Need help selecting lens for new pentax KP

Hey guys and gals,

Hoping I could get some discussion/debate on where I should go lens wise. I am a amateur in some need of lessons but I have enjoyed slowly learning on my own too I suppose.

Anyway I am upgrading from a k20 to the KP this week and of course I have been reading about lenses lenses lenses.

Currently have a 1.9 43mm (64.5mm on my APS-C) limited which spends the most time on the camera. I also have a Tamron XR di II 17-50 which I almost never use because honestly the color seems very dull (I wonder in hindsight if I had a defective lens). Finally I have a SMC pentax DA 1:4 300mm.

As you can see by my choices over the past 8-10 years I have been mostly winging it. I have a baby coming in Feb and I am excited to use the KP for some pics and videos (yes I am aware video on KP is reportedly mediocre).

Anyway I would love to get a heated discussion on what the next lens I should buy would be.

My inclination currently is the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 macro. My thoughts are the 53.5mm would be more of a "normal" lens and I do enjoy shooting flowers and would enjoy macro (with the understanding that I need to get super close on this guy to use macro).

My questions are

1. Is the 53.5 too close to the 64.5mm equivalent I already have to justify purchasing? If so then what would be a better choice?

2. Any idea why I had no luck with the Tamron? Any suggestions on what to do with?

3. What other lens should I consider? Obviously the 2.8 70-200 zoom would cover a lot of ground for me but yikes its expensive and so big- I am already schlepping around the 300 which i do enjoy btw. Fun to try to get birds though obviously 400+ would have been more ideal.

Thanks for any help and remember I am an amateur so I appreciate any help no matter how basic!

RosieSC said:

Hey guys and gals,

Hoping I could get some discussion/debate on where I should go lens wise. I am a amateur in some need of lessons but I have enjoyed slowly learning on my own too I suppose.

Anyway I am upgrading from a k20 to the KP this week and of course I have been reading about lenses lenses lenses.

Currently have a 1.9 43mm (64.5mm on my APS-C) limited which spends the most time on the camera. I also have a Tamron XR di II 17-50 which I almost never use because honestly the color seems very dull (I wonder in hindsight if I had a defective lens). Finally I have a SMC pentax DA 1:4 300mm.

As you can see by my choices over the past 8-10 years I have been mostly winging it. I have a baby coming in Feb and I am excited to use the KP for some pics and videos (yes I am aware video on KP is reportedly mediocre).

Anyway I would love to get a heated discussion on what the next lens I should buy would be.

My inclination currently is the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 macro. My thoughts are the 53.5mm would be more of a "normal" lens and I do enjoy shooting flowers and would enjoy macro (with the understanding that I need to get super close on this guy to use macro).

My questions are

1. Is the 53.5 too close to the 64.5mm equivalent I already have to justify purchasing? If so then what would be a better choice?

2. Any idea why I had no luck with the Tamron? Any suggestions on what to do with?

3. What other lens should I consider? Obviously the 2.8 70-200 zoom would cover a lot of ground for me but yikes its expensive and so big- I am already schlepping around the 300 which i do enjoy btw. Fun to try to get birds though obviously 400+ would have been more ideal.

Thanks for any help and remember I am an amateur so I appreciate any help no matter how basic!

Click to expand...

My DA 20-40 is my most used lens on my KP. It would replace your Tamron which you could sell as you don't seem to like it.

Or, you have a gap between your FA 43 and your DA 300. A DFA 100 Macro? Or a DA 55-300?

Doug

p.s., I suspect that you conversion to FF "equivalents" will draw comments ;-) Actually it already has since I commented on it!

RosieSC said:

My questions are

1. Is the 53.5 too close to the 64.5mm equivalent I already have to justify purchasing? If so then what would be a better choice?

Click to expand...

First - to not make Doug wait - why are you doing conversions? The focal length of a lens doesn't change regardless of the camera you're using it on, and it's the same if the lens sits on a shelf. You're not doing any inter-format comparison here.

I cannot answer if 35mm is too close to 43mm, that depends on you - had you ever thought of your 43mm as a bit too narrow? But I liked my 35mm f/2.8 macro a lot. Just don't expect fast focusing - it's a macro after all; and take care of that lens cap, it will fall down as soon as you blink.

Be aware that while it's a genuine macro lens (can go to 1:1), in practice it's better suited as a close-up lens - because the working distances are getting really short. Flowers and inanimate objects should be OK; insects, nope.

