$4500 or £2500 for basic *istD system?

*isteve · Jul 2, 2004

Hi Alan, the 55-200 seems to work OK as a walkabout lens without a tripod as long as theres plenty of light - the clean ISO400 helps a lot here as you can usually keep the shutter speed above 1/250. The fact that its so tiny means the camera (with grip) is not unbalanced by the lens which does help.

CRV3's are simply great, but they are much easier to fit in the grip than the body - they are slightly tight in the body and its quite tough to close the battery door. Another good reason to buy the grip? I'm up to 1200 shots now with no signs of power loss and they dont lose charge if you leave them in the cam. For £15 a go they are not really that expensive (if you can afford the camera...) plus I managed to find quite a few stores that stocked them in Italy and France. On a recent Venice trip I just plugged them back in (they had taken about 600 shots before I switched to NIMH) and I left them in the cam for the rest of the trip taking another 500 shots. Had spares of course, just didnt need them.

As far as the lens for group shots goes, I think the 16-45 should do. 16 is around 25mm whereas 45 equates to about 70mm which is OK for a single portrait.The 50 1.7 will give you a nice 75mm portrait lens with two extra stops. The 360FGZ with the diffuser can also cover pretty decent wide-angles but may not be powerful enough for large group shots. Mind you it seems to work OK in my living room at full wide at roughly 15 feet. A lot of guys here swear by the Metz flash though.

As to memory cards, I find 1GB cards are cheaper than 2 500MB ones so I stick to those. Will take about 70 RAW shots or 400 JPEGs.
Steve

Alan Owen said:
Many thanks for your remarks. Yes, weight is an important
consideration here. How do you find the 55-200? Do you experience
camera shake at all or use a tripod?

I have a feeling that my wife will go for the grip as she does
shoot in portrait mode. I liked your comment about CRV3 batteries.
To be honest, I forgot about these and was pleased for you to
remind me. They seem to be about £7.50 each??? Also, you're
absolutely right about the Microdrive.

On a final note, as I said elsewhere, there is a need to shoot
indoors (and outdoors at night) when there will be a need to shoot
small and large groups plus individuals in varying light
conditions. Have you any thoughts on whether I am missing a lens or
need to consider an alternative?

Thanks once again.

Best,
Alan

*isteve said:

Alan, after a few swaps I ended up with almost the same kit with
the addition of the 70-300 Sigma APO macro and a second hand 77LTD
for portrait work. I dont own the 50 F1.7 but its a fine lens and
would do as well as the LTD.
When travelling I take the 16-45 and 55-200 - a very compact
combination considering it covers 24-300mm on the camera. The grip
I like because I do a lot of portrait mode shooting and it does
make the camera more stable. However when travelling I leave the
charger and the NiMH's at home and just take a spare set of CR3Vs
or two. These last such a long time (well over 1000 shots) and I
dont have to worry about the charger or finding compatible socket
adapters etc. This leaves me carrying everything in a Lowepro
Toploader 65 AW and a small lens case.
Would advise more memory though. I hardly use microdrives any more
because of the speed and energy consumption but the 1GM solid state
cards are pretty cheap now. If you shoot any RAW pics you will
definately want a few of those or an image tank.
Steve

Click to expand...

Patrick T. Kelly · Jul 2, 2004

I don't use the cable release daily but for longer exposures it's great and at $15 it's not a big deal.

On th Pentax, the 50mm f/1.4 you're getting is around 75mm equivalent and is a decent portrait lens. It will be a little long for some group shots but then you have the 16-45.

Barry Pendergast · Jul 2, 2004

I have a 20 year old Pentax 70-210 f4 autofocus - works wonderfuly on the *ist - that and a 50 F1.7 are my best lenses!

Alan Owen · Jul 2, 2004

Patrick T. Kelly said:
I don't use the cable release daily but for longer exposures it's
great and at $15 it's not a big deal.

On th Pentax, the 50mm f/1.4 you're getting is around 75mm
equivalent and is a decent portrait lens. It will be a little long
for some group shots but then you have the 16-45.

Alan Owen · Jul 2, 2004

Hi Steve,

Thanks once again for a very useful response. I've just put a tick against the battery grip and CRV3s. Also, I agree with the need to get 1GB memory cards. So, that's another tick.

All in all, I'm pretty confident about the 16-45, 50 f1.4 and 55-200.

