 euro maximum (700 USD).


Canon 350D and 50mm f/1.8.
This lens will provide excellent low light ability. Combined with the 350D's excellent high ISO abilities, you have a winner for under 550 dollars. that's like 20 Euros. :p

The camera has simple modes and is easy to use. Put the lens on, turn camera on, turn dial to Av, and set to f/1.8-f/2.8 as needed. Bump up ISO as needed.

I shot a local band with my 20D, the 350D's big brother and the 50mm f/1.8 at f/2.2 (for sharpness) and was pleased.

[TheObiJuan]

Ok, one more example of NEED.
I shot wedding in Maui a couple of years back. Once on the island I was asked to not use flash, and I was to capture torch lit dancing and candids at night.
I told the couple just because our eyes can see it clearly, doesn't mean a camera can.
I explained I was limited with what I could do since I brought the gear I had needed based on the type of shots we planned for in advance.

This super, no flash, low-light example necessitated the Canon 85 f/1.2L at $1400. Since I didn't have it, the bride went ahead and paid for it to be used for the ceremony.
I was able to find one on the island.
Sadly I wasn't able to keep it, the lens was returned the next day. :(
Oh well, not that lucky!

Zinneken, how low light will this be?
Wine cellars and museums can be really low light to reasonably lit.

[Rooz]

zin, you probably aren't going to get a camera that does what you want in that low light situation without a tripod, improved lighting or a flash. does someone else you know have a camera that does it ?

you probably also need to clarify if you want an SLR style or compact style.

[Rooz]

Ok, one more example of NEED.
I shot wedding in Maui a couple of years back. Once on the island I was asked to not use flash, and I was to capture torch lit dancing and candids at night.
I told the couple just because our eyes can see it clearly, doesn't mean a camera can.
I explained I was limited with what I could do since I brought the gear I had needed based on the type of shots we planned for in advance.

This super, no flash, low-light example necessitated the Canon 85 f/1.2L at $1400. Since I didn't have it, the bride went ahead and paid for it to be used for the ceremony.
I was able to find one on the island.
Sadly I wasn't able to keep it, the lens was returned the next day. :(
Oh well, not that lucky!

Zinneken, how low light will this be?
Wine cellars and museums can be really low light to reasonably lit.

lol nice story...any truth in it ? :p

[Nickcanada]

Ok, one more example of NEED.
I shot wedding in Maui a couple of years back. Once on the island I was asked to not use flash, and I was to capture torch lit dancing and candids at night.
I told the couple just because our eyes can see it clearly, doesn't mean a camera can.
I explained I was limited with what I could do since I brought the gear I had needed based on the type of shots we planned for in advance.

This super, no flash, low-light example necessitated the Canon 85 f/1.2L at $1400. Since I didn't have it, the bride went ahead and paid for it to be used for the ceremony.
I was able to find one on the island.
Sadly I wasn't able to keep it, the lens was returned the next day. :(
Oh well, not that lucky!

Zinneken, how low light will this be?
Wine cellars and museums can be really low light to reasonably lit.

Dude the guy wants a landscape/indoor architecture lens. Why suggest a portrait lens. He doesn't need F1.2. IS would be much more useful. Hell a kit lens and a tripod would be better then the 85mm 1.2 and the 50mm 1.2.

[zinneken]

Ok, one more example of NEED.
Zinneken, how low light will this be?
Wine cellars and museums can be really low light to reasonably lit.

Well, not shure how to define how low light it is ... I had an F31 before it got stolen (because they had told me it was the greatest in low light) and it was sometimes unsharp in low light situations. Does this help?

[zinneken]

zin, you probably aren't going to get a camera that does what you want in that low light situation without a tripod, improved lighting or a flash. does someone else you know have a camera that does it ?

you probably also need to clarify if you want an SLR style or compact style.

I don't know anyone who has what I look for, I'd not be asking around here :) and I figure the people at my local shop sell what they get the best margin for, so I turn to you photographic people.

Any size camera will do as long as I get the pics right.

[zinneken]

in another forum they suggest a Pentax K100D. What do you guys think?

[Rooz]

the canon xti, nikon d40 or pentax k100d are probably your best options. both the canon and the nikon have better iso, (low light), performance than the pentax. but the pentax has built in image stabilisation for ultra low light which will help for sure.

d40 w/ 18-55 kit lens is $500
k100d w/18-55 kit lens is $530
xti w/18-55 kit lens is $725.

a small tripod will work much better than hi-iso or image stabilisation mind you and will certianly get you high quality picks every time. iso and I.S will be hit and miss depending on the light and your shutter speed etc but if you can;t use one then i guess you have no alternative.

