Which lens should I get?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Buschmaster, Jan 10, 2007.

?

Which lens should I get?

  1. #1

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. #2

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. #3

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. #4

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. #5

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. #6

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. #7

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  8. #8

    2 vote(s)
    33.3%
  9. Something else

    2 vote(s)
    33.3%
  1. Buschmaster macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #1
    Well, I think I'm still going to run to National Camera Exchange tonight to take a look at their lenses, but here are some choices and you tell me if they're worth it. It will be for my Pentax K110D.

    Click the link for sample shots, then after the lens is the condition and price on KEH.
    Sigma 75-300 F/4.5-5.6 Macro - EX+ $65 - Do you think this is a typo? I can't find a Sigma like this... Excluded from poll because I'm not sure it exists....?

    #1 Tamron 80-210 F4.5-5.6 - EX $29

    #2 Sigma 70-210 F4-5.6 UC II MACRO - EX+ $49, EX $45

    #3 Pentax 70-200 F4-5.6 SMC FA - EX $56

    #4 Pentax FA 80-200mm f/4.7-5.7 - (Not on KEH) $45

    I will mostly be using these lenses for taking night shots with a tripod, but it would be nice to also get some nice macro shots hand held. I can get a better macro lens later if need be as well, if one of these lenses can perform well enough, or at least worthy of it's price tag. If I don't get one of these lenses I'll probably wait for my tax refund and get one of these lenses:

    #5 Pentax Zoom Telephoto SMCP-FA 100-300mm f/4.7-5.8 Autofocus Lens - $100 New

    #6 Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro Super II Autofocus - $140 New

    #7 Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro - $200 New

    #8 Tamron Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 - $155 New


    Thoughts or suggestions are certainly welcome. I can maybe stretch my price range a bit, but don't get overboard on me. ;) Probably not much beyond $200 if even that high.
     
  2. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #2
    All of those lenses are pretty slow. You're going to need a lot of light or you run the risk of soft images. $45 for a telephoto zoom? That seems fishy but I don't know Sigma lenses well enough.
     
  3. Buschmaster thread starter macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #3
    Well, they're used.

    And like I said, for most of their uses, I'd have it on the tripod. If nothing else, I can push the ISO up....
     
  4. dllavaneras macrumors 68000

    dllavaneras

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    Caracas, Venezuela
    #4
    Dedicated macro lenses are inherently expensive. But they are some of the sharpest lenses out there. First try extension tubes. If you still want a dedicated macro lens, then go right ahead and start saving up! It'll be worth it.

    This may sound obvious, but take your camera to the shop to try out the lenses yourself, in indoor (poor) lighting.
     
  5. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #5
    the one danger with "sample shots" is that nobody posts crappy ones. ;)

    If you can bring your laptop to a store, take a few shots with a lens and see how they look when transfered to your computer, that might give you an idea. (maybe go when they aren't swamped). Most brick and mortar places are more than happy to help out with things like that.
     
  6. Buschmaster thread starter macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #6
    I'm not sure there are small stores around here with these lenses...

    Sure, people don't upload crappy samples, but just the fact that good shot potential is there is good, right?
     
  7. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #7
    of course, just look at the exif data. Some of the shots are stopped down quite a bit. You might not get very good results with the lens at f/4-5.8 -- maybe only about f/8 or f/11. the prices are cheap enough that you can give it a whirl.
     
  8. Buschmaster thread starter macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #8
    I'm leaning towards #7. It looks to be such an awesome lens, especially for around $200. Plus, nice macro feature...
     
  9. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #9
    I don't know much about Pentax or Tamron lenses listed, so I'll probably just stick with Sigma because I like the company. :)

    What's "Super II Auto Focus"?? It doesn't sound so "Super". :eek:
     
  10. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #10
    Grab the one with the macro setting on it. macro is a very useful tool to have for great closeups.
     
  11. Buschmaster thread starter macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #11
    I have no idea what that is supposed to mean...

    But it sounds pretty dang neat and makes me want to buy a lens!!!!!



    Or get #7.
     
  12. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #12
    Examples of the same lens can vary. That is one big difference between say a Sigma an Nikon. Quality control. The companies with good QC make every lens identical the cheap campaniles allow more variation in what they sell. So you depend on luck if yours is good or not. So seeing that se one else was lucky andgot a good one does not mean yu will get lucky too.

    In general you pay more and get a better lens if you buy the camera maker's brand. By the Pentax lenses if all else is equal.

    Sometime a third party maker will offer a lenses no one else makes but mostly they compete by imply being lower priced. Something has the give to allow the low price. Likely it's QC.

    All general rules have exceptions, the above included.
     
  13. raptor96 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Location:
    RI
    #13
    There was actually a good article on this in Pop. Photo this or last month. I picked the mag up in the airport so I'm not sure which month (I don't subscribe).

    I don't know if it's about quality control but I do know that part of the reason for variations from individual example to individual example is that some brands (i.e. Quantaray by Ritz) are just like Kenmore is from Sears (that is, made by the lowest bidders). Previously, it was even so bad that it wasn't the lowest bidder made a lens and if supply stopped that lens was discontinued - it even went so far as companies changing manufacturers and lenses entirely and marketing them as the same lenses with the same make badging. I know that's not true with Tamron and Sigma and several other companies that are well-known older manufacturers but it's something to learn more about. (Sorry to divert from the original topic but I thought that was interesting re: makes and QC)
     

Share This Page