Best,
Alan

*isteve said:
Hi Alan, the 55-200 seems to work OK as a walkabout lens without a
tripod as long as theres plenty of light - the clean ISO400 helps a
lot here as you can usually keep the shutter speed above 1/250. The
fact that its so tiny means the camera (with grip) is not
unbalanced by the lens which does help.
CRV3's are simply great, but they are much easier to fit in the
grip than the body - they are slightly tight in the body and its
quite tough to close the battery door. Another good reason to buy
the grip? I'm up to 1200 shots now with no signs of power loss and
they dont lose charge if you leave them in the cam. For £15 a go
they are not really that expensive (if you can afford the
camera...) plus I managed to find quite a few stores that stocked
them in Italy and France. On a recent Venice trip I just plugged
them back in (they had taken about 600 shots before I switched to
NIMH) and I left them in the cam for the rest of the trip taking
another 500 shots. Had spares of course, just didnt need them.
As far as the lens for group shots goes, I think the 16-45 should
do. 16 is around 25mm whereas 45 equates to about 70mm which is OK
for a single portrait.The 50 1.7 will give you a nice 75mm
portrait lens with two extra stops. The 360FGZ with the diffuser
can also cover pretty decent wide-angles but may not be powerful
enough for large group shots. Mind you it seems to work OK in my
living room at full wide at roughly 15 feet. A lot of guys here
swear by the Metz flash though.
As to memory cards, I find 1GB cards are cheaper than 2 500MB ones
so I stick to those. Will take about 70 RAW shots or 400 JPEGs.
Steve

Alan Owen · Jul 2, 2004

Hi Barry,

Thanks for your comments. The 70-210 f4 certainly seems to be getting the thumbs up here. This is the last lens that we need, so maybe we'll sit back and give this some thought.

The 1.7 also has its supporters but I'm going for the 1.4.

Barry, thanks once again for your thoughts. This is a wonderful forum.

Best,
Alan

Barry Pendergast said:
I have a 20 year old Pentax 70-210 f4 autofocus - works wonderfuly
on the *ist - that and a 50 F1.7 are my best lenses!

Brett St Pierre · Jul 3, 2004

Alan Owen said:
Also, as my wife is looking for lenses to cover indoor (and
outdoor) shots of individuals, groups of people when sometimes the
lighting is not great or a typical event, pub, indoor office
situation, have you any thoughts on the best combination of lenses.
For example, would the 16-45 + 50 f1.4 + flash cover these
requirements?

Alan Owen said:

Best,

Click to expand...

Alan

Alan, for low light photography (eg. indoors available light) the 50/1.4 naturally is invaluable, but the depth of field is very obviously quite narrow (I calculate 50mm on *istD at f1.4, focus point 1 metre = DOF 2.1cm!) but can create good portraits. Here are a couple of indoor examples with both the DA16-45 and SMC-A 50/1.4: http://www.pbase.com/shreder/gabriel .

The last photo is with the Sigma DG500 Super flash which will give you the idea of decent off camera flash.

Cheers,
Brett

richardday · Jul 3, 2004

Alan Owen said:
Richard,

I'm definitely getting the 16-45 but noticed that you thought the
Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4 Di was good. Have you compared these lenses?

Also, as my wife is looking for lenses to cover indoor (and
outdoor) shots of individuals, groups of people when sometimes the
lighting is not great or a typical event, pub, indoor office
situation, have you any thoughts on the best combination of lenses.
For example, would the 16-45 + 50 f1.4 + flash cover these
requirements?

The 55-200 was chosen purely for the additional reach and flexibility.

Appreciate any comments on offer.

Best,
Alan

--
Hi Alan

I tried both a few days ago. The Tamron won for sharpness and low distortion and also is useful for full frame as well. The Pentax won for colour, slightly better flare control and a tad longer reach, I didn't notice much difference at the wide end. Disconcerting that it zoomed out for WA, a bit odd that, I guess I could get used to it. I also like the fact that if I'm forced to go ultra wide I can still use the Tamron 17mm with my MZ-S. However, neither lens shouted out "buy me!", so I didn't (the Tamron was closest).

With the 400ASA setting in the *istD being so usable, I'm waiting to play with a Sigma 12-24/f4.5 - somehow I feel that may be the way to go for ultra WA in digital (and full frame too as a bonus) for the moment. A BIG lens though. I will post my feelings when I've had the chance to try one out.

I am concious that full frame sensors will be here someday, I like to think I can keep my better lenses for that day! Investing higher money into APS only lenses when I can get good cheapies like the Sigma pair and mentally discard that money in the future if neccessary, is more attractive.

