$4500 or £2500 for basic *istD system?

Alan Owen said:

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.

Click to expand...

--
Upgrading PS 6 to CS is definitely worthwhile - do it!

Regarding the 16-45 - It's a good lens but only f4.0 max - 2 stops slower. Take a look at the sample shots taken today - hand held in and around Gloucester Cathedral, many at around f2.0 - 2.8, 1/20 sec at ISO 800!, to do those at f4.0 would mean using ISO 3200 where the noise levels would be very high,.. or use a tripod, which is not always possible. One is at ISO 1600 1/20 sec at f2.4 hand held!

Sorry for the slight delay inposting, we had guests and my wife insisted that I stay away from my computer!

Please visit http://www.multiroom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Rgds
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

I forgot to mention another point - Very low, virtually non existent lens distortion. Take a look at the verticals of the buildings. (the Beatrix Potter shop shot)
http://www.multiroom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Richard,

Yes, your point is well made.

Looks like an excellent location. Also noted that pints of Youngs are available close by.

Best regards,
Alan

richardday said:

I forgot to mention another point - Very low, virtually non
existent lens distortion. Take a look at the verticals of the
buildings. (the Beatrix Potter shop shot)
http://www.multiroom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Click to expand...

Richard,

Thank you for sharing the photos. Your good wife is absolutely correct to get you away from the computer.

I can appreciate the points made. I've looked at all of the photos and must say that they are excellent, and some taken in challenging conditions. They look extremely realistic and I felt that I was there.

Personally, I would definitely buy this lens. Of course, as you are aware, I'm trying to decide on lenses right now. All other items are well under control. Your post has made me wonder whether it would be best to get the 24 f2.0, 50 1.4 and a walk about lens (55-200 if that can be viewed as a walk about lens) rather than the 16-45. To make a final decision, I was wondering if you would be kind enough to give your view on the lens(es) required to emulate the pbase photos included in an earlier post.

Richard, thank you once again.

Hope you enjoyed the evening meal.

Best,
Alan

richardday said:

--
Upgrading PS 6 to CS is definitely worthwhile - do it!

Regarding the 16-45 - It's a good lens but only f4.0 max - 2 stops
slower. Take a look at the sample shots taken today - hand held in
and around Gloucester Cathedral, many at around f2.0 - 2.8, 1/20
sec at ISO 800!, to do those at f4.0 would mean using ISO 3200
where the noise levels would be very high,.. or use a tripod, which
is not always possible. One is at ISO 1600 1/20 sec at f2.4 hand
held!
Sorry for the slight delay inposting, we had guests and my wife
insisted that I stay away from my computer!

Please visit http://www.multiroom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Rgds
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Click to expand...

--
Alan

Alan Owen said:

Richard,

Thank you for sharing the photos. Your good wife is absolutely
correct to get you away from the computer.

I can appreciate the points made. I've looked at all of the photos
and must say that they are excellent, and some taken in challenging
conditions. They look extremely realistic and I felt that I was
there.

Personally, I would definitely buy this lens. Of course, as you are
aware, I'm trying to decide on lenses right now. All other items
are well under control. Your post has made me wonder whether it
would be best to get the 24 f2.0, 50 1.4 and a walk about lens
(55-200 if that can be viewed as a walk about lens) rather than the
16-45. To make a final decision, I was wondering if you would be
kind enough to give your view on the lens(es) required to emulate
the pbase photos included in an earlier post.

Richard, thank you once again.

Hope you enjoyed the evening meal.

Best,
Alan

Click to expand...

Alan,

In a perfect photographic world we would only use prime lenses such as the 24/2 and 50/1.4 but also the 85/1.4 etc. but zooms offer a lighter weight kit.

As Richard so well demonstrates, having that extra stop or two in speed to a f2 or a f2.8 of a good prime is wonderful to have. I have always thought over the years that photography is so much about compromise! We are always after that extra stop in speed or that extra focal length to get what we want... perhaps that is the beauty of chasing the perfect shot.... a Utopia we are always chasing. When I shoot Velvia at 50 ISO it's more about can I carry my tripod to where I need to take this shot!

