Additional lens to supplement old Pentax film SLR lenses

[jlp3630]

I'm fairly new to the SLR world (film and digital). My previous camera was the Canon Powershot S3, and I just bought a factory refurbished Pentax K10D from Best Buy. I have the following lenses from my dad's old film SLR (Pentax K2):

1. Promaster Spectrum 7 28-70 mm, 1:3.5~4.5
2. Promaster Spectrum 7 70-210 mm 1:4~5.6
3. Pentax 1:1.2/50
4. Pentax 1:3.5/24

When I went to Dodd Camera, they recommended that I buy a "wide angle" lens to augment my existing lens set. After doing some research online, it seems like I could get a 18-55mm lens ( http://www.bestbuy.com/site/PENTAX+-+smc+DA+18-55mm+f/3.5-5.6+AL+II+Zoom+Lens+for+Most+PENTAX+Cameras/9360176.p?id=1218090915470&skuId=9360176&st=pentax lens&cp=1&lp=23) or an 18-200mm lens ( http://www.adorama.com/TM18200PXAF.html ).

I was able to find the 18-55 mm lens on ebay for about $70-80, and the 18-200mm lens for about $200 at Adorama.

Given the above information, I had a couple of questions:

1. Given my existing film SLR lenses, are there any lenses that you'd recommend buying? Or is my set good enough to start out with?

2. Ignoring the lens price differential, are there disadvantages to getting an all-in-one lens (i.e., 18-200mm) versus multiple lenses (i.e., 18-55mm, 28-70mm (which becomes 42-105mm on a digital SLR), 70-210mm (which becomes 105-315mm on a digital SLR))?

3. If you take the price into consideration, is it a better idea to purchase the 18-200 mm because I'll get more bang for my buck? Or should I buy the 18-55mm lens and save my money for a different lens?

 

[JeffJS]

I'm fairly new to the SLR world (film and digital). My previous camera was the Canon Powershot S3, and I just bought a factory refurbished Pentax K10D from Best Buy. I have the following lenses from my dad's old film SLR (Pentax K2):

1. Promaster Spectrum 7 28-70 mm, 1:3.5~4.5
2. Promaster Spectrum 7 70-210 mm 1:4~5.6
3. Pentax 1:1.2/50
4. Pentax 1:3.5/24

I had a promaster 70-210 for a little while and found it to be a nice lens. Can only imagine that the other one is at least half way decent. The 2 pentax lenses you have are true classics and I'd hold on to them no matter what.

When I went to Dodd Camera, they recommended that I buy a "wide angle" lens to augment my existing lens set. After doing some research online, it seems like I could get a 18-55mm lens ( http://www.bestbuy.com/site/PENTAX+-+smc+DA+18-55mm+f/3.5-5.6+AL+II+Zoom+Lens+for+Most+PENTAX+Cameras/9360176.p?id=1218090915470&skuId=9360176&st=pentax lens&cp=1&lp=23) or an 18-200mm lens ( http://www.adorama.com/TM18200PXAF.html ).

I was able to find the 18-55 mm lens on ebay for about $70-80, and the 18-200mm lens for about $200 at Adorama.

The 18-55 is the pentax Kit lens and frankly, I'd leave it on ebay unless it's the later II version. It's marginal on the K10 and won't be of much use on the film SLR because there's no aperture ring and it's meant for the APS-C sensor on the DSLRs. As for the 18-200, I assume you mean a Tamron or a Sigma. No experience with them.

If you want (decide you need) wider than what you have, and want a zoom, seek out either one of the 18-50 (sigma), 17-50 (Tamron) or 16-50 (Pentax) or, one of the 17-70s. The Pentax 17-70 has an SDM autofocus only which means you'll have to upgrade your firmware to v1.3 (available from the Pentax website).

Given the above information, I had a couple of questions:

1. Given my existing film SLR lenses, are there any lenses that you'd recommend buying? Or is my set good enough to start out with?

