Reading mode: Light Dark

Which discounted lens to add?

Go to last post
Buena Vista

Buena Vista

Well-known member
Messages
127
Reaction score
16
Location
Buena Vista, MX
Bought the NX 300 this spring with the 20-50 and 50-200 zooms and 3 macro tubes. I'm loving it. Now so many lenses are on sale, I've given myself permission to get one. Which one? Ah, that IS the question. It won't be my last, but my budget is limited. The $199 deals for the 10mm fisheye and the 16mm prime look especially good. The 16-24 would be nice, but it's twice as much. The 30, 45 and 60 just seem less useful given my zooms. Opinions? I'm an amateur (duh!) and shoot a very eclectic mix of things --- see my gallery if you want.
 
I'd get the 30mm or 45mm. I have both, and just got the 45 today actually. The 30mm is probably the better one to get next because of its small "pancake" size and it's wider field of view. It's a very versatile lens, IMO. With a crop factor equivalent FOV of a full frame's nifty-fifty lens, which is considered a normal lens (natural view = not too short or long focal length).

When I want my NX300 to be as small as can be and lightweight for travel, that's my go-to lens. Wide open at f/2 you can get some pretty creative shots with subject isolation and blurred out backgrounds. Plus it's a very sharp in IQ.

Trying out the 45mm today for the first time, I'm utterly impressed with how fast and silent it is compared to the 30mm though. But being that it's a mid-Tele, it's a little less versatile as a walk-around lens.
 
30mm is definitely always a solid option and a versatile lens. It would enable more high quality indoor photos if that's something you're interested in, and might also reduce the size of your setup so you can carry/use it more often.

From your gallery it seems you shoot outdoors frequently and a lot of shots that might work well on a wide angle lens. Thus 12-24 might be a good option in terms of how much additional range it would open up, given it has little overlap with what you have already.

Don't forget about manual focus, e.g. older used lenses - it can sometimes be a cheap way to try a general type of lens out before investing a lot more money. For example I experimented with a Nikon 50mm F2 for about $60 with adapter, which gave me a very good idea of the types of shots that would work well for the 45mm f1.8 (Samsung) that I have now. Usually harder to find old lenses at a good price for wide angle, though (ones which are wide on FF are not as wide on APS-C!).
 
Hmm... There look like two votes for the 30mm. Ian, I like the idea of experimenting with something used if I can find them and make the conversion work. Thanks guys!

Larry
 
Either one I'd get and i too am looking for a prime lens as i just got the nx30 with the 18-55 kit lens.
 
Buena Vista said:
Bought the NX 300 this spring with the 20-50 and 50-200 zooms and 3 macro tubes. I'm loving it. Now so many lenses are on sale, I've given myself permission to get one. Which one? Ah, that IS the question. It won't be my last, but my budget is limited. The $199 deals for the 10mm fisheye and the 16mm prime look especially good. The 16-24 would be nice, but it's twice as much. The 30, 45 and 60 just seem less useful given my zooms. Opinions? I'm an amateur (duh!) and shoot a very eclectic mix of things --- see my gallery if you want.
Click to expand...
Where did you find fisheye for $199?
 
It's a good questions.


I shot for two years with just the 18-55 and 50-200 because it covered the range, and make it great for learning, I keep wanting to get into portraits, and the 60mm became my second lens... and just this week the 30mm became my fourth. It's is basically the standard 50mm 1.8 plastic fantastic lens you would get for a full frame sensor. (It is of course a 46.2mm equivalent and will give you the same focal plane as a 2.4 on full frame)


It makes the 30mm is supposed to be a good lens for a few things, and gets you thinking a bit, as well as lets you get some shallow depth of field, and higher shutter speeds indoors if you shoot indoors or in the evening.