So we come back to (1) what is the intended use, therefor what focal lengths and lens speed do you need (2) how much is your wife preapred to carry around - v - convenience (3) zooms are handy, can make you lazy (why walk when you can zoom) but also means to might take some shots your wouldn't otherwise get because you speed too much time changing lenses. I got to the stage that I leave my Tamron SP17mm and 400mm at home because it just gets too much to carry. I love my primes but if you are weighed down you soon get sick of it and don't take photos!

BTW, if you are still wondering about the sharpness of the DA16-45 I took this on the weekend at a marina near my home in Sydney: http://www.pbase.com/image/30893568

It covers a full tonal range (RAW straight shot, no exposure compensation processed in Capture 1) and the original is so sharp you can count every water droplet on the boat! A great reward for an afternoon walk!

Good luck with you decision making... you are on the right track eiether way as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,
Brett

Brett St Pierre said:

Alan Owen said:

Richard,

Thank you for sharing the photos. Your good wife is absolutely
correct to get you away from the computer.

I can appreciate the points made. I've looked at all of the photos
and must say that they are excellent, and some taken in challenging
conditions. They look extremely realistic and I felt that I was
there.

Personally, I would definitely buy this lens. Of course, as you are
aware, I'm trying to decide on lenses right now. All other items
are well under control. Your post has made me wonder whether it
would be best to get the 24 f2.0, 50 1.4 and a walk about lens
(55-200 if that can be viewed as a walk about lens) rather than the
16-45. To make a final decision, I was wondering if you would be
kind enough to give your view on the lens(es) required to emulate
the pbase photos included in an earlier post.

Richard, thank you once again.

Hope you enjoyed the evening meal.

Best,
Alan

Click to expand...

Alan,

In a perfect photographic world we would only use prime lenses such
as the 24/2 and 50/1.4 but also the 85/1.4 etc. but zooms offer a
lighter weight kit.
As Richard so well demonstrates, having that extra stop or two in
speed to a f2 or a f2.8 of a good prime is wonderful to have. I
have always thought over the years that photography is so much
about compromise! We are always after that extra stop in speed or
that extra focal length to get what we want... perhaps that is the
beauty of chasing the perfect shot.... a Utopia we are always
chasing. When I shoot Velvia at 50 ISO it's more about can I carry
my tripod to where I need to take this shot!

So we come back to (1) what is the intended use, therefor what
focal lengths and lens speed do you need (2) how much is your wife
preapred to carry around - v - convenience (3) zooms are handy, can
make you lazy (why walk when you can zoom) but also means to might
take some shots your wouldn't otherwise get because you speed too
much time changing lenses. I got to the stage that I leave my
Tamron SP17mm and 400mm at home because it just gets too much to
carry. I love my primes but if you are weighed down you soon get
sick of it and don't take photos!

BTW, if you are still wondering about the sharpness of the DA16-45
I took this on the weekend at a marina near my home in Sydney:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30893568
It covers a full tonal range (RAW straight shot, no exposure
compensation processed in Capture 1) and the original is so sharp
you can count every water droplet on the boat! A great reward for
an afternoon walk!

Good luck with you decision making... you are on the right track
eiether way as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,
Brett

Click to expand...

Sorry, supposed to link you to a larger version:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30947203
This one is reduced to 319Kb

Brett

Brett,

Thanks once again. I've learnt a great deal from what you and everyone else, particularly Richard, has to say. You're right about Utopia. I must say that, in a perfect world where money and weight is not the slightest consideration, it would be relatively easy to select the lenses.

In the short term, I think that the 50 1.4 and 55-200 is where we'll go, and a flashun will also be purchased as this offers a new dimension. I know that this will add to the learning curve but it will also add to the excitement.