2. Ignoring the lens price differential, are there disadvantages to getting an all-in-one lens (i.e., 18-200mm) versus multiple lenses (i.e., 18-55mm, 28-70mm (which becomes 42-105mm on a digital SLR), 70-210mm (which becomes 105-315mm on a digital SLR))?

3. If you take the price into consideration, is it a better idea to purchase the 18-200 mm because I'll get more bang for my buck? Or should I buy the 18-55mm lens and save my money for a different lens?

The K10d will take some getting use to. The fact that you have a small collection of basically manual lenses, I consider to be a good thing. For right now, I'd suggest hanging onto your $$ until you decide what it is you need. If you are taking into account that you want to use a film SLR, the 24mm is wide enough and may even be fine for the digital.
--
http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q109/jjkyle/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13300089@N08/

 

[jlp3630]

Given the above information, I had a couple of questions:

2. Ignoring the lens price differential, are there disadvantages to getting an all-in-one lens (i.e., 18-200mm) versus multiple lenses (i.e., 18-55mm, 28-70mm (which becomes 42-105mm on a digital SLR), 70-210mm (which becomes 105-315mm on a digital SLR))?

The K10d will take some getting use to. The fact that you have a small collection of basically manual lenses, I consider to be a good thing. For right now, I'd suggest hanging onto your $$ until you decide what it is you need. If you are taking into account that you want to use a film SLR, the 24mm is wide enough and may even be fine for the digital.

Based off your response, is it safe to assume that an all-in-one lenses are generally "worst" than having multiple lenses that cover the same length (i.e., one 18-200mm lens is worse than a 18-55mm lens & 55-200mm lens)? Or can I not make that generality (i.e., it's really lens dependent)?

 

[JeffJS]

Given the above information, I had a couple of questions:

2. Ignoring the lens price differential, are there disadvantages to getting an all-in-one lens (i.e., 18-200mm) versus multiple lenses (i.e., 18-55mm, 28-70mm (which becomes 42-105mm on a digital SLR), 70-210mm (which becomes 105-315mm on a digital SLR))?

The K10d will take some getting use to. The fact that you have a small collection of basically manual lenses, I consider to be a good thing. For right now, I'd suggest hanging onto your $$ until you decide what it is you need. If you are taking into account that you want to use a film SLR, the 24mm is wide enough and may even be fine for the digital.

Based off your response, is it safe to assume that an all-in-one lenses are generally "worst" than having multiple lenses that cover the same length (i.e., one 18-200mm lens is worse than a 18-55mm lens & 55-200mm lens)? Or can I not make that generality (i.e., it's really lens dependent)?

This is my opinion only so take it for whatever you think it's worth.. The shorter the zoom (less range), the better, if you're going to go with zoom lenses. Long catch all zooms like the 18-200 or 18-300 with a macro setting (usually less than 1:4 reproduction) are ok for what they are but there are always weak spots in them. Both Tamron and Pentax offered an 18-250 that was reported as being pretty good (both are discontinued) and some suggest that they are one and the same lens. A kit that a lot of people seem to be quite happy with is an x-50 (pick one) and the Pentax 55-300.

If you want a wide to short tele lens, go with the Sigma 17-70 which will also give you some macro capability. It's not a great lens, but it's a good lens and is a hell of a portrait lens at the long end. Unless you're chasing birds around the woods, it'll give you a lot of what you may find you need.

I understand the mentality of coming from a superzoom point and shoot. Remember though that you now have a sensor that is 4 or 5 times the size and you have a LOT of room to crop photos if you want a closer view of a subject.

What I was hoping to convey or suggest is that you learn to use the camera with the lenses you have because if you can beat the K10d into submission with a bag full of manual lenses, you can rule your photography world. Unless you are going to be doing big Montana sky vistas, you won't need to go much wider than your 24mm. In fact, I'm willing to suggest that for general stuff that could become your most used lens. IF you later find that you need wider, THEN look but do so only after you've decided the need, not because some guy in a camera store said you should.