The 16 is a range not covered by my 18-55 and part of me seriously wants to get it too. I haven't because I haven't been in a situation with my 18 and said I just wish I could go wider, for landscapes. Architectural photography however it would be great better for... however the 10mm or the 12-24 would be better. The 16 gives surprisingly a lot and being as you have the 20-50 would be a good... if you are finding the 20 not wide enough for landscapes and the like.
If you want the 16mm go for it.


the 10mm I wouldn't suggest unless you are using software you can correct for the fish eye (which will likely cost you some of the focal length) but the effect if used well can be fun. Though it can be really fun to use.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of their fisheye as I didn't find it all that sharp. But I love the 30.
 
On my NX1100 I have:

20-50mm

50-200mm

30mm

16mm

18-200mm

In practice, I reckon 90% of the time I have either the 16mm or 30mm on the camera despite having all these other lenses.

The 18-200mm is best for video as it is quiet and has the range, but just eats batteries.

I love the 16 and 30mm lenses, I find the quality of output generally far superior than what I do with my Pentax kit (K-01 and K-30mm), and with F2.4 and F2.0 both workable apertures with the respective lenses the 16 and 30mm are truly able to deliver output that I can't get with the more generic zooms.

Just have a look at my galleries at low-light images and you will see what I mean.
 
Auster Pilot said:
On my NX1100 I have:

20-50mm

50-200mm

30mm

16mm

18-200mm

In practice, I reckon 90% of the time I have either the 16mm or 30mm on the camera despite having all these other lenses.

Just have a look at my galleries at low-light images and you will see what I mean.
Click to expand...
 
sideburns said:
sideburns said:
It is of course a 46.2mm equivalent and will give you the same focal plane as a 2.4 on full frame
Click to expand...
You mean the same focal plane as a 3.0 on a full frame. f2.0 x 1.5 crop = 3.0 ekv.
Click to expand...
ya I went a half stop instead of 1.5 crop for some reason.. it's not a perfect 1:1 though. Which is were the issue is. But yes it would be closer to a 2.8-3.
 
Thanks for your kind comments TJL. I find it tough to decide which kit to take with me for a general photo shoot. Both the Pentax K-30 and NX1100 will deliver quality output if I handle them appropriately, but for travelling and when I'm flying it's a no brainer if I need to go light. NX1100 + 16mm + 30mm fit into a really small space.
 
That is where I was headed, because I would like to do more architectural photography, despite the clamor for the 30mm. But in its assessment of the lens, which finds some very good characteristics, Photozone said "the corner and border quality leaves something to be desired till reaching very good results between f/4-f/8... The lens suffers from a hefty degree of field curvature so it is generally advisable to stop down to f/11 [and a] very heavy amount of (native) barrel distortion." (http://www.photozone.de/samsungnx/695_samsungnx16f24?start=2) On the other hand, they gushed about the 30mm without qualification. So I'm ambivalent again. Why did you suggest the 16mm?
 
Buena Vista said:
That is where I was headed, because I would like to do more architectural photography, despite the clamor for the 30mm. But in its assessment of the lens, which finds some very good characteristics, Photozone said "the corner and border quality leaves something to be desired till reaching very good results between f/4-f/8... The lens suffers from a hefty degree of field curvature so it is generally advisable to stop down to f/11 [and a] very heavy amount of (native) barrel distortion."
Click to expand...
I've used the 16mm for a lot of architecture - it's been my favorite lens for that. The advice about f/11 applies when the focus is relatively close, the corners are not good. For most of my architecture shots f/4 to f/5.6 worked well and moving the focus to far right or left (if one of those points were as distant as the center) improved edges nicely.

The same applies to so many of my landscape shots also. Another thing I will do with the 16mm shots is to open them in Faststone instead of LR on occasion - FS doesn't do auto lens corrections on the dng/raw files. This would help sometimes to achieve better/wider edges/corners.

FWIW, I have a gallery of 16mm photos - 16mm album .

Good luck - they are all good to very good lenses.
 
Nice gallery shots. I love the courthouses. I took photos of many Oregon courthouses when I lived there, and loved the differences in style. And the Galveston homes turned out nice. I think you're showing me that the 16mm is the way to go. I really like the extra width you can capture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top