Reading mode: Light Dark

The 28-105 and Tamron 17-50 on the K-70

Go to last post
H

Historicity

Senior Member
Messages
2,343
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,080
Location
San Jacinto, CA, US

Loading…

lawrencehelm.smugmug.com

The weather was hot, humid and we were accompanied by scores of bugs before we finished our hike and got back to the Jeep. I knew the weather would make hiking unpleasant, but I was anxious to get this first "test" (sort-of test) out of the way; so we suffered along.

One of my goals was to check the 17-50 at 28mm and compare it to the Pentax at 28 mm. I was going to use the Tamron for half the hike and then switch to the Pentax, but before I got very far I noticed that one of my fingers (the back of the one between my middle and small fingers on my right hand) had become sore. I stopped and examined the Tamron and discovered that a "lock" switch was pressing against my finger as I carried and used the camera. Was it just the configuration of the K-70 or would I have that same conflict on my other cameras? And if I did, could I get used to holding my finger out of the way when I was using this lens? I didn't know, but I gave up on the Tamron and stuck it in my camera bag. I prematurely switched to the Pentax 28-105.

Even though I didn't make the actual test, I came away convinced that those who argued that I would find that 28mm on the FF 28-105, 28mm on my APS/C K-70 were correct. And those who argued that the 28-105 at 28mm would behave as though it were not (which includes me) were incorrect.

[For those who didn't have the pleasure of engaging in this debate, I began by assuming that my newly purchased 28-105 would be 28 on my APS/C cameras. Someone convinced me that it would be 42mm. A short time later someone attempted to correct me the other way. At some point I dug my heals in and began doing my own research but found all the articles written to end the confusion, confusing.]

My disappointment with the Tamron was more than made up for by my enjoyment of the 28-105. The 28 was plenty wide enough to handle the sorts of shots I made this morning. I can now see using the 28-105 as a stand-alone zoom instead of needing to take along something like a 12-24 or a small prime.

And it is good that I changed lenses when I did. If you scroll through the shots you will see my smallest dog, Duffy rolling in the soot and ash and stirring up clouds of dust.

We got down to the hiking area a few moments after dawn, but the mountain shielded us from the sun until we were almost done. Because of the darkness I had the ISO at 1600 or 3200 for most of the hike -- coming down to 800 only toward the end. I did discover one negative. Almost all my shots were slightly under-exposed. Perhaps the K-70 exposure meter didn't know what to do with the darkish morning. Fortunately I was able to fix most of them in Lightroom.

Lawrence
 
Historicity said:
[For those who didn't have the pleasure of engaging in this debate, I began by assuming that my newly purchased 28-105 would be 28 on my APS/C cameras. Someone convinced me that it would be 42mm. A short time later someone attempted to correct me the other way. At some point I dug my heals in and began doing my own research but found all the articles written to end the confusion, confusing.]
Click to expand...
From my understanding, 28mm will always be 28mm no matter the sensor. The Field of View (FoV) will change however due to the crop factor of APS-C, so a 28mm FoV on a FF will be wider and a 28mm FoV on APS-C will be closer to a 42mm FoV on a FF sensor because it can only capture the smaller center area of that len's image circle.

The lens won't miraculously change, which may have been a misunderstanding from the people you spoke to :-P
 
walgarch said:
Historicity said:
[For those who didn't have the pleasure of engaging in this debate, I began by assuming that my newly purchased 28-105 would be 28 on my APS/C cameras. Someone convinced me that it would be 42mm. A short time later someone attempted to correct me the other way. At some point I dug my heals in and began doing my own research but found all the articles written to end the confusion, confusing.]
Click to expand...
From my understanding, 28mm will always be 28mm no matter the sensor. The Field of View (FoV) will change however due to the crop factor of APS-C, so a 28mm FoV on a FF will be wider and a 28mm FoV on APS-C will be closer to a 42mm FoV on a FF sensor because it can only capture the smaller center area of that len's image circle.

The lens won't miraculously change, which may have been a misunderstanding from the people you spoke to :-P
Click to expand...
 