When I bought my first DSLR (the K10d), I went absolutely nutz buying lenses, most of which, never got used and later resold. I've found that I'm more a prime lens shooter, in the 14-77 mm range (because those are the focal lengths I have). I have a Pentax DA*300mm that rarely sees the camera. My Tamron 70-300 hasn't been used in 2 years. Not because they are bad lenses, I just rarely need to reach out that far. We're talking close to $1200 that just sits in the camera bags. I don't regret buying the lenses, they just don't get used as much as I thought they would. Get the picture?

--
http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q109/jjkyle/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13300089@N08/

 

[Tom Frog]

I'd say keep your eye out for a 16-45 f4 on Ebay or Craigslist. Relatively small and light, but in my opinion very good IQ for the money.

wil
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom_frog/

 

[Zaldidun]

Just a clarification or two:

3. Pentax 1:1.2/50

If that is not a typo, that is an excellent and fairly expensive lens. If it is a typo, and you really meant 1:2 instead of 1:1.2, then it's a very common lens, a very good one too, but not worth more than $50 if it is the A version, less if not.

If it is a 1: 1.2 , grab it!

…

2. … (i.e., 18-55mm, 28-70mm (which becomes 42-105mm on a digital SLR), 70-210mm (which becomes 105-315mm on a digital SLR))?

No, the do not '"become" any such thing!

That's the important point I need to clarify. Lenses DO NOT CHANGE focal length when used on a Pentax DSLR, nor on any other DSLR. What happens is that the angle of view becoms narrower by a factor of 1.5 (Pentax), but they do not magically become longer lenses.

It's very important to think of the 1.5 crop factor as a limitation , rather than an advantage.

 

[Zaldidun]

Jeff has given you good, solid advice.

In further support of his comments, I'd mention that, personally, I do not consider a zoom lens with a zoom range much over 3x.

Of the 30 lenses I own that I can use on my Pentax DSLRs, only half a dozen are zooms, and I'd gladly sell four of those.

 

[Zaldidun]

I'd say keep your eye out for a 16-45 f4 on Ebay or Craigslist. Relatively small and light, but in my opinion very good IQ for the money.

wil

Yup!

 

[546xatnep]

For the most part, I agree with the previous advice to go out and use your existing lenses, but I would add that it depends entirely on what you'll be shooting. The K10's focusing screen is, in my opinion, difficult for manual focusing. Obviously there's an element of skill involved, but I find it difficult to accurately focus on anything fast moving (like the kids soccer game) or hand held in low light (like family shots indoors) with manual focus lenses on the K10. These subjects were sometimes challenging using film SLR's too, but I think I get significantly better results manually focusing with the film SLR's.

 

[Marc Sabatella]

It's very important to think of the 1.5 crop factor as a limitation , rather than an advantage.

It is what it is is - something that has elements of both (limitation and advantage) if you happen to shoot film, something of no real consequence whatsoever if you don't shoot film.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/

 

[KentG]

I don't want to get on either side of this discussion again but the crop factor is a limitation if you shoot primarily landscapes, architecture, and wide vistas and is an advantage in the realm of wildlife and all things telephoto. That will not change till FF cameras can get up to 34+ MP. A cropped image from a FF camera is never as good as the output of a good 12+MP APS-C camera (when any other variables are irrelevent). If you are going to crop images from a FF camera you might as well have bought an APS-C one instead.

If you are doing WA work then the smaller sensor can be as frustrating as all get out.
Kent Gittings

 

[jlp3630]

3. Pentax 1:1.2/50

If that is not a typo, that is an excellent and fairly expensive lens. If it is a typo, and you really meant 1:2 instead of 1:1.2, then it's a very common lens, a very good one too, but not worth more than $50 if it is the A version, less if not.

If it is a 1: 1.2 , grab it!

It's a 1:1.2. When I brought it to Dodd Camera, they told me that the lens (along with the Pentax 1:3.5/24 ) was a keeper.