I personally love my prime Pentax FA 24/f2.0 which is a beautiful fast lens, full frame capable and also affordable, at least in the USA where I bought mine for $370/£210, impossible to find one here iin the UK - even Pentax UK have to bring one in if you want one! - I normally keep this lens on my *istD as it equates to 35mm in full frame, which is my favourite "standard".

The other Pentax primes which have that "I want one" appeal" are

FA 35mm/f2.0, FA 50/f1.4, FA 85/f1.4 - The ltd lenses also have that gorgeous precision feeling as well as being optically excellent especially the 77mm/f1.8.

As far as quality zooms go, the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 and the Sigma 75-200/f2.8 are the ones in my book.

When I travel VERY light I fit the *istD, the Sigma pair, spare batteries, spare CF card, Cokin P holder, two grey grads and polariser and a Pentax micro-fibre cloth into a Lowepro Novo Mini bag - and I squeeze my Gitzo Rocket blower (A MUST!) under the front flap. All up weight 2.2 kgs!

When I travel ordinarily I use a Lowepro Omni traveller, with the *istD with 24/f2, the Sigma pair, my FA 50/f2.8 macro, Tamron 70-300 LD Macro, Metz MZ-54 flash (my favourite flashguns), filters, batts, CF cards etc as above and the blower. All up weight around 4.5kgs

My favourite tripod - The Benbo Trekker (in bag) is allways in the car or goes in with my main baggage when I fly. It is easy to sling over your shoulder/back when moving around, and goes into ANY position. I love it.

When I'm on full song, I pack all my lenses, MZ-S body, film, etc. etc in a Lowepro Mini Trekker and any overspill goes into the Omni or Mini Nova! Weight - excessive, but still manageable!

The only challenge I find with digital, especially as I shoot RAW as standard, is the portable storage challenge. For days out I use a 2GB microdrive (and have 512 and 256 M CF cards as back-ups) which generally suffices. When travelling away I carry my Acer Aspire 2000 (512MB RAM/40GB HD) with me - quite a good reasonably priced fast machine, in a Targus case weighs around 4+ kgs, depending on how much stuff I pack into the case with it!

I allways use Photoshop CS (with v2.2 RAW plug-in) for my work flow and am ruthless in discarding less than acceptable shots.

I apologise for the length of the message, but I hope I've covered a fair amount of ground and that it's of some use, for what it's worth.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

normank · Jul 3, 2004

Richard: As a new *istD owner/tryer-outer I'd appreciate it if you (or anyone else but I tagged onto your message) could give me some thoughts on the quality of medium-long telephotos for the Pentax.

I see you mentioned the Sigma 75-200-I assume that you meant to type the Sigma 70-200 APO (of course I could be wrong). Do you have this lens and how do you like it. How would it compare to the Tamron 70-300 LD Macro? I ask because I generally like to shoot wildlife and the longer the better! Even my 100-400L isn't quite what I'd like and I would consider, with the Pentax, using a TC. I wanted to stay away from heavy lenses but I'm having a tough time trying to find a quality 300-400 tele for the Pentax that weighs less than the Canon glass (I realize that length/aperture plus glass means weight but I'm willing to sacrifice a BIT of quality).

Thanks for any thoughts.

=NLK=

richardday said:
-snip-
Hi Alan

I tried both a few days ago. The Tamron won for sharpness and low
distortion and also is useful for full frame as well. The Pentax
won for colour, slightly better flare control and a tad longer
reach, I didn't notice much difference at the wide end.
Disconcerting that it zoomed out for WA, a bit odd that, I guess I
could get used to it. I also like the fact that if I'm forced to go
ultra wide I can still use the Tamron 17mm with my MZ-S. However,
neither lens shouted out "buy me!", so I didn't (the Tamron was
closest).

With the 400ASA setting in the *istD being so usable, I'm waiting
to play with a Sigma 12-24/f4.5 - somehow I feel that may be the
way to go for ultra WA in digital (and full frame too as a bonus)
for the moment. A BIG lens though. I will post my feelings when
I've had the chance to try one out.

I am concious that full frame sensors will be here someday, I like
to think I can keep my better lenses for that day! Investing higher
money into APS only lenses when I can get good cheapies like the
Sigma pair and mentally discard that money in the future if
neccessary, is more attractive.