[Nickcanada]

the canon xti, nikon d40 or pentax k100d are probably your best options. both the canon and the nikon have better iso, (low light), performance than the pentax. but the pentax has built in image stabilisation for ultra low light which will help for sure.

d40 w/ 18-55 kit lens is $500
k100d w/18-55 kit lens is $530
xti w/18-55 kit lens is $725.

a small tripod will work much better than hi-iso or image stabilisation mind you and will certianly get you high quality picks every time. iso and I.S will be hit and miss depending on the light and your shutter speed etc but if you can;t use one then i guess you have no alternative.


I agree with this ^^^^

canon is coming out with a kit lens with IS. IS with Canon's great ISO performance is a pretty good combination.

If you decide to go with the XT make sure you hold it in the store. It is not the most comfortable camera to hold. It's ok if you are holding it for a short amount of time but if you are going to be shooting for over an hour have a look at a used Canon 20D. You can get em cheep and they are much more comfortable. It's all subjective though so make sure you hold it in your hands first to see if you like it.

[zinneken]

the canon xti, nikon d40 or pentax k100d are probably your best options. both the canon and the nikon have better iso, (low light), performance than the pentax. but the pentax has built in image stabilisation for ultra low light which will help for sure.

d40 w/ 18-55 kit lens is $500
k100d w/18-55 kit lens is $530
xti w/18-55 kit lens is $725.

a small tripod will work much better than hi-iso or image stabilisation mind you and will certianly get you high quality picks every time. iso and I.S will be hit and miss depending on the light and your shutter speed etc but if you can;t use one then i guess you have no alternative.

Thanks Rooz, perfect easy info for my little brain that was crying under a steep photography buzz-word learning curve...

Seems like my choice will be D40 or K100d with some "pancake lens", although, haven't got a clue which pancake lens will fit the low light pics ...

Also, I couldn't find out if these cameras operate like the pocketsized ones in poin-and-shoot. Can you take a picture based on the lcd screen showing what you're about to shoot or do you always have to use the viewfinder ?

[TheWengler]

Seems like my choice will be D40 or K100d with some "pancake lens", although, haven't got a clue which pancake lens will fit the low light pics ...

Also, I couldn't find out if these cameras operate like the pocketsized ones in poin-and-shoot. Can you take a picture based on the lcd screen showing what you're about to shoot or do you always have to use the viewfinder ?

You must use the viewfinder for all of those cameras. The pancake lenses are expensive but of good build quality. Assuing you went with Pentax, you could also get the 50mm f/1.4 for about $190. This focal length might not be wide enough to shoot inside a tight space. It's also a soft at f/1.4 (the best setting for low light). It really depends how much light you have. If you only need an f/2.8 lens then you should probably purchase the camera body only and get the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 to cover all of your needs.

[Nickcanada]

Thanks Rooz, perfect easy info for my little brain that was crying under a steep photography buzz-word learning curve...

Seems like my choice will be D40 or K100d with some "pancake lens", although, haven't got a clue which pancake lens will fit the low light pics ...

Also, I couldn't find out if these cameras operate like the pocketsized ones in poin-and-shoot. Can you take a picture based on the lcd screen showing what you're about to shoot or do you always have to use the viewfinder ?

You really should learn what all the F #s mean and ISO and focal length (mm) stuff before you make any large investments in gear.

Using a large aperature ie. F1.2-2.8 will let more light in to the camera's sensor BUT this will also mean less will be in focus! If that sounds confusing it gets worse. Depending on your focal length the amount of things in focus will change for a given F stop #. This is called your focal plane. It's complex I suggest before you buy any gear pick up a good beginners Digital photography book. It will probably save you money in the long run. If you don't want to do that just pick up what ever camera with a kit lens and learn from there.

[TheObiJuan]

Dude the guy wants a landscape/indoor architecture lens. Why suggest a portrait lens. He doesn't need F1.2. IS would be much more useful. Hell a kit lens and a tripod would be better then the 85mm 1.2 and the 50mm 1.2.


When I read the post initially and saw "heavy duty low light" I thought that's what he needed so I offered it up.

Apparently the 17-55 IS lens would be ideal.
I dunno why I didn't think of it?

[TheObiJuan]

lol nice story...any truth in it ? :p

yeah, I posted the story and some pics a few years back.
I still wish I had that damn 85L.