To be honest, I'm really not sure about WA. In many ways, I was happy enough when I looked at the Nikon 18-70 (lack of vertical grip ruled out the D70) and wish that Pentax had this lens. On this basis, the 16-45 may well prove to be acceptable. Did you have time to look at the photos that I saw on pbase? Here they are:

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

I think that the only decision that I need to make now is which combination (16-45 + 50 1.4 or 24 2.0 + 50 1.4) will be best to take these photos.

Best,
Alan

Brett St Pierre said:

Alan,

In a perfect photographic world we would only use prime lenses such
as the 24/2 and 50/1.4 but also the 85/1.4 etc. but zooms offer a
lighter weight kit.
As Richard so well demonstrates, having that extra stop or two in
speed to a f2 or a f2.8 of a good prime is wonderful to have. I
have always thought over the years that photography is so much
about compromise! We are always after that extra stop in speed or
that extra focal length to get what we want... perhaps that is the
beauty of chasing the perfect shot.... a Utopia we are always
chasing. When I shoot Velvia at 50 ISO it's more about can I carry
my tripod to where I need to take this shot!

So we come back to (1) what is the intended use, therefor what
focal lengths and lens speed do you need (2) how much is your wife
preapred to carry around - v - convenience (3) zooms are handy, can
make you lazy (why walk when you can zoom) but also means to might
take some shots your wouldn't otherwise get because you speed too
much time changing lenses. I got to the stage that I leave my
Tamron SP17mm and 400mm at home because it just gets too much to
carry. I love my primes but if you are weighed down you soon get
sick of it and don't take photos!

BTW, if you are still wondering about the sharpness of the DA16-45
I took this on the weekend at a marina near my home in Sydney:
http://www.pbase.com/image/30893568
It covers a full tonal range (RAW straight shot, no exposure
compensation processed in Capture 1) and the original is so sharp
you can count every water droplet on the boat! A great reward for
an afternoon walk!

Good luck with you decision making... you are on the right track
eiether way as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,
Brett

Click to expand...

Brett,

This does say a great deal about the 16-45. It's a wonderful shot and brings out good detail. Thanks for sharing.

I lived in Sydney for a year some 26 years ago. Yes, I did say 26. Had some wonderful times in Paddington, North Sydney.

By the way, I noted that one of the photos (same) had the 70-210 lens.

Best,
Alan

Hi Alan & Brett

I agree with you that the 16-45 is a great lens, if you can afford it, go for it.

However, is it worth the extra over the Sigma 18-50 (I agree it is a tad better and wider angle, but is bigger and heavier, about 50%) when you could get the Sigma 18-50 & 55-200 combo (both very light and compact) and put the difference in cost towards a fast prime or indeed the flash gun?

I have placed some recent shots I took with the 18-50 at 18mm and 50mm to show how good this little "cheap" lens really is!

Link to the site http://www.multiroom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Alan, as you are in the UK, I don't mind if you e-mail me directly to chat, click on my profile for my e-mail address, I can then e-mail you with my phone no if you want to talk.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Alan Owen said:

Hi,

I've been looking at a Pentax *istD system for my wife as she needs
a camera / lens solution that is not too heavy. Can you help me to
confirm that the following is an OK solution for someone that is
interested in an all round reach solution (We can't stretch to the
Pentax 80-200 2.8 etc) with the emphasis on portrait / group /
holiday landscape and general photography (not too specialist)
shots taken during good light / night light conditions.

My wife is switching from film (good photographer, not an intensive
user and first time digital user - can cope). Please help as this
is a serious inquiry - my money.

Proposed configuration:

*ist D + Battery Grip + 1GB Microdrive + AF360 FGZ Flashgun (£1,349)

Click to expand...

I would recommend skipping the battery grip for now. The *ist D uses AA batteries, which are readily available. These batteries will also last a long while so adding the battery grip to prolong battery life is not needed. I would advise against any hard drive in this camera since the memory slot is notorious for being small and the memory card difficult to remove. You don't want to drop the hard drive while removing it from the camera. Since the Pentax can use just about any TTL flash that is Pentax compatible, you can save money by buying a third party flash, may be even a used one.