Historicity said:
Yes, you are right, but the misunderstanding has been abetted by the lens manufacturers who are in the habit of saying as the placard on my Olympus 18-180mm lens says, "36-360mm equiv." If you look at a dictionary you will see that "Equivalent" can mean several things. In my case I blithely ignored the tag and thought 28 meant 28. But when someone told me, not so, equivalent means that a factor needs to be applied and thus 28 is in reality 42. I felt ashamed of my ignorance for assuming that 28 meant 28 and readily accepted the correction, but then the correction was corrected and I went down the rabbit hole.

But I'm out now. :-)

Lawrence
Click to expand...
Still, not a complete loss though. The 28-105 by all accounts is a great lens! It's also one step towards FF if you're so inclined. You could also pair the 28-105 with a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 on APS-C if you feel the need for speed! Though the Tamron 17-50 (also a good performer) should suffice... maybe with a little gaffer tape over that pesky switch :-D
 
walgarch said:
Historicity said:
Yes, you are right, but the misunderstanding has been abetted by the lens manufacturers who are in the habit of saying as the placard on my Olympus 18-180mm lens says, "36-360mm equiv." If you look at a dictionary you will see that "Equivalent" can mean several things. In my case I blithely ignored the tag and thought 28 meant 28. But when someone told me, not so, equivalent means that a factor needs to be applied and thus 28 is in reality 42. I felt ashamed of my ignorance for assuming that 28 meant 28 and readily accepted the correction, but then the correction was corrected and I went down the rabbit hole.

But I'm out now. :-)

Lawrence
Click to expand...
Still, not a complete loss though. The 28-105 by all accounts is a great lens! It's also one step towards FF if you're so inclined. You could also pair the 28-105 with a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 on APS-C if you feel the need for speed! Though the Tamron 17-50 (also a good performer) should suffice... maybe with a little gaffer tape over that pesky switch :-D

--
Will
=============================
http://www.flickr.com/photos/walgarch
Click to expand...
Will,

I just checked the Tamron 17-50 on my K3 and there is enough room so that the switch doesn't rub against my finger. So I can use it on my K5iis, K3 & K3ii -- just not on my K-70 -- makes me wonder about all those who've been wishing that Pentax would build smaller and smaller flagship cameras and how many other lenses would cause this sort of problem.

As to thinking of one or both as a loss, no. In the past I used the Pentax 16-45 and liked it a lot, and if I wanted more range (I imagined) I would use my 50-300 WR. When I went out with just the 16-45 I was good (and I expect to be good with just the Tamron 17-50, just not with the K-70). But when I took both the old 16-45 and the 50-300 I discovered that they were awkward to change back and forth on a hike. Thus, when I ran across an article suggesting that the FF 28-105 was very good on APS/C cameras I opened the thread to ask if anyone had anything negative to say about it. No one did until after I had bought one from Amazon but the negative comments seem based upon reading instead of actual usage. For example, recommending that I get a 16-85 instead of the 28-105. Well I already had a 16-85, had it for a long time and did some informal subjective comparisons against my 18-135. I wasn't choosing between the 28-105 and anything else. I just wanted to know if anyone had anything negative to say about it.

The comment that my 28-105 wouldn't give me 28 at the short end was a great shock to me. It sounded true because I remembered the 1.5 factor. I had just never applied it in circumstances like this. And then as you know there was a bit of a donnybrook. I went on the hike yesterday 95% convinced that 28 would be 28 and was relieved to discover that it was. I was delighted that the 28 was wide enough to be useful to me on a typical hike. That meant that I didn't need to carry a zoom or prime covering the range below 28mm. I may do that from time to time but I won't need to.

I had intended to take my K3 yesterday but because I was so worked up over this discussion I mistakenly grabbed my K70 instead. So I was out there with the K70 and a backup battery for my K3. Fortunately I seemed to have charged the K70 after the last time I used it.