[Norm in Fujino]

oups, did I forget to mention I'm not a photographer? Sorry, I didn't understand much from your suggestion. The only thing I can say is that I can't use lamps or a tripod in my situations, and 1350 is a little out of budget. I'm looking more in the 500 euro maximum (700 USD).

It really depend on your usage, but if you're not interested in going out heavily for photography, I'd suggest looking at the Fuji f30 (about US $160, if you can still find it) or f31fd (about twice that price). The only difference is the addition of facial detection (fd) and IR communication on the latter model. The sensors and engines are the same. They are known as a couple of the best low-light P&S cameras available, with very good results up to ISO800; you can shoot at ISO1600 if you only intend the images for web use or small prints, and in a real pinch, even up to ISO3200, although the shots will have a good deal of smearing in dark details.

Here's an ISO 1600 shot from the f30:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c197/Peregrinor/070919F013_fw1.jpg

[zinneken]

Thanks for all the feedback. So much to read up on and learn about ...

What do you crowd think of the K100 with the SMC-DA 40mm f/2.8

Low light need :: will it allow for shooting in a small 40 watt light litted cellar environment and indirect low museum light? I read so many reviews on this lens, reviewers don't seem to agree on whether it is low light or not. Or let me put it this way, will this combo offer better low light performance then the Fuji F31fd?

landscape need :: will it allow for nice landscape shots in most daylight weather?

[Rooz]

Thanks for all the feedback. So much to read up on and learn about ...

What do you crowd think of the K100 with the SMC-DA 40mm f/2.8

Low light need :: will it allow for shooting in a small 40 watt light litted cellar environment and indirect low museum light? I read so many reviews on this lens, reviewers don't seem to agree on whether it is low light or not. Or let me put it this way, will this combo offer better low light performance then the Fuji F31fd?

landscape need :: will it allow for nice landscape shots in most daylight weather?

dslr's will perform better than the fuji compact regardless of lens. the lens you suggested will do ok but if you are going for a prime lens, (fixed focal length), then the pentax 50mm f1.4 is a better option because it is a faster lens, (works better in low light), and its cheaper aswell i think.

however, 40 or 50mm is considered almost a telephoto lens on a dslr. the pentax, (and nikon and canon etc), have a 1.5x "crop factor" on their lens' which means that 50mm is actually a 75mm length. thats not going to get you alot in the frame in a narrow smaller, cellar type environment.

for landscape, the bare minimum you should be considering is around 24mm, a good compromise is 18mm and ideally its around 10-12mm. so no, it is not a good landscape lens.

there is a sigma 18-50mm f2.8 which should come with a pentax mount that is the same speed as the 40mm prime you suggested plus it gives you a good focal range which can also cover your landscape shots.

[TheObiJuan]

I'd take a light meter and go see what equipment you need.
Bring back your results.
You can buy a light meter at a local camera store and return it when you're done. :p

We want to see what the minimum light you need to get a decent exposure.
Was a tripod an option, I do not recall?

With only a 40W bulb, I do not think any f/2.8 lens will do, unless you mount that sucker on a tripod and shoot stationary objects.

[zinneken]

dslr's will perform better than the fuji compact regardless of lens. the lens you suggested will do ok but if you are going for a prime lens, (fixed focal length), then the pentax 50mm f1.4 is a better option because it is a faster lens, (works better in low light), and its cheaper aswell i think.

however, 40 or 50mm is considered almost a telephoto lens on a dslr. the pentax, (and nikon and canon etc), have a 1.5x "crop factor" on their lens' which means that 50mm is actually a 75mm length. thats not going to get you alot in the frame in a narrow smaller, cellar type environment.

for landscape, the bare minimum you should be considering is around 24mm, a good compromise is 18mm and ideally its around 10-12mm. so no, it is not a good landscape lens.

there is a sigma 18-50mm f2.8 which should come with a pentax mount that is the same speed as the 40mm prime you suggested plus it gives you a good focal range which can also cover your landscape shots.

Thanks Rooz. I'm really after a pancake lens - understanding that going for a pancake lens means some tradeoff for my needs ... Which pancake would you suggest? There could also be the DA 70 mm F2.4 - beter for low light but from your comment I understand it would be even less suitable to landscape?

[zinneken]

I'd take a light meter and go see what equipment you need.
Bring back your results.
You can buy a light meter at a local camera store and return it when you're done. :p

We want to see what the minimum light you need to get a decent exposure.
Was a tripod an option, I do not recall?

With only a 40W bulb, I do not think any f/2.8 lens will do, unless you mount that sucker on a tripod and shoot stationary objects.

nop, tripod is not an option, nor is flash unfortunately. But, for lighting the comments was made that if the F31 takes an acceptable picture the K100 will do a better job?