RosieSC said:

2. Any idea why I had no luck with the Tamron? Any suggestions on what to do with?

Click to expand...

Sorry, no.

I actually cannot offer any advise regarding 3rd-party lenses (except maybe that's currently a weak spot of Pentax)

RosieSC said:

3. What other lens should I consider? Obviously the 2.8 70-200 zoom would cover a lot of ground for me but yikes its expensive and so big- I am already schlepping around the 300 which i do enjoy btw. Fun to try to get birds though obviously 400+ would have been more ideal.

Click to expand...

What are you missing? My advice is: don't buy anything until you know why you're missing it. It's a most cost effective strategy.

For birds on a budget you might try a 1.4x RC with your 300mm, if you're fine with its AF speed. Obviously the D FA 150-450 would be a better choice, but it's even larger than the D FA* 70-200mm. How serious are you about birding?

How about the wide end?

RosieSC said:

Thanks for any help and remember I am an amateur so I appreciate any help no matter how basic!

Click to expand...

Have fun,

Alex

I think the 35mm macro will be too close to the 43 to notice much difference.

So, unless you also want it for its macro capabilities, I wouldn't get it.

Instead, replace the Tamrom zoom by the very good 18-135mm zoom.

While it is not a fast aperture lens (3.5 to 5.6 I think) it iS fast in focusing and its zoom range is ideal for phograping children, either inside or out. It is also not heavy, and weather-proof.

I have used it for years on my K3, made thousands of shots of the grandchlidren, it was my favourite walk-about lens, on the bodu at least 70% of the time ...

Regards, JvW

My default lens for my own new KP is, you guessed it, the 43. Match made in heaven as far as I am concerned.

Flowers /garden macro in general is one if my main interests, and while I have the 35 and find it an excellent lens, my go to for that job will always be the D/FA 100mm f/2.8 WR macro. It's a first class macro lens that ably doubles as an all purpose tele, portrait lens, etc.

I don't know if mine is a particularly nice copy, but from what I've seen they're all good. Probably my favorite lens for my Pentax kit (although the 43 is growing on me), and one of my top 5 lenses ever.

I think if you want to put it in a KP, it will take the biggest grip. In my case, I got the KP so I could use other lenses sometimes-- the 100mm macro is pretty much glued to my K-5IIS.

35 mm makes little difference, you better go to 30 (Sigma) or 31 (Pentax) for a more natural angle. For more flexibility you may consider the 16-85, keeping the 43 mm for lower light cases.

What is wrong with the Tamron nobody knows, maybe your white-balance gets off by unexpected spectrum components ? Try to adjust saturation and white balance in raw, if that does not help, certainly something is wrong with that lens.

And yes, the 100 mm macro is just harmonically in-between the 300 mm and the 43 mm (factor of 2.5 resp factor 3 difference).

RosieSC said:

Hey guys and gals,

Hoping I could get some discussion/debate on where I should go lens wise. I am a amateur in some need of lessons but I have enjoyed slowly learning on my own too I suppose.

Anyway I am upgrading from a k20 to the KP this week and of course I have been reading about lenses lenses lenses.

Currently have a 1.9 43mm (64.5mm on my APS-C) limited which spends the most time on the camera. I also have a Tamron XR di II 17-50 which I almost never use because honestly the color seems very dull (I wonder in hindsight if I had a defective lens). Finally I have a SMC pentax DA 1:4 300mm.

As you can see by my choices over the past 8-10 years I have been mostly winging it. I have a baby coming in Feb and I am excited to use the KP for some pics and videos (yes I am aware video on KP is reportedly mediocre).

Anyway I would love to get a heated discussion on what the next lens I should buy would be.

My inclination currently is the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 macro. My thoughts are the 53.5mm would be more of a "normal" lens and I do enjoy shooting flowers and would enjoy macro (with the understanding that I need to get super close on this guy to use macro).

My questions are

1. Is the 53.5 too close to the 64.5mm equivalent I already have to justify purchasing? If so then what would be a better choice?

Click to expand...

This is something you have to answer for yourself, each person is different and therefore has different opinions as to what might be too much overlap. However if you're buying the 35 Ltd specifically for its macro feature then the focal length doesn't matter much.

RosieSC said:

2. Any idea why I had no luck with the Tamron? Any suggestions on what to do with?

Click to expand...

You don't get dull colours from a defective lens... shoot RAW and adjust the colours to your liking and then you can be happy with that lens.