As to one day being inclined to get a K1, I can't see that as a hiking tool. I am 82 and while I still lift weights and can carry a K3 and as much as a 60-250 on a hike, that would be only on my good days. If I wake with a stiff back, neck or a headache, I am not going to be that ambitious. And so I can not see getting the K1 on the assumption that there will be enough good days to make that worthwhile.

However, with my kids and relatives getting older as well, one of the possibilities is that I may move from sunny (read "scorching hot") Southern California and move to Northern Idaho where one of my daughters lives. I've looked at photos of some of the properties up there. A lot of them have decks that would be ideal for setting up a tripod and a K1. I could become a birder when I didn't feel like hiking. I'm not counting on that, but I can't think of any other circumstances wherein I might buy a K1. I do think about it from time to time though.

Thanks for your comments :-)

Lawrence
 
Glad to hear the 28-105 seems to work well for you. It is certainly a solid performer on the K-1. And, glad to hear you've come to peace with the conversion factor issues. All K-mount lenses will behave in similar fashion on APS-C camera bodies - 28 mm on a DFA 28-105, 28mm on the DA 16-45, 28mm on the DA* 16-50, etc. all have the same field of view on your K-70.
 
Historicity said:
The comment that my 28-105 wouldn't give me 28 at the short end was a great shock to me. It sounded true because I remembered the 1.5 factor. I had just never applied it in circumstances like this. And then as you know there was a bit of a donnybrook. I went on the hike yesterday 95% convinced that 28 would be 28 and was relieved to discover that it was. I was delighted that the 28 was wide enough to be useful to me on a typical hike. That meant that I didn't need to carry a zoom or prime covering the range below 28mm. I may do that from time to time but I won't need to.
Click to expand...
I think you received that comment because someone was worried that you didn't realize 28mm wasn't very wide angle on an APS-C camera like it would be on FF. Whether you'll miss the wide angle or not depends completely on your shooting style, and a lot of people wouldn't consider it wide enough.

I've been using a Tamron 24-135 as my main zoom for years, and I rarely find the 24mm wide end to be limiting. I picked up a DA 15 for those times when I need wide vistas. The only reason I've even considered the 28-105 is for WR and the possibility of better IQ.
 
Lawrence,

I've never handled the Pentax 28-105, but as it is a full FF lens, it has to be large and heavy to be used on hiking. As you already have the DA 16-45, I would recommend to add to the DA 50-300 (original or the newest, KAF4 version) lens, and you are ready to go around the world :-) .
 
flektogon said:
Lawrence,

I've never handled the Pentax 28-105, but as it is a full FF lens, it has to be large and heavy to be used on hiking. As you already have the DA 16-45, I would recommend to add to the DA 50-300 (original or the newest, KAF4 version) lens, and you are ready to go around the world :-) .
Click to expand...
It has to be? :-)

It's slightly heavier (440g vs. 356g), has a slightly larger diameter (73mm vs. 72mm) and it's shorter (87mm vs. 92mm) compared to the DA 16-45. And how about comparing it with the 16-85? The D FA is lighter and smaller.

Alex

 
Alex Sarbu said:
flektogon said:
Lawrence,

I've never handled the Pentax 28-105, but as it is a full FF lens, it has to be large and heavy to be used on hiking. As you already have the DA 16-45, I would recommend to add to the DA 50-300 (original or the newest, KAF4 version) lens, and you are ready to go around the world :-) .
Click to expand...
It has to be? :-)

It's slightly heavier (440g vs. 356g), has a slightly larger diameter (73mm vs. 72mm) and it's shorter (87mm vs. 92mm) compared to the DA 16-45. And how about comparing it with the 16-85? The D FA is lighter and smaller.

Alex
Click to expand...
Ha, Alex, you beat me to it but only because Microsoft without any notice that I saw shut down my laptop in order to install new updates.

My little scale works in ounces. The 18-135 is 15 ounces, the 28-105 is 16.5 ounces and the 16-85 is 18 ounces.