[D Thompson]

Forgive me for laughing, but you want to be able to take a shot in a cellar type environment lit only by a 40 watt bulb :eek:, hand-held :eek:, no flash :eek:, and expect to find a camera & lens to do this :D. Just my opinion but I don't think there is a high enough ISO for this. You are going to have to either use a tripod or somehow find something stationary to set the camera up on and still have to use high ISO, long shutter speed, and a very fast lens.

Good luck.

[Rooz]

Thanks Rooz. I'm really after a pancake lens - understanding that going for a pancake lens means some tradeoff for my needs ... Which pancake would you suggest? There could also be the DA 70 mm F2.4 - beter for low light but from your comment I understand it would be even less suitable to landscape?

hmmm...ok...lets try and explain this a little so you can understand what lens' work better for lower lighting conditions and what focal lengths are all about.

when you see a lens there are essentially 2 numbers.

1. focal length measured in mm. eg: 18-55mm or 70mm for a fixed length lens.

to compare focal lengths of a dslr to a compact you need to translate it into a standard which is called 35mm equivalent focal length. this is calculated by multiplying the focal length on the lens by the sensors crop size, (this is how small the sensor is compared to a proper full frame SLR camera). so, bear with me hear cos this is important for you...

the fuji f31 has a marked focal length of 8-24mm; the sensor crop is 4.5x, so the 35mm equiv focal length range is actually 36-108mm. the pentax k100d has a 1.5x sensor crop so multiply any lens you are looking at by 1.5 to get your 35mm equivalent.

why am i telling you this ? well its the only way you will be able to understand from your experience exactly how short or long a lens is in comparison to what you know being the fuji.

so, the 70mm lens you are talking is actually 105mm. now if you can imagine going to the cellar to take pics with this lens it is the same focal length as if you had your fuji fully zoomed to its longest telephoto length. i doubt thats going to work in your environment. the other problem with this lens is that it has no "range", 105mm is all you have. not to mention that the 70mm will be almost completely useless for pics of family etc inside a normal house unless you want just a person head in the picture.

think back to the fuji and figure out what focal length you would use for landscapes and in the cellar. i would suspect that on both occasions, (particularly landscapes), you would have the fuji set to it's narrowest zoom setting which is 36mm. so in order for you to get the same field of view from a lens on the k100d you would need to have a maximum of a 20mm lens. the greater the number, the less of the landscape you get in your picture.

2. now aperture...to put it really simply, the maximum aperture your lens has indicates the maximum amount of light it will allow onto the sensor. this is very important because a lens with an f2.8 aperture for example lets in double the amount of light at the same shutter speed as a lens with a f3.5 aperture.

the confusing thing to alot of non-photography people is that the SMALLER the aperture, (f number), the MORE light is allowed thru the lens and onto the sensor. this is why lens' with a smaller f-number are considered better for low light cos they allow the greatest amount of light into your camera. so when you look for a lens for low light conditions, you will always try and pick a lens with the smallest f number in front of it. there is obviously more to it than that when combining this with ISO and shutter speed etc, but thats what you look for in a nutshell.

there are also other complications with smaller f numbers being a narrower depth of field, (smaller portion of your image being in focus), but thats another story...

i think thats about as basic as i can make it to allow you to compare. any more and we're dealing with correct exposures using your ISO, aperture and shutter speed etc which is again, a different "lesson" probably for another time and not likely to be what you're after.

personally, as i said before, i'm not sure you;re going to find what you;re after without more light or a tripod. so consider that before throwing your money around.

[TheWengler]

Thanks Rooz. I'm really after a pancake lens - understanding that going for a pancake lens means some tradeoff for my needs ... Which pancake would you suggest? There could also be the DA 70 mm F2.4 - beter for low light but from your comment I understand it would be even less suitable to landscape?

Why does it have to be a pancake lens now?

[TheObiJuan]

I took this hand-held shot at ISO 3200, 50mm f/1.8, 1/30, and + 1/3EV in my living room with only the reading lamp (60W with shade) illuminating the room.

http://www.styleandspeed.com/theobijuan/pics/kisses%20portrait.jpg

It is possible, but a fast lens, ie, Sigma 30 f/1.4, usable HIGH ISO, and steady hands.

BTW, would a monopod be allowed since it wouldn't take any more room up than you?

[zinneken]

Why does it have to be a pancake lens now?

Very good point. I'm trying to reduce the size as to make the combo camera & lens as small as possible. Doesn't need to be a pancake, but when I see the bulky lenses out there ...