I personally love my prime Pentax FA 24/f2.0 which is a beautiful
fast lens, full frame capable and also affordable, at least in the
USA where I bought mine for $370/£210, impossible to find one here
iin the UK - even Pentax UK have to bring one in if you want one! -
I normally keep this lens on my *istD as it equates to 35mm in full
frame, which is my favourite "standard".

The other Pentax primes which have that "I want one" appeal" are
FA 35mm/f2.0, FA 50/f1.4, FA 85/f1.4 - The ltd lenses also have
that gorgeous precision feeling as well as being optically
excellent especially the 77mm/f1.8.

As far as quality zooms go, the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 and the Sigma
75-200/f2.8 are the ones in my book.

When I travel VERY light I fit the *istD, the Sigma pair, spare
batteries, spare CF card, Cokin P holder, two grey grads and
polariser and a Pentax micro-fibre cloth into a Lowepro Novo Mini
bag - and I squeeze my Gitzo Rocket blower (A MUST!) under the
front flap. All up weight 2.2 kgs!

When I travel ordinarily I use a Lowepro Omni traveller, with the
*istD with 24/f2, the Sigma pair, my FA 50/f2.8 macro, Tamron
70-300 LD Macro, Metz MZ-54 flash (my favourite flashguns),
filters, batts, CF cards etc as above and the blower. All up weight
around 4.5kgs

My favourite tripod - The Benbo Trekker (in bag) is allways in the
car or goes in with my main baggage when I fly. It is easy to sling
over your shoulder/back when moving around, and goes into ANY
position. I love it.

When I'm on full song, I pack all my lenses, MZ-S body, film, etc.
etc in a Lowepro Mini Trekker and any overspill goes into the Omni
or Mini Nova! Weight - excessive, but still manageable!

The only challenge I find with digital, especially as I shoot RAW
as standard, is the portable storage challenge. For days out I use
a 2GB microdrive (and have 512 and 256 M CF cards as back-ups)
which generally suffices. When travelling away I carry my Acer
Aspire 2000 (512MB RAM/40GB HD) with me - quite a good reasonably
priced fast machine, in a Targus case weighs around 4+ kgs,
depending on how much stuff I pack into the case with it!

I allways use Photoshop CS (with v2.2 RAW plug-in) for my work flow
and am ruthless in discarding less than acceptable shots.

I apologise for the length of the message, but I hope I've covered
a fair amount of ground and that it's of some use, for what it's
worth.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

richardday · Jul 3, 2004

normank said:
Richard: As a new *istD owner/tryer-outer I'd appreciate it if you
(or anyone else but I tagged onto your message) could give me some
thoughts on the quality of medium-long telephotos for the Pentax.

I see you mentioned the Sigma 75-200-I assume that you meant to
type the Sigma 70-200 APO (of course I could be wrong). Do you have
this lens and how do you like it. How would it compare to the
Tamron 70-300 LD Macro? I ask because I generally like to shoot
wildlife and the longer the better! Even my 100-400L isn't quite
what I'd like and I would consider, with the Pentax, using a TC. I
wanted to stay away from heavy lenses but I'm having a tough time
trying to find a quality 300-400 tele for the Pentax that weighs
less than the Canon glass (I realize that length/aperture plus
glass means weight but I'm willing to sacrifice a BIT of quality).

Thanks for any thoughts.

=NLK=

--

I meant the Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF Autofocus Lens - to give its full title! It is a big heavy lens (1.4kg) - but fast and VERY sharp.

I've been in the same quandry as you. I had a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro which I quite liked but it had unacceptable (for me) distortion - I p/x'd for a Tokina 80-400 ATX II which was a step up in image quality and distortion, but the trade off was bulk and weight (at 1kg still less than the Sigma EX pro lenses).

Out of curiosity I tried a Tamron 70-300 LD Macro and bought it the next day! - It's light (440 grams), very cheap (£99) and has decent optical quality and low distortion, since I aquired it I hardly ever use the Tokina. If you don't want Pro build quality I would recommend this lens to anyone. It also has quite a useful 1:2 macro facility from 200 to 300mm.

I prefer it to the Sigma 70-300 APO I had. I will post some sample shots in this forum very shortly.

If 200mm is long enough reach for you and you only use an *istD, the little Sigma 55-200 is a cracker, very light and small with excellent optical quality.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

normank · Jul 3, 2004

Good info. Thanks.

I looked at the Tokina (since the 400 reach was attractive) but I think it they listed its weight as about 1.4 kg ( 3 lbs.) which wasn't much of an improvement. If it was about a kg. I might go for it. My quandry is that I DO value (rightly or wrongly) build quality but don't like weight. I guess I'll have to evaluate the trade-offs.