And Peter, in regard to the 50-300, I put that to the test on hikes with the 16-45, changing the lenses back and forth and decided they were both awkward to handle while doing that. I bought the Tamron 17-50 in the hope that it was easier to change back and forth with the 50-300 than the Pentax 16-45 had been, but . . .

Then I ran across the article describing in asides how the DFA 28-105 was very good on APS/C cameras; so I bought one. I did try the Tamron 17-50 on the hike with the 28-105, but the little lock switch rubbed against one of my fingers when I was using the K-70. I later tested the 17-50 with my K3 and there is enough space such that the switch doesn't rub against my finger.

Anyway, after a very nice set of photos from the 28-105 I am thinking of trying it on several hikes just by itself. In thinking back 105 may be enough for me in the place I normally hike.

[Disclaimer: Being 82 years old I don't go as far to hike or hike as long as I used to. There is a very nice (in hiking terms) dry (usually) river bed a couple of miles from my house. I can take the dogs over there, hike for 2 or 3 hours in different spots along the river and then drive back home. I get a few nice shots and the dogs and I get some nice exercise. So someone examining all my photos would notice some sameness, but in my defense I am always looking for something new in the way of plant growth, sky color, birds, coyotes and most recently trolls (aka homeless people) who have set up their tents down there.]

There will be occasions when I might like more than 105. There probably won't be many, but if I do decide I need a bit more reach, I have the old FA 135; which weighs 13.5 ounces. The 50-300WR weighs 17.75 ounces.

Lawrence
 
Peter,

One more thing, I just weighed my old Pentax-A 35-105 zoom, and it weighed 21.5 ounces; so maybe this is the sort of lens you had in mind when you thought the 16.5 ounce 28-105 might be heavy.

Lawrence
 
Last edited:
Historicity said:
Alex Sarbu said:
flektogon said:
Lawrence,

I've never handled the Pentax 28-105, but as it is a full FF lens, it has to be large and heavy to be used on hiking. As you already have the DA 16-45, I would recommend to add to the DA 50-300 (original or the newest, KAF4 version) lens, and you are ready to go around the world :-) .
Click to expand...
It has to be? :-)

It's slightly heavier (440g vs. 356g), has a slightly larger diameter (73mm vs. 72mm) and it's shorter (87mm vs. 92mm) compared to the DA 16-45. And how about comparing it with the 16-85? The D FA is lighter and smaller.

Alex
Click to expand...
Ha, Alex, you beat me to it but only because Microsoft without any notice that I saw shut down my laptop in order to install new updates.
Click to expand...
Chuckle! My PC has updates pending, but didn't force a restart... yet!
Historicity said:
My little scale works in ounces. The 18-135 is 15 ounces, the 28-105 is 16.5 ounces and the 16-85 is 18 ounces.
Click to expand...
Whatever that means ;-)

Anyway, Peter wasn't exactly wrong as all the other D FA zooms are large and heavy - and the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 looks like it will be quite substantial, too. However, if that's the rule then the D FA 28-105 is the exception: nice and compact.

Alex
 
Historicity said:
Peter,

One more thing, I just weighed my old Pentax-A 35-105 zoom, and it weighed 21.5 ounces; so maybe this is the sort of lens you had in mind when you thought the 16.5 ounce 28-105 might be heavy.

Lawrence
Click to expand...
Whoops, I should have mentioned that I don't have an FA in the 28-105 category weight or size category, but the Pentax-A 35-105 seemed similar and it would have used (I assumed) the same sort of technology (or similar) to the FAs: sturdily built with lots of metal and not so much plastic.

[I wanted to get this out before someone corrected me. I got enough correction on the DFA 28 vs the APS/C 28 thread to last several months. :-( ]

Lawrence
 
Historicity said:
Alex Sarbu said:
flektogon said:
Lawrence,

I've never handled the Pentax 28-105, but as it is a full FF lens, it has to be large and heavy to be used on hiking. As you already have the DA 16-45, I would recommend to add to the DA 50-300 (original or the newest, KAF4 version) lens, and you are ready to go around the world :-) .
Click to expand...
It has to be? :-)

It's slightly heavier (440g vs. 356g), has a slightly larger diameter (73mm vs. 72mm) and it's shorter (87mm vs. 92mm) compared to the DA 16-45. And how about comparing it with the 16-85? The D FA is lighter and smaller.