 

[jlp3630]

For the most part, I agree with the previous advice to go out and use your existing lenses, but I would add that it depends entirely on what you'll be shooting. The K10's focusing screen is, in my opinion, difficult for manual focusing. Obviously there's an element of skill involved, but I find it difficult to accurately focus on anything fast moving (like the kids soccer game) or hand held in low light (like family shots indoors) with manual focus lenses on the K10. These subjects were sometimes challenging using film SLR's too, but I think I get significantly better results manually focusing with the film SLR's.

I plan to shoot some fast moving subjects (i.e., students at a graduation ceremony), but I wouldn't say that I do a lot of it. At this point, I'd probably consider myself a "general" photographer with no specific subject matter type that gets photographed a lot.

Would getting a lens with auto focus capability be a bad idea? Or is it something that I'll figure out after using the camera + manual lenses for a while (i.e., I get frustrated screwing up a lot of shots with manual focus lenses only)?

 

[JeffJS]

For the most part, I agree with the previous advice to go out and use your existing lenses, but I would add that it depends entirely on what you'll be shooting. The K10's focusing screen is, in my opinion, difficult for manual focusing. Obviously there's an element of skill involved, but I find it difficult to accurately focus on anything fast moving (like the kids soccer game) or hand held in low light (like family shots indoors) with manual focus lenses on the K10. These subjects were sometimes challenging using film SLR's too, but I think I get significantly better results manually focusing with the film SLR's.

I plan to shoot some fast moving subjects (i.e., students at a graduation ceremony), but I wouldn't say that I do a lot of it. At this point, I'd probably consider myself a "general" photographer with no specific subject matter type that gets photographed a lot.

Would getting a lens with auto focus capability be a bad idea? Or is it something that I'll figure out after using the camera + manual lenses for a while (i.e., I get frustrated screwing up a lot of shots with manual focus lenses only)?

No, it isn't a bad idea. For your above stated purpose, I'm going to re-recommend the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 unless you are going to be very far away from the action. Someone else suggested the pentax 16-45, and while that's a nice lens, at f4, it may not be fast enough for a darkened room of a grad ceremony. Keep in mind that in a graduation ceremony, all the action takes place in basically a fixed place. Therefore, once you've dialed in your focus, you shouldn't have to mess with it much. Your 70-210 would probably get you there. Of course, you aren't going to find any faster than your 50mm though it can be soft wide open because of the very shallow depth of field.

If the sport field is your concern, then you might want to take a close look at the Pentax 55-300. Both lenses can be found if you want to hunt for $275 (sigma) and $350 for the pentax. You'll then be covered for just aboiut anything you want to do and you'll have a couple killer primes for when you feel the urge.
--
http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q109/jjkyle/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13300089@N08/

 

[DrewE]

True about manual focusing being somewhat tricky on the K10D with the default focus screen--certainly not impossible, but sometimes a bit frustrating.

I do recommend buying one lens to help with this somewhat (well, technically it is a lens)--the viewfinder magnifier accessory, O-ME53 or a decent third-party equivalent. It's not a cure-all, but it does help. You'll definitely notice that the K10D viewfinder is smaller looking than a film SLR's viewfinder--even with the magnifier. It also (due to the viewfinder screen construction/transmission characteristics) does not accurately represent the depth of field (and brightness) of apertures wider than about f2.8, which obviously doesn't help for precise manual focusing. Replacement viewfinder screens are available that are more suitable and generally garner high praise, although I've never used one myself and so can't comment from personal experience.

If your old lenses have skylight or similar filters attached, you'll probably be better off getting rid of the old filters and either replacing them with high quality (multicoated at the very least) UV filters or doing without, as you deem best. The color cast from sylight filters seems more noticible to me in digital photography; and flare seems to be a bigger problem than with film, I assume because digital sensors are more reflective than film emulsions. Cheap/poor filters are often a major contributor to lens flare in adverse conditions.
--
--DrewE