Alan Owen said:

Pentax 16-45 f4 (£325)

Click to expand...

Also consider a 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Tokina lens. It is cheaper and faster at the wide end. This lens is sharp, though many claim that it is not as sharp as the earlier 20-35mm version, which is also better built since it is metal barreled instead of plastic.

Alan Owen said:

Sigma 55-200 f4 (£110)

Click to expand...

How about a Tokina 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X lens? Not very expensive but sharp and gives you the equivalent of a 35-300mm lens on the *ist D.

Alan Owen said:

Pentax 50 f1.4 (£190)

Click to expand...

Can't argue with this choice. Very sharp lens.

I would add a Pentax FA 100mm f/2.8 macro lens to round out the lineup.

richardday said:

Hi Alan & Brett

I agree with you that the 16-45 is a great lens, if you can afford
it, go for it.
However, is it worth the extra over the Sigma 18-50 (I agree it is
a tad better and wider angle, but is bigger and heavier, about 50%)
when you could get the Sigma 18-50 & 55-200 combo (both very light
and compact) and put the difference in cost towards a fast prime or
indeed the flash gun?
I have placed some recent shots I took with the 18-50 at 18mm and
50mm to show how good this little "cheap" lens really is!

Link to the site http://www.multiroom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Alan, as you are in the UK, I don't mind if you e-mail me directly
to chat, click on my profile for my e-mail address, I can then
e-mail you with my phone no if you want to talk.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Click to expand...

At first look there is nothing wrong with those shots using the Sigma 18-50. It is tremendous value. Alan, maybe a good start is the 50/1.4 and the 55-200 and then you can decide whether - say - the 24/2 OR a wide zoom like the DA16-45. As I have said before about the 50mm, I sometimes think simplying your photography to a single focal length helps you focus on what's important. BTW, those links you copied of the family groups seem all to be taken with a standard zoom.

At the end of the day, if that is the type of result your wife is looking for, IMO she will find a standard zoom the quickest and most convenient to work with especially with groups of people when you generally need to work quickly. The 50/1.4 (with the 1.5x factor making it an effective 75mm) is a v. good portrait lens but wouldn't be as convenient working with groups.

Brett

Anastigmat said:

Alan Owen said:

Hi,

I've been looking at a Pentax *istD system for my wife as she needs
a camera / lens solution that is not too heavy. Can you help me to
confirm that the following is an OK solution for someone that is
interested in an all round reach solution (We can't stretch to the
Pentax 80-200 2.8 etc) with the emphasis on portrait / group /
holiday landscape and general photography (not too specialist)
shots taken during good light / night light conditions.

My wife is switching from film (good photographer, not an intensive
user and first time digital user - can cope). Please help as this
is a serious inquiry - my money.

Proposed configuration:

*ist D + Battery Grip + 1GB Microdrive + AF360 FGZ Flashgun (£1,349)

Click to expand...

I would recommend skipping the battery grip for now. The *ist D
uses AA batteries, which are readily available. These batteries
will also last a long while so adding the battery grip to prolong
battery life is not needed. I would advise against any hard drive
in this camera since the memory slot is notorious for being small
and the memory card difficult to remove. You don't want to drop
the hard drive while removing it from the camera. Since the Pentax
can use just about any TTL flash that is Pentax compatible, you can
save money by buying a third party flash, may be even a used one.

Click to expand...

I agree about the hard drive - you can get good 1G CF cards for under £100 from http://www.ebuyer.com - the 2.2G microstor has a very poor history to date, my first one overheated and died but ebuyer exchanged it with zero fuss in 4 days, and I now appear to be one of the few who have no problems with the (replacement) drive (yet!!). I wouldn't risk it now as they are power hungry and a bit quirky - better go for a soilid state card, even though I shoot in RAW 99% of the time and need the space - I will wait and see what Seagate will do with their projected 5GB drives which should be here soon for around $155!

