Hi,
I want to buy a zoom lens for my Pentax K-x DSLR, a cheaper one. Mainly, because I'm learning and all the lenses I have are prime from 50 to 100mm (pentax-m 50mm f/1.4, pentax-m 100mm f/2.8, and some M42 mamiya, helios, etc), and I want to try and test a zoom lens but within a budget of 250 USD (I know it's a low budget, but it's all what I have <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />).
I've read here the reviews from some of the Pentax's, the DA 55-200 and the 55-300. Also I've found in amazon a Sigma 70-300 and a Tamron 70-300 too within my budget, but I don't know which is better.
What recommendations can you give me for a zoom lenses, and what you would recommend? I was looking for one in the range of 28 - 300mm within that low budget <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Thanks in advance!
Andrés
[quote name='Andres Moreira' timestamp='1314207375' post='10940']
Hi,
I want to buy a zoom lens for my Pentax K-x DSLR, a cheaper one. Mainly, because I'm learning and all the lenses I have are prime from 50 to 100mm (pentax-m 50mm f/1.4, pentax-m 100mm f/2.8, and some M42 mamiya, helios, etc), and I want to try and test a zoom lens but within a budget of 250 USD (I know it's a low budget, but it's all what I have <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />).
I've read here the reviews from some of the Pentax's, the DA 55-200 and the 55-300. Also I've found in amazon a Sigma 70-300 and a Tamron 70-300 too within my budget, but I don't know which is better.
What recommendations can you give me for a zoom lenses, and what you would recommend? I was looking for one in the range of 28 - 300mm within that low budget <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Thanks in advance!
Andrés
[/quote]
Hi
To make it short
I would go for the tamron 17-50 2,8 without VC - Best bang for the buck ever
and for the telezoom range. just go for the 55-300 Pentax. You will not read a single bad line over it. The sharpness is ok but the contrast and therefore the IQ appearence is great. There is a bundle version of it called DA L 55-300 which can be picked up cheaply on ebay.
Which one first is your choice ;-)
Hi,
There is one more nice option - older used F 70 - 210mm (f4,0 - 5,6), they came out on ebay/KEH/PF marketplace for about or a bit more than 100USD. 9 blades, fast AF...
A.
@Bjoern: Hi, thanks for your recommendation. I was looking something bigger, like a 50-300 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />, I've read about them, the best seems to be the 50-300 from pentax, but the others are quite good, judging some shots on flickr/amazon.
@arv: I've just checked Ebay and I only see one, seems to be cheap and good. Thanks. Anyway, I would try to get a new one if I can.
[quote name='Andres Moreira' timestamp='1314211807' post='10946']
@Bjoern: Hi, thanks for your recommendation. I was looking something bigger, like a 50-300 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />, I've read about them, the best seems to be the 50-300 from pentax, but the others are quite good, judging some shots on flickr/amazon.
@arv: I've just checked Ebay and I only see one, seems to be cheap and good. Thanks. Anyway, I would try to get a new one if I can.
[/quote]
I had the Tamron 70-300 before. It is a good lens for the money but bad CA so the IQ appearence is not to good at the long end. Also not great in contrast. Go for the pentax 55-300 otherwise you pay for two lenses. First for a cheap one a year later or so for a expensive one.
have fun
[quote name='Bjoern' timestamp='1314216727' post='10948']
I had the Tamron 70-300 before. It is a good lens for the money but bad CA so the IQ appearence is not to good at the long end. Also not great in contrast. Go for the pentax 55-300 otherwise you pay for two lenses. First for a cheap one a year later or so for a expensive one.
have fun
[/quote]
Thanks again Bjoern! I'll cotinue looking at this lenses and in the meanwhile I can save a bit more. Btw, did you try the Sigma 70-300 DG Macro? It seems a good lens, and also have macro function.
Thanks!
[quote name='Andres Moreira' timestamp='1314477320' post='11087']
Thanks again Bjoern! I'll cotinue looking at this lenses and in the meanwhile I can save a bit more. Btw, did you try the Sigma 70-300 DG Macro? It seems a good lens, and also have macro function.
Thanks!
[/quote]
The SIgma 70-300 APO DG MAcro is the one to look at with the cheap Sigmas, not the one without "APO". I am not sure if it is still available, if the OS one has replaced it.
The APO version is much better than the Tamron, it does not have the Tamron's horrible CA. It is not sharp at the edges at 300mm, but the center is still quite OK. And yes, the 1:2 macro option is a nice bonus for such a lens.
Not sure if you should consider it over the Pentax 55-300mm, though. Not sure how good that Pentax is, so I have to just go on what the others say about it.
I haven't tried the 55-300, but I hear it's AF is very slow. If the lens is intended for wildlife or sports photography, then this should be a deal-breaker.
As for the Tamron vs. the Sigma, I much prefer the Tamron - CA and all. The Tamron at 300/5.6 is simply much sharper than the Sigma. The following comparison is with a Pentax K10D:
![[Image: post-4674-1206830799.jpg]](http://d-spot.co.il/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2008/post-4674-1206830799.jpg)
To me the Tamron (on the left) is much sharper. More so when comparing corner crops. When it comes to corner sharpness at 300mm, the Sigma at 11 can't match the Tamron at 5.6.
![[Image: post-4674-1206832229.jpg]](http://d-spot.co.il/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2008/post-4674-1206832229.jpg)
![[Image: post-4674-1206832389.jpg]](http://d-spot.co.il/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2008/post-4674-1206832389.jpg)
Photozone's own tests of these lenses show a similar difference.
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1314520803' post='11094']
I haven't tried the 55-300, but I hear it's AF is very slow. If the lens is intended for wildlife or sports photography, then this should be a deal-breaker.
As for the Tamron vs. the Sigma, I much prefer the Tamron - CA and all. The Tamron at 300/5.6 is simply much sharper than the Sigma. The following comparison is with a Pentax K10D:
To me the Tamron (on the left) is much sharper. More so when comparing corner crops. When it comes to corner sharpness at 300mm, the Sigma at 11 can't match the Tamron at 5.6.
Photozone's own tests of these lenses show a similar difference.
[/quote]
You must have had an exceptionally bad Sigma copy there. Although, I do see clear evidence of camera shake in the Sigma crops, so one should first use non-moved images to compare <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
100% crop from the Sigma (pentax mount):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozadr1an/5699655213/sizes/o/in/photostream/
I think the point is that the Tamron is a better lens; The market place and the reports show it. Lots of Nikon users on the Nikon forums admit that this particular lens is better than the Niko issue and don't ask me to document it BC <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> , but all who follows must get the same impression. As a matter of fact, you yourself boost the Tamron often. This guy has asked for a good zoom lens for his Pentax. The Tamron 70-300 is one of the good alternatives and in the 70-300 family, for the moment probably the best.
|