RosieSC said:

3. What other lens should I consider? Obviously the 2.8 70-200 zoom would cover a lot of ground for me but yikes its expensive and so big- I am already schlepping around the 300 which i do enjoy btw. Fun to try to get birds though obviously 400+ would have been more ideal.

Click to expand...

There are other 70-200mm options, not all are F2.8, however if money is an issue look for a used Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 and you could be paying less than $1000 easily, there are other 70-200mm AF options for less than $200 but they aren't F2.8

RosieSC said:

Thanks for any help and remember I am an amateur so I appreciate any help no matter how basic!

Click to expand...

If you're going to photograph a child through their toddler years, speed of focussing is pretty important. They have a habit of moving around. Your FA43 will be wonderful for beautiful wide-aperture portraits when they're tired and remaining still.

I have never used it so I don't know about focussing speed with the DA16-50. I have a lot of luck (speed an accuracy) with an old SMC-F28mm f/2.8 on my K3 II. If you find an F28 or FA28 I'd recommend them. Maybe these full-frame lenses have got more expensive since the K1 came along.

There is a gap in the Pentax prime lineup between the DA35 Macro Limited (and the DA35 and FA35), which are too close to your 43mm, and the DA21. Perhaps the 20-40 is best, but the aperture isn't very wide. At least it is DC for fast focussing. Or try the 16-85 which is also DC. I haven't used either I'm afraid.

I have had the 100 macro (the D-FA non-WR version) but found it would often miss focus and take a long time to grind through the whole distance range before locking on. No good with a child in the picture. I now have the 55-300PLM which focusses very well and quickly.

Good luck and have fun

Paul

RosieSC said:

Hey guys and gals,

Hoping I could get some discussion/debate on where I should go lens wise. I am a amateur in some need of lessons but I have enjoyed slowly learning on my own too I suppose.

Anyway I am upgrading from a k20 to the KP this week and of course I have been reading about lenses lenses lenses.

Currently have a 1.9 43mm (64.5mm on my APS-C) limited which spends the most time on the camera. I also have a Tamron XR di II 17-50 which I almost never use because honestly the color seems very dull (I wonder in hindsight if I had a defective lens). Finally I have a SMC pentax DA 1:4 300mm.

As you can see by my choices over the past 8-10 years I have been mostly winging it. I have a baby coming in Feb and I am excited to use the KP for some pics and videos (yes I am aware video on KP is reportedly mediocre).

Anyway I would love to get a heated discussion on what the next lens I should buy would be.

My inclination currently is the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 macro. My thoughts are the 53.5mm would be more of a "normal" lens and I do enjoy shooting flowers and would enjoy macro (with the understanding that I need to get super close on this guy to use macro).

Click to expand...

I have it and use it on my K3. It is a very sharp general purpose lens, which AF ok on K3 though it is the old fashioned screwdriven AF.

As KP has the same AF engine than K3, should work the same or better on KP thanks to more advanced firmware and faster processor.

35mm on APS-C is roughly the angle of view people called "normal", which gives a natural looking perspective.

I dont shoot macro. I used the 35 macro for handheld close-ups, for instance flowers, and it does fine. Some samples from my son's gallery:



The DA35 is an outstanding landscape lens; here are links to samples from my son's public gallery:




I got also some pleasant keepers on moving targets in dim light:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/70066783@N06/24146826758/in/datetaken-ff/

The DA 35 does go to 1:1 ratio, which is real macro, but people on the web complain that the 35mm focal length is a little short fo macro, requiring to come very close to the subject.

Anyway for real macro, you cannot shoot handheld, it is like shooting very long telephoto, you better have a tripod and a static target.

I also have the DA35 f2.4, which is a much cheaper alternative, that came bundled with the K3; all plastic including the mount but optically quite good. But I much prefer shooting with the DA 35, though it is heavier. I like the machined metal barrel and the retractable built-in hood.

Among the lenses I own, all Pentax OEM, (my gear list is up to date), the most used are:

• DA 18-135 F3.5-5.6 a kind of swiss army knife lens which can handle most scenes, save long telephoto or large apertures. It is weather resistant, very compact, not too heavy, with a silent fast focusing in-lens motor. It is the lens I al ways take with me for travel and sight seeing. Here are a link to the review I posted on DPreview a few months ago, and some samples:

• DA 15mm f4 limited: a wonderful very wide angle, with outstanding contrast and resistance to flare in a very small body, thus easy to add to your bag. IMO, the best wide angle for landscapes. Here are some links to a few samples on my flickr gallery and my son's public gallery:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/70066783@N06/27669879201/in/datetaken-ff/

• DA 70 f2.4 limited: an excellent pancake portrait lens, with outstanding sharpness. Its very small size makes it both easy to carry and unobtrusive for the model, which thus feel more at ease. I did some pleasing snapshots portraits with it:
  
  
  

RosieSC said:

My questions are

1. Is the 53.5 too close to the 64.5mm equivalent I already have to justify purchasing? If so then what would be a better choice?