If I decide on the light weight as a priority (after all, I still have my Canon glass) then I probably would go with the Tamron 70/300, otherwise the Sigma 70/200, either with a TC. I am in the process of trying out the Sigma twin pack (18-50/55-200) and am still undecided on the quality but I'd like longer reach so I'd need one of the other lenses to use with a TC anyway.

I just wish Pentax would have gotten off the mark and provided some quality lenses for this camera (the silver 80-320 is an option but I don't see much about it).

Again, thanks for the valuable insight.

=NLK=

richardday said:
richardday said:

=NLK=

Click to expand...

--
I meant the Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF Autofocus
Lens - to give its full title! It is a big heavy lens (1.4kg) -
but fast and VERY sharp.

I've been in the same quandry as you. I had a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO
Zoom Macro which I quite liked but it had unacceptable (for me)
distortion - I p/x'd for a Tokina 80-400 ATX II which was a step up
in image quality and distortion, but the trade off was bulk and
weight (at 1kg still less than the Sigma EX pro lenses).

Out of curiosity I tried a Tamron 70-300 LD Macro and bought it the
next day! - It's light (440 grams), very cheap (£99) and has decent
optical quality and low distortion, since I aquired it I hardly
ever use the Tokina. If you don't want Pro build quality I would
recommend this lens to anyone. It also has quite a useful 1:2 macro
facility from 200 to 300mm.

I prefer it to the Sigma 70-300 APO I had. I will post some sample
shots in this forum very shortly.

If 200mm is long enough reach for you and you only use an *istD,
the little Sigma 55-200 is a cracker, very light and small with
excellent optical quality.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

richardday · Jul 3, 2004

normank said:
Good info. Thanks.

I looked at the Tokina (since the 400 reach was attractive) but I
think it they listed its weight as about 1.4 kg ( 3 lbs.) which
wasn't much of an improvement. If it was about a kg. I might go for
it. My quandry is that I DO value (rightly or wrongly) build
quality but don't like weight. I guess I'll have to evaluate the
trade-offs.

If I decide on the light weight as a priority (after all, I still
have my Canon glass) then I probably would go with the Tamron
70/300, otherwise the Sigma 70/200, either with a TC. I am in the
process of trying out the Sigma twin pack (18-50/55-200) and am
still undecided on the quality but I'd like longer reach so I'd
need one of the other lenses to use with a TC anyway.

I just wish Pentax would have gotten off the mark and provided some
quality lenses for this camera (the silver 80-320 is an option but
I don't see much about it).

Again, thanks for the valuable insight.

=NLK=

Tried the Pentax - you can get it in black. Not as good as the Tamron - twice the price. No deal.

Tamron shots below:
1. To show pincushion (not as bad as Sigma) 200mm/f5.6

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Brett St Pierre · Jul 3, 2004

richardday said:
I am concious that full frame sensors will be here someday,......

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

I think that is VERY debateable... I think Pentax has chosen their direction in CCD size for consumer DSLRs. I might be proven wrong, but I see it unlikely they will try to compete against Canon in the ultra premium range with a full frame CCD... remember, the *istD started out to be full frame and they changed their mind as they saw the direction of the medium,.... as I said, I may be proven wrong.....

DSLRs have a long way yet to go in quality (a ultra highresolution scan off tranaparancy is well ahead) but I wonder it stepping to another level of CCD/CMOS size will be the way they go for the masses....

Brett

richardday · Jul 3, 2004

richardday said:
normank said:

Good info. Thanks.

I looked at the Tokina (since the 400 reach was attractive) but I
think it they listed its weight as about 1.4 kg ( 3 lbs.) which
wasn't much of an improvement. If it was about a kg. I might go for
it. My quandry is that I DO value (rightly or wrongly) build
quality but don't like weight. I guess I'll have to evaluate the
trade-offs.

If I decide on the light weight as a priority (after all, I still
have my Canon glass) then I probably would go with the Tamron
70/300, otherwise the Sigma 70/200, either with a TC. I am in the
process of trying out the Sigma twin pack (18-50/55-200) and am
still undecided on the quality but I'd like longer reach so I'd
need one of the other lenses to use with a TC anyway.

I just wish Pentax would have gotten off the mark and provided some
quality lenses for this camera (the silver 80-320 is an option but
I don't see much about it).

