Reading mode: Light Dark

New lens with $350 budget.

Go to last post
D

Dan Darmoros

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
269
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I'm having the hardest time to decide.

I'd like some extra range, so 28-300 is very tempting.

I'd like some extra speed, so 18-50 f/2.8 is tempting.

I'd like some quality with reach, so 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 is tempting.

Then I'd like to replace my m-50 with da-50 prime, but it's a bit too narrow.

How about 35mm f/2.0. How much do those go for?
 
Thanks, I found it in stock on BH Photo for $299. Not bad. I'll use it to replace my M-50 f/2.0. M-50 is nice, but a bit narrow and at full manual a pain to use. Just try to use flash in order to lower the aperture and get a larger DOF, with a manual lens you have to change the ISO, change the aperture, change the shutter speed, pop up the flash, then shoot. With the FA, I just pop up the flash. I think the kit lens is going for an early retirement.
 
I have a 28-300, and within reason, it's a convenient lens. However, it's not the sharpest tool in the shed. At the extremes (wide open, or low light) it's not that great. All things considered, for the $150 I paid for mine, I'm happy with it. In good light, I've gotten some nice shots with it, and it's very convenient. I'm going on a quick business trip, and I put the 28-300 on my K100D and that will be it. Okay, I lied. I also packed my FA50/f1.4 for the party Saturday night. It's a small lens, so it packs easily. But when I'm out walking around, the 28-300 will be it this weekend.

The FA50/1.4 is a great lens for the money (if you can find one). I believe there's still a rebate on them.

Can't comment on the others. I'd suggest a used 135mm/f2.5 or f2.8. Those can be had pretty cheap on ePrey and they're fun lenses, reasonably fast with reasonable reach. I've had 3, including a Sears version that I got for $5! It took great pictures considering the price.
--
Russ
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rfortson/
Even bad photography can be fun :)
 
How is that 28-300 with the onboard flash? I would primarily use it for outdoors shots, but if I go out, I usually won't take another lens. Would this lens block the onboard flash? If so, I might look at something more compact. Maybe the upcoming Tamron 18-250? Then again, that will cost 3x as much.
 
Dan Darmoros said:
How is that 28-300 with the onboard flash? I would primarily use it
for outdoors shots, but if I go out, I usually won't take another
lens. Would this lens block the onboard flash?
Click to expand...
If it's extended too far with the lens hood on, you will get petal shaped dark areas on your shots.

I'm really not thrilled with the results from my 28-300. I can easily say of the lenses I've acquired and kept, it's the one I dislike the most. Sadly, it's a necessary evil until I can get my paws on some FA* lenses.

--
Eric's Photo-a-Day gallery
http://www.ericcloninger.com/galleries/pad2006/main.php
 
I enjoy my 28-300 for the convenience and the length of it. I have put a 1.4TC on it, as well as a 2.0x TC. I even stacked them the other night, but that makes for one long lens! I was trying for some moon shots and was rather unimpressed with my ability. I will try again, though.

As a beginner, I see the quality of some of these more expensive lenses, and see that as something I can get in the future. I have already got some amazing shots (in my opinion) with my newbie lens kits.

One option you have in your budget would be to:

Buy a Tamron 28-300 (about $190 now)
Sell your M lens on Ebay (get about $40)

That would leave you $160 from your budget and another 40 from ebay.

Buy a smaller lens (the 35mm you talked about or the 50mm 1.4) that has a Pentax rebate on it and send for that money.

All in all, I think you can get two lenses for your budget, although one of them is going to be regarded as a beginner lens. But, I have noticed that those posters that have the 28-300 never seem to get rid of it. ;-)

Jeff
 
regarding the 28-300, i just ordered the tamron 28-300 xr di after we tested one against the great tamron 28-75, price is $349 and after the $30 rebate it will be $319. well within your budget if you can wait on the rebate which ends 12/31/06. btw, must be made in the US, sold by licensed dealer, and have the 6 year warrenty for the rebate -- that is in the tiny print!

--
karen
 
Hi,

Two lense you can add to you list are the Sigma 28-200mm and the Sigma 24-135. Both under your budget.

I use the 28-200 and prefer it to the 28-300 because of its lesser zoom.
It all depends on you and your shooting style.

bluwing
--
No one is listening, Untill you make a mistake.
 
I have the 28-300 XR Di. I like it quite a bit, and it's my primary lens for general purpose shooting. I used to have the Pentax 28-105, but I found myself shooting at 105mm a lot, so I got the longer lens. The surprise was how much better the image quality was with the Tamron over the Pentax 28-105 (the Pentax is quite soft even 1 stop down). I can't comment on the difference between the Di and non Di version. There's quite a price gap, and I don't know if the Di version is worth the extra cash or not, but I'm certainly not sorry I got it.

Usually I shoot bird pictures with my Sigma 135-400, but here's one with the Tamron 28-300:

 
I would like to thank everyone for their opinions. They were very helpful.

I chose the Pentax 35mm f/2.0. The reason behind it is that most of my photography is indoor and it's practically a perfect indoor lens. I can do portraits without flash and I can extend the DOF by popping up flash. Most of my friends and family live in modest houses where the rooms are not that big so I don't need a big reach.

My next lens will be the Tamron 28-300, I will use it to take photos outdoors, but right now I need the low light capability more than the reach of the Tamron.
 
jsundin said:
All in all, I think you can get two lenses for your budget,
although one of them is going to be regarded as a beginner lens.
But, I have noticed that those posters that have the 28-300 never
seem to get rid of it. ;-)
Click to expand...
You're probably right, though I don't think I could get what I think it's worth. For the ~$100 (maybe tops) I'd get for it used, I'd just as soon keep it. I do find it good for snapshots.

I went to the Ren Fest one weekend with the kit lens and the DA50-200, and went back the next weekend with just the Tamron 28-300. For shots like that, there's just not that much difference, and I didn't have to fool with swapping lenses.
--
Russ
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rfortson/
Even bad photography can be fun :)
 
That would be my pick too. With the crop factor our 50 feels too long for interiors and thats where most of our shooting is done.

Next time I have $300 to spend on a lens I'm getting a 35
 
The 17-70 looks to be a good one and is what I am buying next.

A fast 50 makes a nice portrait lens and is something you should keep an eye out for. I picked up a used F50/1.7 for $60
 
my husband rememberd an article in RANGEFINDER magazine (mag for pro photographers) written by John Rettie in santa barbara and he reported if you are using a digital camera that you need the "di" version, non-di for digital are not as good. here's the link for his article on the tamron lenses:
http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/archives/Feb05/tamron.tml

my tamron 28-300 xr di that i have ordered for $349 is from http://www.cameraland.com and it is best to call as the web site is not up to date, 212-753-5128. this is where my husband and i bought our K10D's for $849.

karen clanin
 
The DA 16-45/4 ED AL!!!

I use this lens nearly 80% of the time I shoot my Pentax.

Low distortion, sharp wide open, light, does macro well, 16mm for landscape, and price is reasonable ($300 here at least).

--

 
I still can't quite figure out the love affair people here have with the DA 16-45 lens. It's sower wide open at 18mm than the kit lens, a bit faster zoomed in, but at f/4.0 it's still slow. All you get for the $500 or so is the wide angle, a bit more resolving power and no vignetting at wide angle. With the Sigma 17-70 you get a faster lens and a more useful range all at a lower price. Sharpness in both is about the same. As far as I'm concerned, if I were to chose between the two, I'd pick the Sigma each time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

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