Alex
Click to expand...
...
And Peter, in regard to the 50-300, I put that to the test on hikes with the 16-45, changing the lenses back and forth and decided they were both awkward to handle while doing that. I bought the Tamron 17-50 in the hope that it was easier to change back and forth with the 50-300 than the Pentax 16-45 had been, but . . .

Then I ran across the article describing in asides how the DFA 28-105 was very good on APS/C cameras; so I bought one. I did try the Tamron 17-50 on the hike with the 28-105, but the little lock switch rubbed against one of my fingers when I was using the K-70. I later tested the 17-50 with my K3 and there is enough space such that the switch doesn't rub against my finger.
...
Lawrence
Click to expand...
Lawrence,

Yes, I fully understand your needs, as they are very similar to mine. Basically, when going around in the nature I have a need for any focal length, in the terms of a full frame (FF or 24mm x 36mm or 135 film format :-) ), between 24 mm way up to 300-400mm. That's why I suggested a combination of the DA 16-45 and DA 50-300. The 28-105 lens has in my opinion "unfortunate" zoom range, neither short enough, nor long enough. I personally hate changing lenses on a go. That's why, if I go "outside" I take just one lens (with one camera), as I keep my "long" zoom, the SMC Pentax-A 70-210/4 permanently on my old K-x and the DA 16-45/4 on the K-S1. Occasionally I take with myself one of the two macro lenses, the DA 35/2,8 Macro Ltd., or Tamron 90/2.8 Macro. However, very often I regret that I didn't take "the other" camera/lens with myself. So, that's why I think that the combo I am suggesting might be an optimal solution. Just you need to carry 2 lenses. Frankly speaking, even though I am very satisfied with the performance of my Pentax gear, I regret that I didn't pursue some other type of camera, which would have "everything" in one package. So, would I be happier with a camera like Panasonic FZ1000, or a Canon M5? Difficult to say...
 
flektogon said:
Historicity said:
Alex Sarbu said:
flektogon said:
Lawrence,

I've never handled the Pentax 28-105, but as it is a full FF lens, it has to be large and heavy to be used on hiking. As you already have the DA 16-45, I would recommend to add to the DA 50-300 (original or the newest, KAF4 version) lens, and you are ready to go around the world :-) .
Click to expand...
It has to be? :-)

It's slightly heavier (440g vs. 356g), has a slightly larger diameter (73mm vs. 72mm) and it's shorter (87mm vs. 92mm) compared to the DA 16-45. And how about comparing it with the 16-85? The D FA is lighter and smaller.

Alex
Click to expand...
...

And Peter, in regard to the 50-300, I put that to the test on hikes with the 16-45, changing the lenses back and forth and decided they were both awkward to handle while doing that. I bought the Tamron 17-50 in the hope that it was easier to change back and forth with the 50-300 than the Pentax 16-45 had been, but . . .

Then I ran across the article describing in asides how the DFA 28-105 was very good on APS/C cameras; so I bought one. I did try the Tamron 17-50 on the hike with the 28-105, but the little lock switch rubbed against one of my fingers when I was using the K-70. I later tested the 17-50 with my K3 and there is enough space such that the switch doesn't rub against my finger.

...