Again, thanks for the valuable insight.

=NLK=

Click to expand...

Tried the Pentax - you can get it in black. Not as good as the
Tamron - twice the price. No deal.

Tamron shots below:
1. To show pincushion 200mm/f5.6

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

-Let's try again!

Tried the Pentax - you can get it in black. Not as good as the
Tamron - twice the price. No deal.

Tamron shots below - a grey day in Gloucester!:

1. To show pincushion (quite minimal) 200mm/f5.6

2. As above but at 300mm/f5.6

3. Full frame shot at 300mm

4. Crop from above wide open (f5.6)

5. Crop at f11 (much reduced CA and sharper)

6. Another shot at 300mm f8

7. Crop from above

8. Another at 300mm f11

9. Crop from above

Very acceptable from a £99 lens IMHO.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

richardday · Jul 3, 2004

Brett St Pierre said:
richardday said:

I am concious that full frame sensors will be here someday,......

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Click to expand...

I think that is VERY debateable... I think Pentax has chosen their
direction in CCD size for consumer DSLRs. I might be proven wrong,
but I see it unlikely they will try to compete against Canon in the
ultra premium range with a full frame CCD... remember, the *istD
started out to be full frame and they changed their mind as they
saw the direction of the medium,.... as I said, I may be proven
wrong.....

DSLRs have a long way yet to go in quality (a ultra highresolution
scan off tranaparancy is well ahead) but I wonder it stepping to
another level of CCD/CMOS size will be the way they go for the
masses....

Brett

--
Brett

I did say someday! and I accept what you say to some extent.

However, I think the reason Pentax dropped the fullframe sensor was the image quality of the Philips chip - Contax use(d) it and had 'iffy results.
The will was definitely there - the component wasn't.

I think that when Sony produce a FF sensor (I think Nikon will put the pressure on - THEY won't let Canon continually get away with it!) - Pentax will follow suit as they have done already.

The trend is already moving there with x1.3 sensors and I think that by the year end we will see the base line APS sensor SLR's hit the $500 mark and then this will open up the x1.3 to FF sensor marketplace. Lets face it EVERY serious Pro or amatuer would love full frame, the manufacturers arn't willing to deliver it (yet!) at sub $5,000 prices.

I would bet that in the drawers of the development labs at Sony they have the sensor FULLY developed already.

I will bet (money or beer!) that by end of 2006 they will be around from several manufacturers at sub $2000, maybe even Pentax! Maybe then I may discard my MZ-S! (I hate scanning in trannys! even with SCSI or Firewire it still takes ages.)

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Alan Owen · Jul 3, 2004

Hi Brett,

Thanks again. Nice shots of the younster. You must be very proud.

I had a look at the camera today (still assessing the cost and whether it's best to buy all-in-one) and liked the feel. Will get the battery grip.

I'm still confident about the original choice of lenses (16-45, 50 1.4 and 55-200). Weight really is important to my wife and I know that she is more keen now to take photos. This is one of the few occasions when I've done most of the talking.

I was looking at a pbase site where they had the type of shots that are pretty important to her. Noticed that the shots (indoors and outdoor at night) were taken with ISO ranging from 400 through to 800/1600 and flash was not always used. Shots were also f4, f5.6 and f8. Intererstingly (to me), focal length always seemed to be between 18-22 (one at 34). These were group shots rather than portrait, which I treat as a separate subject.

So, I was rather hopeful that the 16-45 would do the trick here. Am I right in saying that the focal length on the EXIF data, say 22mm, would be covered by this lens rather than a wider angle lens????

Thanks again for all of your comments.

Best,
Alan

Brett St Pierre said:
Alan Owen said:

Also, as my wife is looking for lenses to cover indoor (and
outdoor) shots of individuals, groups of people when sometimes the
lighting is not great or a typical event, pub, indoor office
situation, have you any thoughts on the best combination of lenses.
For example, would the 16-45 + 50 f1.4 + flash cover these
requirements?

Brett St Pierre said:

Best,

Click to expand...

Alan

Click to expand...

Alan, for low light photography (eg. indoors available light) the
50/1.4 naturally is invaluable, but the depth of field is very
obviously quite narrow (I calculate 50mm on *istD at f1.4, focus
point 1 metre = DOF 2.1cm!) but can create good portraits. Here
are a couple of indoor examples with both the DA16-45 and SMC-A
50/1.4: http://www.pbase.com/shreder/gabriel .
The last photo is with the Sigma DG500 Super flash which will give
you the idea of decent off camera flash.