Anastigmat said:

Anastigmat said:

Pentax 16-45 f4 (£325) - Probably the best WA zoom for the *istD - no good for 35mm or full frame (in the future maybe? - who knows!).

Click to expand...

Also consider a 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Tokina lens. It is cheaper and
faster at the wide end. This lens is sharp, though many claim that
it is not as sharp as the earlier 20-35mm version, which is also
better built since it is metal barreled instead of plastic.

Click to expand...

I have this lens in metal - very good but heavy and chunky - I only use it on my MZ-S, the small Sigma 18-50 (only £179 together with the 55-200) is better on the *istD. The Tamron 19mm f3.5/4.5 (£149 ish) is reputed to be better than the replacement Tokina, I also liked the Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4 Di, v. high quality, same price as Pentax, less distortion and good for 35mm - more money than the cheaper one (£330 ish).

Anastigmat said:

Anastigmat said:

Sigma 55-200 f4 (£110) -

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A great tiny tele lens (APS sensors only) I use it quite alot.

Anastigmat said:

How about a Tokina 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X lens? Not very
expensive but sharp and gives you the equivalent of a 35-300mm lens
on the *ist D.

Click to expand...

I have this as well - Sharp? - yes at F8, soft wide open, Distorts at all focal lengths, from barrel to pincushion! - once noticed, allways noticed. Also BIG and HEAVY - Bought it for my MZ-S then replaced it with the Pentax FA 28-105 f3.2/f4.5 - a big improvement and small and light, my standard lens for my MZ-S and used quite alot with the *istD.

Anastigmat said:

Anastigmat said:

Pentax 50 f1.4 (£190) - >

Click to expand...

Can't argue with this choice. Very sharp lens.

Click to expand...

A corker, also the Macro FA 50 f2.8 - the best lens Pentax have EVER made. Probably better than ANY other lens made! See http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_normal.html ; from f2.8 blows everthing else away, also NO CA and NO distortion. Lots of critical acclaim from many sources. I agree with them all!

Anastigmat said:

I would add a Pentax FA 100mm f/2.8 macro lens to round out the
lineup.

Click to expand...

Consider the 50mm (75 on *istD) as well, as it makes a perfect portrait lens - Bokeh is wonderful. The 100 is great on 35mm but is a bit long at effective 150mm on the *istD, however, very useful in that you don't have to be so close to small objects to get 1:1. Image quality is almost as good as the 50mm.

--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Hi Richard,

Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate the offer to email you directly and may well take you up on this at some future stage.

Well, after considerable thought, I've decided to go for:

*istD + Battery Grip
Pentax 50 f1.4
Metz 54-4 Flashgun
Sigma 55-200 f4
1GB + 2x512MB Memory Cards
CF Card Reader
LowePro Nova 4AW Bag
Ansmann + NiMh batteries at this stage
Miscellaneous filters

I have yet to decide between the Pentax 16-45 f4, 24 f2.0 and Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4. I think that the 50 f1.4 will be great for portraits but perhaps not so appropriate for Group shots.

I would be happy to take your advice on the above, with particular regard to which one would take the best shot given the settings in the following photos:

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

It's critical that I get this point covered.

I'll probably get the Manfrotto tripod as originally posted in due course.

Richard, once again, thank you.

Best,
Alan

richardday said:

Hi Alan & Brett

I agree with you that the 16-45 is a great lens, if you can afford
it, go for it.
However, is it worth the extra over the Sigma 18-50 (I agree it is
a tad better and wider angle, but is bigger and heavier, about 50%)
when you could get the Sigma 18-50 & 55-200 combo (both very light
and compact) and put the difference in cost towards a fast prime or
indeed the flash gun?
I have placed some recent shots I took with the 18-50 at 18mm and
50mm to show how good this little "cheap" lens really is!

Link to the site http://www.multiroom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Alan, as you are in the UK, I don't mind if you e-mail me directly
to chat, click on my profile for my e-mail address, I can then
e-mail you with my phone no if you want to talk.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Click to expand...

Brett,

Once again, I really appreciate your help here.