Click to expand...

I never handled the much praised FA43 limited; the lenses I have around this focal length are FA 50 f1.7 and DA 40 XS f2.8.

I like both of them, but of course, as 40 and 35 are very close. I tend to use more often the 40XS because it is so small I more often have it in my bag when traveling.

If you like the moderate wide angle of view of a smartphone, the DA21 f3.2 limited is another very nice pancake lens, which could complement your set on the wide side.

My son uses it a lot.

I have it but as I prefer the convenience of a zoom over the better IQ of a prime, I dont use it that much.

Here are links to some samples:

RosieSC said:

2. Any idea why I had no luck with the Tamron? Any suggestions on what to do with?

3. What other lens should I consider? Obviously the 2.8 70-200 zoom would cover a lot of ground for me but yikes its expensive and so big- I am already schlepping around the 300 which i do enjoy btw. Fun to try to get birds though obviously 400+ would have been more ideal.

Click to expand...

The 70-200 f2.8 is a full frame lens, overkill for an APS-C camera.

If you want a nice general purpose affordable and weather resistant compact telezoom, i recommand the DA 55-300. There are different versions, I have the screwdriven AF one, f3.5-5.6, which I bought for an african safari in 2016; the zoom range is very convenient and the size/weight is OK for handheld shooting:







There is a newer version which is just a little slower f4.5-6.3 but is more compact and has a much faster silent AF (but it was not available 2 years ago).

If you want a much better and sharper telezoom in this range, there is the DA 60-250 f4, which is a pro grade all weather lens, but of course more expensive and bigger/heavier.

RosieSC said:

Thanks for any help and remember I am an amateur so I appreciate any help no matter how basic!

Click to expand...

--
Tatouzou,

RosieSC said:

Hey guys and gals,

Anyway I would love to get a heated discussion on what the next lens I should buy would be.

My inclination currently is the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 macro. My thoughts are the 53.5mm would be more of a "normal" lens and I do enjoy shooting flowers and would enjoy macro (with the understanding that I need to get super close on this guy to use macro).

Click to expand...

I think the 35mm f/2.8 would be a bit slow for pics of children in two ways. Indoors, I'd like the aperture to open up to about f/2 so it is a bit slow exposure wise. And being a macro, the focus throw is long, and the AF correspondingly slow.

There are some K-mount that would fit the bill though. The Pentax 20-40 set to about 20mm and f/2.2 ish would work well, IMO. Also the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 set to a similar aperture could do fine. Neither lens is cheap, though.

Btw, your 300/4 is not a bad flower lens if you stand back a bit. Telephotos often work well for flower shots.

RosieSC said:

My questions are

1. Is the 53.5 too close to the 64.5mm equivalent I already have to justify purchasing? If so then what would be a better choice?

Click to expand...

How much room to stand back a bit?

RosieSC said:

2. Any idea why I had no luck with the Tamron? Any suggestions on what to do with?

Click to expand...

No.

RosieSC said:

3. What other lens should I consider? Obviously the 2.8 70-200 zoom would cover a lot of ground for me but yikes its expensive and so big- I am already schlepping around the 300 which i do enjoy btw. Fun to try to get birds though obviously 400+ would have been more ideal.

Thanks for any help and remember I am an amateur so I appreciate any help no matter how basic!

Click to expand...

These replies are fantastic. Learning a ton. Appreciate you guys and gals taking the time to respond!

RosieSC said:

Hey guys and gals,

Hoping I could get some discussion/debate on where I should go lens wise. I am a amateur in some need of lessons but I have enjoyed slowly learning on my own too I suppose.

Anyway I am upgrading from a k20 to the KP this week and of course I have been reading about lenses lenses lenses.

Currently have a 1.9 43mm (64.5mm on my APS-C) limited which spends the most time on the camera. I also have a Tamron XR di II 17-50 which I almost never use because honestly the color seems very dull (I wonder in hindsight if I had a defective lens). Finally I have a SMC pentax DA 1:4 300mm.