Lawrence
Click to expand...
Lawrence,

Yes, I fully understand your needs, as they are very similar to mine. Basically, when going around in the nature I have a need for any focal length, in the terms of a full frame (FF or 24mm x 36mm or 135 film format :-) ), between 24 mm way up to 300-400mm. That's why I suggested a combination of the DA 16-45 and DA 50-300. The 28-105 lens has in my opinion "unfortunate" zoom range, neither short enough, nor long enough. I personally hate changing lenses on a go. That's why, if I go "outside" I take just one lens (with one camera), as I keep my "long" zoom, the SMC Pentax-A 70-210/4 permanently on my old K-x and the DA 16-45/4 on the K-S1. Occasionally I take with myself one of the two macro lenses, the DA 35/2,8 Macro Ltd., or Tamron 90/2.8 Macro. However, very often I regret that I didn't take "the other" camera/lens with myself. So, that's why I think that the combo I am suggesting might be an optimal solution. Just you need to carry 2 lenses. Frankly speaking, even though I am very satisfied with the performance of my Pentax gear, I regret that I didn't pursue some other type of camera, which would have "everything" in one package. So, would I be happier with a camera like Panasonic FZ1000, or a Canon M5? Difficult to say...
Click to expand...
 
Historicity said:
flektogon said:
Historicity said:
Alex Sarbu said:
flektogon said:
Lawrence,

I've never handled the Pentax 28-105, but as it is a full FF lens, it has to be large and heavy to be used on hiking. As you already have the DA 16-45, I would recommend to add to the DA 50-300 (original or the newest, KAF4 version) lens, and you are ready to go around the world :-) .
Click to expand...
It has to be? :-)

It's slightly heavier (440g vs. 356g), has a slightly larger diameter (73mm vs. 72mm) and it's shorter (87mm vs. 92mm) compared to the DA 16-45. And how about comparing it with the 16-85? The D FA is lighter and smaller.

Alex
Click to expand...
...

And Peter, in regard to the 50-300, I put that to the test on hikes with the 16-45, changing the lenses back and forth and decided they were both awkward to handle while doing that. I bought the Tamron 17-50 in the hope that it was easier to change back and forth with the 50-300 than the Pentax 16-45 had been, but . . .

Then I ran across the article describing in asides how the DFA 28-105 was very good on APS/C cameras; so I bought one. I did try the Tamron 17-50 on the hike with the 28-105, but the little lock switch rubbed against one of my fingers when I was using the K-70. I later tested the 17-50 with my K3 and there is enough space such that the switch doesn't rub against my finger.

...

Lawrence
Click to expand...
Lawrence,

Yes, I fully understand your needs, as they are very similar to mine. Basically, when going around in the nature I have a need for any focal length, in the terms of a full frame (FF or 24mm x 36mm or 135 film format :-) ), between 24 mm way up to 300-400mm. That's why I suggested a combination of the DA 16-45 and DA 50-300. The 28-105 lens has in my opinion "unfortunate" zoom range, neither short enough, nor long enough. I personally hate changing lenses on a go. That's why, if I go "outside" I take just one lens (with one camera), as I keep my "long" zoom, the SMC Pentax-A 70-210/4 permanently on my old K-x and the DA 16-45/4 on the K-S1. Occasionally I take with myself one of the two macro lenses, the DA 35/2,8 Macro Ltd., or Tamron 90/2.8 Macro. However, very often I regret that I didn't take "the other" camera/lens with myself. So, that's why I think that the combo I am suggesting might be an optimal solution. Just you need to carry 2 lenses. Frankly speaking, even though I am very satisfied with the performance of my Pentax gear, I regret that I didn't pursue some other type of camera, which would have "everything" in one package. So, would I be happier with a camera like Panasonic FZ1000, or a Canon M5? Difficult to say...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Historicity said:
Peter,

The previous note was dashed off because my dogs were pestering me to feed them. After that was taken care of I read some more reviews and still think the 18-250 a good choice -- if you can find a good copy. There are a couple of Pentax SLR threads on the 18-250. One comparing the Pentax 18-250 with the Sigma 18-250 was interesting. I was especially impressed with the comments of Priscilla Turner. Here is one of them: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54372464

And, as so often happens, and accounts to some extent for my large collection of glass, after reading reviews and comments such as Turner's I bought a copy on eBay which the seller claimed to be ex ++. If it's not I shall be sure to send it right back, but I hope that it is. :-)

Lawrence
Click to expand...
Hi Lawrence,

No, I not going to spend any more money on the Pentax (or any other) photographic gear. Simply, I can't afford it. Definitely not from my "great" pension and I do not believe in winning lottery :-( .