I've made my decision and you may be interested to know that my thoughts are in agreement with your recommendations.

Best regards,
Alan

Brett St Pierre said:

richardday said:

Hi Alan & Brett

I agree with you that the 16-45 is a great lens, if you can afford
it, go for it.
However, is it worth the extra over the Sigma 18-50 (I agree it is
a tad better and wider angle, but is bigger and heavier, about 50%)
when you could get the Sigma 18-50 & 55-200 combo (both very light
and compact) and put the difference in cost towards a fast prime or
indeed the flash gun?
I have placed some recent shots I took with the 18-50 at 18mm and
50mm to show how good this little "cheap" lens really is!

Link to the site http://www.multiroom.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Alan, as you are in the UK, I don't mind if you e-mail me directly
to chat, click on my profile for my e-mail address, I can then
e-mail you with my phone no if you want to talk.

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Click to expand...

At first look there is nothing wrong with those shots using the
Sigma 18-50. It is tremendous value. Alan, maybe a good start is
the 50/1.4 and the 55-200 and then you can decide whether - say -
the 24/2 OR a wide zoom like the DA16-45. As I have said before
about the 50mm, I sometimes think simplying your photography to a
single focal length helps you focus on what's important. BTW,
those links you copied of the family groups seem all to be taken
with a standard zoom.
At the end of the day, if that is the type of result your wife is
looking for, IMO she will find a standard zoom the quickest and
most convenient to work with especially with groups of people when
you generally need to work quickly. The 50/1.4 (with the 1.5x
factor making it an effective 75mm) is a v. good portrait lens but
wouldn't be as convenient working with groups.

Brett

Click to expand...

--
Alan

Hi,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I've decided to go for the 50 1.4, 55-200 and one of Pentax 16-45 Pentax 24 2.0 or Tamron 17-35.

Certainly agree with avoiding the Microdrive.

Best,
Alan

Anastigmat said:

Alan Owen said:

Hi,

I've been looking at a Pentax *istD system for my wife as she needs
a camera / lens solution that is not too heavy. Can you help me to
confirm that the following is an OK solution for someone that is
interested in an all round reach solution (We can't stretch to the
Pentax 80-200 2.8 etc) with the emphasis on portrait / group /
holiday landscape and general photography (not too specialist)
shots taken during good light / night light conditions.

My wife is switching from film (good photographer, not an intensive
user and first time digital user - can cope). Please help as this
is a serious inquiry - my money.

Proposed configuration:

*ist D + Battery Grip + 1GB Microdrive + AF360 FGZ Flashgun (£1,349)

Click to expand...

I would recommend skipping the battery grip for now. The *ist D
uses AA batteries, which are readily available. These batteries
will also last a long while so adding the battery grip to prolong
battery life is not needed. I would advise against any hard drive
in this camera since the memory slot is notorious for being small
and the memory card difficult to remove. You don't want to drop
the hard drive while removing it from the camera. Since the Pentax
can use just about any TTL flash that is Pentax compatible, you can
save money by buying a third party flash, may be even a used one.

Anastigmat said:

Pentax 16-45 f4 (£325)

Click to expand...

Also consider a 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Tokina lens. It is cheaper and
faster at the wide end. This lens is sharp, though many claim that
it is not as sharp as the earlier 20-35mm version, which is also
better built since it is metal barreled instead of plastic.

Anastigmat said:

Sigma 55-200 f4 (£110)

Click to expand...

How about a Tokina 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X lens? Not very
expensive but sharp and gives you the equivalent of a 35-300mm lens
on the *ist D.

Anastigmat said:

Pentax 50 f1.4 (£190)

Click to expand...

Can't argue with this choice. Very sharp lens.

I would add a Pentax FA 100mm f/2.8 macro lens to round out the
lineup.

Click to expand...

--
Alan

Alan Owen said:

Hi Richard,

I have yet to decide between the Pentax 16-45 f4, 24 f2.0 and
Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4. I think that the 50 f1.4 will be great for
portraits but perhaps not so appropriate for Group shots.