As you can see by my choices over the past 8-10 years I have been mostly winging it. I have a baby coming in Feb and I am excited to use the KP for some pics and videos (yes I am aware video on KP is reportedly mediocre).

Anyway I would love to get a heated discussion on what the next lens I should buy would be.

My inclination currently is the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 macro. My thoughts are the 53.5mm would be more of a "normal" lens and I do enjoy shooting flowers and would enjoy macro (with the understanding that I need to get super close on this guy to use macro).

My questions are

1. Is the 53.5 too close to the 64.5mm equivalent I already have to justify purchasing? If so then what would be a better choice?

2. Any idea why I had no luck with the Tamron? Any suggestions on what to do with?

3. What other lens should I consider? Obviously the 2.8 70-200 zoom would cover a lot of ground for me but yikes its expensive and so big- I am already schlepping around the 300 which i do enjoy btw. Fun to try to get birds though obviously 400+ would have been more ideal.

Thanks for any help and remember I am an amateur so I appreciate any help no matter how basic!

Click to expand...

Rosie,

I have the Tamron 17-50 and it is fine, but then I shoot in Raw. I can't really tell any difference between the Tamron 17-50, Pentax 18-135 and Pentax 16-85. They are all good. Since you shoot in Jpeg and not in Raw, you should experiment with the in-camera settings. They will permit you to change the colors and brighten them.

I have the 35mm 2.8 macro. It's an excellent lens & since you are leaning that way -- if I were leaning that way, I'd go ahead and get it.

Actually a zoom is probably going to be more useful when your toddler is all over the place. If you can't make the Tamron 17-50 work, then the 18-135 is an excellent choice. The 16-85 might have the edge for a pixel peeper, but day in and day out I couldn't say that I've gotten better shots with the 16-85.

The Sigma 17-50 for Pentax has a strong following here. I chose the Tamron 17-50 because I use it on hikes and the reviews suggest that it has the edge for hikes. But for portrait-type shooting; which is what you'll be doing a lot of, you should consider the Sigma 17-50. Read some reviews and you'll see what I mean.

There is also the Pentax 16-45; which is out of production. But it is possible to get a good copy if you have experience in the used (eBay, etc) market. That's where I got mine and it definitely holds its own against the Tamron & Sigma 17-50's & the Pentax 18-135 & 16-85. Still, with your baby coming and with the attendant need for a lot of portraits, if I were starting from scratch, I'd get the Sigma 17-50.

Lawrence

RosieSC said:

My questions are

1. Is the 53.5 too close to the 64.5mm equivalent I already have to justify purchasing? If so then what would be a better choice?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think the FOV of the DA35 is too close to the FA43, and it's also a very slow focusing lens (although great optics). I think the DA21 Limited would be a better, more complimentary choice. It's a bit on the slow side at f3.2, but it focuses fast and close, and the high ISO capability of the KP should allow you to use it indoors wide open.

RosieSC said:

2. Any idea why I had no luck with the Tamron? Any suggestions on what to do with?

Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's reported to be a good lens, I don't know what's going on there. I have the Sigma equivalent (17-50/2.8) and it's excellent but a bit large.

RosieSC said:

3. What other lens should I consider? Obviously the 2.8 70-200 zoom would cover a lot of ground for me but yikes its expensive and so big- I am already schlepping around the 300 which i do enjoy btw. Fun to try to get birds though obviously 400+ would have been more ideal.

Click to expand...

Someone in this thread mentioned the DA20-40, I think that's an excellent choice as well (although I don't own one).

thanks, i do shoot RAW but since i mentioned color being the issue I understand why that would be confusing. I am going to do some testing with tamron to see what it is that I am so disappointed in- using K20D now perhaps with KP will have more luck.

Sigma 17-50 HSM F2.8 for faster focusing on baby than the Tamron.

Pentax 55-300 PLM for birding and other action shots.

Joey

Petroglyph said:

RosieSC said:

Hey guys and gals,

Anyway I would love to get a heated discussion on what the next lens I should buy would be.

My inclination currently is the Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 macro. My thoughts are the 53.5mm would be more of a "normal" lens and I do enjoy shooting flowers and would enjoy macro (with the understanding that I need to get super close on this guy to use macro).

Click to expand...

I think the 35mm f/2.8 would be a bit slow for pics of children in two ways. Indoors, I'd like the aperture to open up to about f/2 so it is a bit slow exposure wise. And being a macro, the focus throw is long, and the AF correspondingly slow.