Cheers,
Brett

--
Alan

Alan Owen · Jul 3, 2004

Hi Richard,

Thanks so much for the information provided. I have learnt so much from your posts. Really brilliant and I hope that other people interested in Pentax get to see them.

As I've just mentioned to Brett, I had a look at the camera today (still assessing the cost and whether it's best to buy all-in-one) and liked the feel. Will get the battery grip.

I'm still confident about the original choice of lenses (16-45, 50 1.4 and 55-200). Weight really is important to my wife and I know that she is more keen now to take photos. This is one of the few occasions when I've done most of the talking.

As I said to Brett, I was looking at a pbase site where they had the type of shots that are pretty important to her. Noticed that the shots (indoors and outdoor at night) were taken with ISO ranging from 400 through to 800/1600 and flash was not always used. Shots were also f4, f5.6 and f8. Intererstingly (to me), focal length always seemed to be between 18-22 (one at 34). These were group shots rather than portrait, which I treat as a separate subject.

So, I was rather hopeful that the 16-45 would do the trick here. Am I right in saying that the focal length on the EXIF data, say 22mm, would be covered by this lens rather than a wider angle lens????

Can I ask you for your comments on this (perhaps nieve) question?

Thanks again for all of your comments.

Best,
Alan

richardday said:
Alan Owen said:

Richard,

I'm definitely getting the 16-45 but noticed that you thought the
Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4 Di was good. Have you compared these lenses?

Also, as my wife is looking for lenses to cover indoor (and
outdoor) shots of individuals, groups of people when sometimes the
lighting is not great or a typical event, pub, indoor office
situation, have you any thoughts on the best combination of lenses.
For example, would the 16-45 + 50 f1.4 + flash cover these
requirements?

The 55-200 was chosen purely for the additional reach and flexibility.

Appreciate any comments on offer.

Best,
Alan

Click to expand...

--
Hi Alan

I tried both a few days ago. The Tamron won for sharpness and low
distortion and also is useful for full frame as well. The Pentax
won for colour, slightly better flare control and a tad longer
reach, I didn't notice much difference at the wide end.
Disconcerting that it zoomed out for WA, a bit odd that, I guess I
could get used to it. I also like the fact that if I'm forced to go
ultra wide I can still use the Tamron 17mm with my MZ-S. However,
neither lens shouted out "buy me!", so I didn't (the Tamron was
closest).

With the 400ASA setting in the *istD being so usable, I'm waiting
to play with a Sigma 12-24/f4.5 - somehow I feel that may be the
way to go for ultra WA in digital (and full frame too as a bonus)
for the moment. A BIG lens though. I will post my feelings when
I've had the chance to try one out.

I am concious that full frame sensors will be here someday, I like
to think I can keep my better lenses for that day! Investing higher
money into APS only lenses when I can get good cheapies like the
Sigma pair and mentally discard that money in the future if
neccessary, is more attractive.

I personally love my prime Pentax FA 24/f2.0 which is a beautiful
fast lens, full frame capable and also affordable, at least in the
USA where I bought mine for $370/£210, impossible to find one here
iin the UK - even Pentax UK have to bring one in if you want one! -
I normally keep this lens on my *istD as it equates to 35mm in full
frame, which is my favourite "standard".

The other Pentax primes which have that "I want one" appeal" are
FA 35mm/f2.0, FA 50/f1.4, FA 85/f1.4 - The ltd lenses also have
that gorgeous precision feeling as well as being optically
excellent especially the 77mm/f1.8.

As far as quality zooms go, the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 and the Sigma
75-200/f2.8 are the ones in my book.

When I travel VERY light I fit the *istD, the Sigma pair, spare
batteries, spare CF card, Cokin P holder, two grey grads and
polariser and a Pentax micro-fibre cloth into a Lowepro Novo Mini
bag - and I squeeze my Gitzo Rocket blower (A MUST!) under the
front flap. All up weight 2.2 kgs!

When I travel ordinarily I use a Lowepro Omni traveller, with the
*istD with 24/f2, the Sigma pair, my FA 50/f2.8 macro, Tamron
70-300 LD Macro, Metz MZ-54 flash (my favourite flashguns),
filters, batts, CF cards etc as above and the blower. All up weight
around 4.5kgs

My favourite tripod - The Benbo Trekker (in bag) is allways in the
car or goes in with my main baggage when I fly. It is easy to sling
over your shoulder/back when moving around, and goes into ANY
position. I love it.