I would be happy to take your advice on the above, with particular
regard to which one would take the best shot given the settings in
the following photos:

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

It's critical that I get this point covered.

Click to expand...

Practical Photograpy reviewed both lenses in a recent wide angle test feature (April 04) and the Tamron (£330 UK / $480 US) scored consistently better than the Pentax (£350 UK / $430 US) by a couple of % on most counts, but overall 89% againt the Pentax 88%, the top scoring lens was the Sigma 12-24 at 91%. But that is their view, mine was also similar, but I strongly suggest that you try to test the lenses for yourself to get the "right feel", only you can decide.

I suggest that, for what you want, the zooms would be a better initial buy, get the 24 f2.0 later as and when you decide you need/can afford it. As it is a prime lens, optically, it will easily outperform any of the zooms, but you will have to use your feet, or crop, to get the framing you desire.

As you are in London try contacting Camera World or Warehouse Express who both advertise the lenses, see if they will let you try them out, or indeed, your local Jessops who can usually get the lenses in for you to try. They will usually price match (to a major UK supplier) as well.

If you are intending to buy in the USA, usually lower prices, but local sales tax, if any, plus VAT & duty to pay upon importation (if you actually do) tends to wipe out alot of the advantage, I strongly suggest that you stick with B&H or maybe Adorama. As I have offices in New Hampshire, I have my US purchases sent there for me to collect when I go over, being in NH is very useful as there is no local sales tax to pay when goods are shipped/bought there either!

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Alan Owen said:

Hi Richard,

Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate the offer to email you
directly and may well take you up on this at some future stage.

Well, after considerable thought, I've decided to go for:

*istD + Battery Grip
Pentax 50 f1.4
Metz 54-4 Flashgun
Sigma 55-200 f4
1GB + 2x512MB Memory Cards
CF Card Reader
LowePro Nova 4AW Bag
Ansmann + NiMh batteries at this stage
Miscellaneous filters

I have yet to decide between the Pentax 16-45 f4, 24 f2.0 and
Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4. I think that the 50 f1.4 will be great for
portraits but perhaps not so appropriate for Group shots.

I would be happy to take your advice on the above, with particular
regard to which one would take the best shot given the settings in
the following photos:

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

It's critical that I get this point covered.

I'll probably get the Manfrotto tripod as originally posted in due
course.

Richard, once again, thank you.

Best,
Alan

Click to expand...

Alan, I think you have made a sound decision, quality kit without going "over the top".

Any of the DA16-45, 24/2, or Tamron 17-35 will be able to take the photos you give the examples of as they roughly have the right focal length. (one example was 24mm and the other 38mm from memory). For that particular subject matter the difference in sharpness is not critical (but always nice to have!)... so in short all with do the job. As I said previously though, I think your wife would find it easier to work in such a situation with either of the zooms as they are quicker to compose by adjusting the focal length. The 24/2 will be a little sharper but you may no see the difference unless your exlargement prints are bigger than 10x8......

Richard,

Agreed. I'll get one of the zooms.

I'm sure that this will be a good collection and know that my wife will ask me how I came to make this decision. You will be remembered for your help.

Very best regards,
Alan

richardday said:

Alan Owen said:

Hi Richard,

I have yet to decide between the Pentax 16-45 f4, 24 f2.0 and
Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4. I think that the 50 f1.4 will be great for
portraits but perhaps not so appropriate for Group shots.

I would be happy to take your advice on the above, with particular
regard to which one would take the best shot given the settings in
the following photos:

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

It's critical that I get this point covered.

Click to expand...