But as I am going basically to the same places over and over, so one day, when I take a macro lens for example, I concentrate only on taking macro pictures. The next time when I take the 70-210/4 lens, I am aiming for some birds and so on, i.e. on the subjects for which such a long lens is suitable. However, if I could turn the time 10 years back, i.e. to when I bought my Pentax, well, actually I am not sure whether I wouldn't end up again with the same gear. 10 years ago it wasn't too much to choose from. Only in the recent years some really good (i.e. practical for my purpose) mirror-less cameras have appeared. But when you get the DA (or Sigma) 18-250, let us know how it performs. I am just curious, because I don't believe that a lens with a zoom 1:14 (for such a large sensor) can perform well.
 
flektogon said:
Historicity said:
Peter,

The previous note was dashed off because my dogs were pestering me to feed them. After that was taken care of I read some more reviews and still think the 18-250 a good choice -- if you can find a good copy. There are a couple of Pentax SLR threads on the 18-250. One comparing the Pentax 18-250 with the Sigma 18-250 was interesting. I was especially impressed with the comments of Priscilla Turner. Here is one of them: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54372464

And, as so often happens, and accounts to some extent for my large collection of glass, after reading reviews and comments such as Turner's I bought a copy on eBay which the seller claimed to be ex ++. If it's not I shall be sure to send it right back, but I hope that it is. :-)

Lawrence
Click to expand...
Hi Lawrence,

No, I not going to spend any more money on the Pentax (or any other) photographic gear. Simply, I can't afford it. Definitely not from my "great" pension and I do not believe in winning lottery :-( .

But as I am going basically to the same places over and over, so one day, when I take a macro lens for example, I concentrate only on taking macro pictures. The next time when I take the 70-210/4 lens, I am aiming for some birds and so on, i.e. on the subjects for which such a long lens is suitable. However, if I could turn the time 10 years back, i.e. to when I bought my Pentax, well, actually I am not sure whether I wouldn't end up again with the same gear. 10 years ago it wasn't too much to choose from. Only in the recent years some really good (i.e. practical for my purpose) mirror-less cameras have appeared. But when you get the DA (or Sigma) 18-250, let us know how it performs. I am just curious, because I don't believe that a lens with a zoom 1:14 (for such a large sensor) can perform well.
Click to expand...
 
Historicity said:
I think I said elsewhere that DXO rated the 18-250 as having slightly better sharpness than the 55-300. Of these two super zooms, the latter zooms through a slightly greater range than the former.

Lawrence
Click to expand...
The term "super zoom" typically refers to a lens, like the 18-250, that begins at at the wide end of normal and progresses through to a tele long end. Super zooms also offer a large multiple of the of the wide end, nearly 14x for the 18-250. By contrast, a typical tele zoom runs from a short to a long telephoto but without a "normal" or wide range and with a relatively modest multiple ratio: the 55-300 is a little over 5x which is a slightly greater ratio than the standard 70-300 produced by virtually everyone. While super zooms featuring a 10+ multiple are typically compromises that sacrifice overall acuity for range, the 18-250 is surprisingly good at both ends. Now if Pentax would re-release it as HD and WR, I'll bet they would have a strong seller.
 
klimbkat said:
While super zooms featuring a 10+ multiple are typically compromises that sacrifice overall acuity for range, the 18-250 is surprisingly good at both ends. Now if Pentax would re-release it as HD and WR, I'll bet they would have a strong seller.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
Zoom vs Prime Focal Length Playing with Lens Comparisons.
Replies
1
Views
377
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Ian Stuart Forsyth
G
Rocky Mountain National Park my Cameras/Lens Best Choice for Hikes
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
rashid7
rashid7
P
Adaptall on Pentax
Replies
19
Views
1K
kypfer
K
K
Replacement for tamron 28-75 2.8 ii?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Impulses
I
W
Trying to find the cause of focus problems 5dmkii and 6D
Replies
10
Views
104
AmatureMic
A

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