[zinneken]

hmmm...ok...lets try and explain this a little so you can understand what lens' work better for lower lighting conditions and what focal lengths are all about.

...

personally, as i said before, i'm not sure you;re going to find what you;re after without more light or a tripod. so consider that before throwing your money around.

Rooz, WOW!! Thanks so much for this very good explanation! Searching for lenses ... Low mm, high f and small size. I'm searching like a mad-man.

[TheObiJuan]

Rooz, WOW!! Thanks so much for this very good explanation! Searching for lenses ... Low mm, high f and small size. I'm searching like a mad-man.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is great for indoor work, super fast, and very sharp.
It's small too.

With landscape lenses you don't get slim or pancake like.
You also don't get fast/large apertures.
A 10-22, 12-24, etc would be ideal.

Too bad you can't have one lens to do them all, but that's the nature of the beast.

BTW, I forgot why you're fixed on Pentax?
The canon 350D is very light and small. It also beats the Pentax at high ISO levels, which would be crucial despite the fast lenses.
You can find the 350D\XT for $450 or so around the web.

[zinneken]

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is great for indoor work, super fast, and very sharp.
It's small too.

With landscape lenses you don't get slim or pancake like.
You also don't get fast/large apertures.
A 10-22, 12-24, etc would be ideal.

Too bad you can't have one lens to do them all, but that's the nature of the beast.

BTW, I forgot why you're fixed on Pentax?
The canon 350D is very light and small. It also beats the Pentax at high ISO levels, which would be crucial despite the fast lenses.
You can find the 350D\XT for $450 or so around the web.

The pentax fixation came after the reading of reviews that at high ISO the pentax gives the best low light results. But from your saying I doubt now ... Any oppinions?

[TheWengler]

The pentax fixation came after the reading of reviews that at high ISO the pentax gives the best low light results. But from your saying I doubt now ... Any oppinions?

No, the Canon beats the Pentax in high ISO performance. If you want a Pentax it should be because of the in body image stabilization. If you aren't interested in the stabilization then you should probably get the XT as you'll have far more lens choices. If you decided on the Pentax I would forget about the pancake lenses as they don't seem to meet your requirements.

[AlexMonro]

Pentax seem to be good for dynamic range, according to this (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K10D/K10DIMATEST.HTM) comparison table on Imaging Resource - the K100 is second only to the Fuji S3Pro, with its special large & small photosite sensor.

[zinneken]

Pentax seem to be good for dynamic range, according to this (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K10D/K10DIMATEST.HTM) comparison table on Imaging Resource - the K100 is second only to the Fuji S3Pro, with its special large & small photosite sensor.

great list. Thanks!

[zinneken]

So, after all the help of al you guys and some long thinking and weighing ... I finally bought the Pentax K100D Super with the kit lens. I thought I would try it out ...

I've been using it shooting in RAW only, so that may affect some of my experiences with it without me realising it (remember, I'm still a novice in the photo environment).

I'm very happy with some of the results, but I lack in the following ways:
1. lack of sharpness and clearness on landscape shots and very close-up shots.
2. I find myself very quickly going for ISO 1600 in low light without a flash, making pictures that really are not that great, but capture the spirit at least. ISO 3200 is unusable.

So I'm in the market for a new lens that will help me better these 2 things.

What do you guys think of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF for my needs?

I've also been reading on the freshly announced lenses:

The freshly anounced Sigma 4.5mm EX DC Circular Fisheye HSM
The Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX, also at 2.8 (11-16)
10mm F2.8 EX DC Fisheye HSM by Sigma

which have an F of 2.8, but doesn't that sound to be a combo sreaming for unsharp pictures? It sounds tempting, great to take pics in small spaces in low light (2.8 and wide angle by fisheye). In any case, they're not launched until some time in 08. They seem pricey too ...

So should I wait for reviews on those, should I go for the Tamron 17-50, or perhaps even another lens?

[TheWengler]

I don't think the Tamron or Tokina lenses are available in a Pentax mount, not sure about the Sigmas. I know the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is made in a Pentax mount. Why can't you just use a tripod or a flash? A wider aperture is going to give you a shallow depth of field.

[zinneken]

I don't think the Tamron or Tokina lenses are available in a Pentax mount, not sure about the Sigmas. I know the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is made in a Pentax mount. Why can't you just use a tripod or a flash? A wider aperture is going to give you a shallow depth of field.

You're right! It appears that the Tamron doesn't exist in a pentax mount, would it be possible to use a converter and if so, what would be the implications?