Practical Photograpy reviewed both lenses in a recent wide angle
test feature (April 04) and the Tamron (£330 UK / $480 US) scored
consistently better than the Pentax (£350 UK / $430 US) by a couple
of % on most counts, but overall 89% againt the Pentax 88%, the top
scoring lens was the Sigma 12-24 at 91%. But that is their view,
mine was also similar, but I strongly suggest that you try to test
the lenses for yourself to get the "right feel", only you can
decide.
I suggest that, for what you want, the zooms would be a better
initial buy, get the 24 f2.0 later as and when you decide you
need/can afford it. As it is a prime lens, optically, it will
easily outperform any of the zooms, but you will have to use your
feet, or crop, to get the framing you desire.
As you are in London try contacting Camera World or Warehouse
Express who both advertise the lenses, see if they will let you try
them out, or indeed, your local Jessops who can usually get the
lenses in for you to try. They will usually price match (to a major
UK supplier) as well.

If you are intending to buy in the USA, usually lower prices, but
local sales tax, if any, plus VAT & duty to pay upon importation
(if you actually do) tends to wipe out alot of the advantage, I
strongly suggest that you stick with B&H or maybe Adorama. As I
have offices in New Hampshire, I have my US purchases sent there
for me to collect when I go over, being in NH is very useful as
there is no local sales tax to pay when goods are shipped/bought
there either!

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Click to expand...

--
Alan

Brett,

It'll probably be the 16-45. Thanks for all of your comments and help.

Very best regards,
Alan

Richard, Brett...

Well, my wife read all of the posts, spent sometime on the phone and went off to discuss the matter in a few places. This is OK, as she's the photographer.

So, when she got me sitting down, she started to explain that there would be a better solution in her eyes and what did I think about...

After a brief description about how difficult it is to find really knowledgeable people etc, the lens selection changed from Pentax 50 1.4, Sigma 55-200 and Pentax 16-45 to:

Pentax 50 1.4
Tamron 17-35 2.8
Sigma 24-135 2.8
Sigma 70-300 f4 APO Super Macro II

"and I'd like to get the Pentax and Tamron now" + "I'll find someone sensible to show me the flashguns".

By the way, she was impressed with all of your posts and said that she would consider the f2 or better WA in the future. When she said that she was going to fund that option, I said that she obviously knew best.

Thought that all of this might give you a laugh.

Best regards,
Alan

Alan Owen said:

Agreed. I'll get one of the zooms.

I'm sure that this will be a good collection and know that my wife
will ask me how I came to make this decision. You will be
remembered for your help.

Very best regards,
Alan

richardday said:

Alan Owen said:

Hi Richard,

I have yet to decide between the Pentax 16-45 f4, 24 f2.0 and
Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4. I think that the 50 f1.4 will be great for
portraits but perhaps not so appropriate for Group shots.

I would be happy to take your advice on the above, with particular
regard to which one would take the best shot given the settings in
the following photos:

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

It's critical that I get this point covered.

Click to expand...

Practical Photograpy reviewed both lenses in a recent wide angle
test feature (April 04) and the Tamron (£330 UK / $480 US) scored
consistently better than the Pentax (£350 UK / $430 US) by a couple
of % on most counts, but overall 89% againt the Pentax 88%, the top
scoring lens was the Sigma 12-24 at 91%. But that is their view,
mine was also similar, but I strongly suggest that you try to test
the lenses for yourself to get the "right feel", only you can
decide.
I suggest that, for what you want, the zooms would be a better
initial buy, get the 24 f2.0 later as and when you decide you
need/can afford it. As it is a prime lens, optically, it will
easily outperform any of the zooms, but you will have to use your
feet, or crop, to get the framing you desire.
As you are in London try contacting Camera World or Warehouse
Express who both advertise the lenses, see if they will let you try
them out, or indeed, your local Jessops who can usually get the
lenses in for you to try. They will usually price match (to a major
UK supplier) as well.

If you are intending to buy in the USA, usually lower prices, but
local sales tax, if any, plus VAT & duty to pay upon importation
(if you actually do) tends to wipe out alot of the advantage, I
strongly suggest that you stick with B&H or maybe Adorama. As I
have offices in New Hampshire, I have my US purchases sent there
for me to collect when I go over, being in NH is very useful as
there is no local sales tax to pay when goods are shipped/bought
there either!

Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

Click to expand...

--
Alan

Click to expand...

--
Alan