When I'm on full song, I pack all my lenses, MZ-S body, film, etc.
etc in a Lowepro Mini Trekker and any overspill goes into the Omni
or Mini Nova! Weight - excessive, but still manageable!

The only challenge I find with digital, especially as I shoot RAW
as standard, is the portable storage challenge. For days out I use
a 2GB microdrive (and have 512 and 256 M CF cards as back-ups)
which generally suffices. When travelling away I carry my Acer
Aspire 2000 (512MB RAM/40GB HD) with me - quite a good reasonably
priced fast machine, in a Targus case weighs around 4+ kgs,
depending on how much stuff I pack into the case with it!

I allways use Photoshop CS (with v2.2 RAW plug-in) for my work flow
and am ruthless in discarding less than acceptable shots.

I apologise for the length of the message, but I hope I've covered
a fair amount of ground and that it's of some use, for what it's
worth.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

--
Alan

richardday · Jul 3, 2004

Alan Owen said:
Hi Richard,

Thanks so much for the information provided. I have learnt so much
from your posts. Really brilliant and I hope that other people
interested in Pentax get to see them.

As I've just mentioned to Brett, I had a look at the camera today
(still assessing the cost and whether it's best to buy all-in-one)
and liked the feel. Will get the battery grip.

I'm still confident about the original choice of lenses (16-45, 50
1.4 and 55-200). Weight really is important to my wife and I know
that she is more keen now to take photos. This is one of the few
occasions when I've done most of the talking.

As I said to Brett, I was looking at a pbase site where they had
the type of shots that are pretty important to her. Noticed that
the shots (indoors and outdoor at night) were taken with ISO
ranging from 400 through to 800/1600 and flash was not always used.
Shots were also f4, f5.6 and f8. Intererstingly (to me), focal
length always seemed to be between 18-22 (one at 34). These were
group shots rather than portrait, which I treat as a separate
subject.

So, I was rather hopeful that the 16-45 would do the trick here. Am
I right in saying that the focal length on the EXIF data, say 22mm,
would be covered by this lens rather than a wider angle lens????

Can I ask you for your comments on this (perhaps nieve) question?

Thanks again for all of your comments.

Best,
Alan

--
Alan

The EXIF data refers to the exact focal length of the lens, therefore 22mm is exactly that and in the range of 16-45 as you suspect.

Just as an aside, I believe that the Pentax FA* 24/2.0 is probably one of the most ignored but nicest lenses Pentax make. I put a link to 2 examples below.

Shot RAW, processed in Photoshop CS with v2.2 converter, no adjustments bar from slight USM (200/0.3)
First image: (1/350 f8, ISO 200)

For full image:
http://www.multiroom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/jpgfiles/IMGP1498.jpg

Next image: (1/500 f8, ISO 200)

For full image:
http://www.multiroom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/jpgfiles/IMGP1497.jpg

Hope you agree about the lens.

I shall go and shoot some shots tomorrow inside Gloucester Cathedral (which will be nice and dim) and post them up for you to have a look at.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Alan Owen · Jul 3, 2004

Hi Richard,

I've just been studying the two photos. Both are excellent. It's so good to look at the originals. My wife would love some of those shots.

I'm afraid that I've still got Photoshop 6 here but will upgrade when I get another PC.

It's an absolutely terrific lens, but would I need it if I get the 16-45? Regardless, I'll look into the cost. Perhaps the photos taken in Gloucester Cathedral will explain more. That's a great offer and I look forward to seeing them, but only if you can find the time.

By the way, I looked at the following on pbase as they are indicative of the shots that would be taken:

http://www.pbase.com/image/29212457
http://www.pbase.com/image/28959739
http://www.pbase.com/image/28944701
http://www.pbase.com/image/28944552

It was interesting to me that only one was taken with flash. I have a feeling that getting the benefit of flash is there to be had but it's a whole new learning curve and skill.

Thanks once again.

Best,
Alan

Alan Owen · Jul 4, 2004

Hi,

I've had some great advice from forum members, which is truly appreciated.

I wonder whether it would be possible to close out by asking for everyone's opinion on which lens they would select to take the following photos seen on pbase:

http://www.pbase.com/image/29212457
http://www.pbase.com/image/28959739
http://www.pbase.com/image/28944701
http://www.pbase.com/image/28944552

Thanks to all of you.

Best,
Alan

$4500 or £2500 for basic *istD system?

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Keyboard shortcuts