There are some K-mount that would fit the bill though. The Pentax 20-40 set to about 20mm and f/2.2 ish would work well, IMO. Also the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 set to a similar aperture could do fine. Neither lens is cheap, though.

Btw, your 300/4 is not a bad flower lens if you stand back a bit. Telephotos often work well for flower shots.

Petroglyph said:

My questions are

1. Is the 53.5 too close to the 64.5mm equivalent I already have to justify purchasing? If so then what would be a better choice?

Click to expand...

How much room to stand back a bit?

Petroglyph said:

2. Any idea why I had no luck with the Tamron? Any suggestions on what to do with?

Click to expand...

No.

Petroglyph said:

3. What other lens should I consider? Obviously the 2.8 70-200 zoom would cover a lot of ground for me but yikes its expensive and so big- I am already schlepping around the 300 which i do enjoy btw. Fun to try to get birds though obviously 400+ would have been more ideal.

Thanks for any help and remember I am an amateur so I appreciate any help no matter how basic!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Petroglyph, when you say pentax 20-40 are you referring to the DA 20-40 f2.8-4?

Thanks

LightBug said:

Sigma 17-50 HSM F2.8 for faster focusing on baby than the Tamron.

Pentax 55-300 PLM for birding and other action shots.

Joey

Click to expand...

If you like F2.8, you could also get the Sigma 50-150 HSM II which I personally use. It’s not too big, a bit more money than the Pentax PLM 55-300.

I got mine used on www.pentaxforums.com. You should visit there too in future so you can get more info on lenses and get access to its marketplace.

Hi RosieSC,

As you are looking forward to have a baby in the near future, I would strongly recommend an (extended) standard zoom with fast AF (in addition to your 35 macro and the 43mm ltd). Try to trade in / sell your Tamron and look for

HD PENTAX-DA 16-85mm f/3,5~5,6 ED DC WR

weatherproof, versatile, good image quality, not very fast, macro up to 0,26x

Sigma 17-50mm F2,8 EX DC HSM

regarding the price, a no-brainer with excellent image quality , fast, a bit bulky, macro up to 0,2x.

Sigma 17-70mm F2,8-4 DC Makro OS HSM Contemporary

the one between the two above, macro up to 0,36x

I have the Sigma 17-50, as my alway-on lens and the Pentax 18-135 as bad weather and walk around lens. I would not by the 18-135 again for its IQ, if there is any possibility to trade it against a 16-85 I do it immediately.

I hope this will help you. Try to chill a lot the next weeks, all the best for the childbirth and a wonderful time with you baby.

Have a nice day

Albert

RosieSC said:

Petroglyph said:

I think the 35mm f/2.8 would be a bit slow for pics of children in two ways. Indoors, I'd like the aperture to open up to about f/2 so it is a bit slow exposure wise. And being a macro, the focus throw is long, and the AF correspondingly slow.

There are some K-mount that would fit the bill though. The Pentax 20-40 set to about 20mm and f/2.2 ish would work well, IMO. Also the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 set to a similar aperture could do fine. Neither lens is cheap, though.

Btw, your 300/4 is not a bad flower lens if you stand back a bit. Telephotos often work well for flower shots.

RosieSC said:

My questions are

1. Is the 53.5 too close to the 64.5mm equivalent I already have to justify purchasing? If so then what would be a better choice?

Click to expand...

How much room to stand back a bit?

RosieSC said:

2. Any idea why I had no luck with the Tamron? Any suggestions on what to do with?

Click to expand...

No.

RosieSC said:

3. What other lens should I consider? Obviously the 2.8 70-200 zoom would cover a lot of ground for me but yikes its expensive and so big- I am already schlepping around the 300 which i do enjoy btw. Fun to try to get birds though obviously 400+ would have been more ideal.

Thanks for any help and remember I am an amateur so I appreciate any help no matter how basic!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Petroglyph, when you say pentax 20-40 are you referring to the DA 20-40 f2.8-4?

Click to expand...

Yes, he is (it is the only 20-40 lens out there AFAIK.

I also have the DA 16-85, which I also like. It focuses fast. Compared to the 20-40 it is obviously a wider range, but slower aperture and bigger & heavier. On option with trade-offs.

Doug

Perhaps the excellent contrast and saturation of the FA43 is making the Tamron look bad? If you always compare things to that lens, that's a very high bar...

I'd say the 16-85 or 20-40 make the most sense given what your goal is. But try to give the Tamron another go - by most accounts it's a very good lens (with a different color profile than the FA43 - seems to be warmer than the FA43 which has greens and blues that just pop).