Lens suggestions for Pentax Z70?
L Wells
I have a Pentax Z-70 SLR and I'm thinking about buying one or two
extra lenses for it.
It currently has a SIGMA 28-70mm 1:2.8-4. I also have a SIGMA EF-500
ST hotshoe flash.
I primarily like to take landscape photos, but my family has made me
the unofficial family portrait photographer as well.
Would only be interested in lenses capable of autofocus etc and
presumably capable of interacting with the flash mentioned above.
I have about $700 to $800 to spend, and would very much appreciate any
suggestions you may have.
All the best,
LW
David in Perth
The 19-35 are generally made by Cosina but can be branded almost anything.
Second hand cheap, under $200. Brand new closer to $450.
Tokina make a better 20-35. And there is also the 17-35 Sigma EX but that
would be outside your price range.
Sometimes you can come across cheap fixed lenses. 24mm or 20mm. Vivtar made
a very nice 19mm years ago, I have one but it is Canon FD mount. And I have
bought two Tokina 17mm very cheap, both sold now I am afraid.
So keep looking. Lots out there.
As for interfacing with your flahs, unlikely. I think that flash has a wide
angle limit of 24mm. 20mm with the wide angle diffuser. Check your manual,
or www.sigmaphoto.com
:)
"L Wells" <urban...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:als8kucpddrn00djm...@4ax.com...
Miro
A tripod helps if you crop a negative ? That is how some people get
panographic shots, by using the "meat" of the neg and not the top and bottom
strips, but you will need a very stable stand.
I think the 24mm prime or the 31mm LE is a great option. Zooming does not
always help the composition since the warping of angle gives totally
different shots at 17mm than 35mm. It is a lot more severe at wide angle.
A 20mm or 24 or 31mm will give you a more controlled style of shooting !
L Wells
wrote:
I've been looking at the Tamron 28-300mm and wondering if that would
be a sensible purchase?
I know it's a little more than I'd hoped to spend, but it would be
nice to have one lens for most, if not all, of my photos.
Just wondering what the picture quality is like...
Regards,
LW
Miro
> be a sensible purchase?
Would you like Ian Thorpe on your swim team, Linford Christie on your track
team and Brazil on your soccer squad. Find a way to make all these athletes
in one person and then you have a 28-300 zoom that can do a great job in all
conditions.
The best you can hope for is AVERAGE. Once you own a speciallist lens that
only does one task, you will never think you are missing out on much.
BUT, for the record, the Pentax MZ-S (flagship) comes with a 28-90 (I think)
that my mate tells me is a cracker. If you can get your paws on this
particular bundled lens, try it out.
L Wells
>L Wells <urban...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
>news:oak9kuoms1588dkck...@4ax.com:
>> I've been looking at the Tamron 28-300mm and wondering if that would
>> be a sensible purchase?
>
> No, it wouldn't.
>
>
>> I know it's a little more than I'd hoped to spend, but it would be
>> nice to have one lens for most, if not all, of my photos.
>
> That's what I thought.
>
>
>> Just wondering what the picture quality is like...
>
> Rubbish. I bought one on a Saturday morning. Returned it
>for refund on a Monday. Not a good lense at all. :-(
Why so, Peter? And, what have you done as an alternative?
Regards,
LW
Brett Mckay
If that is what your after, you are better off buying either the Pentax
24-90 f3.5-4.6 or the Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD. The 24mm end
would be more helpful than the longer zooom for landscape work. They are
both sharper and better quality than the 28-300. They currently can be
bought for around $800-900.
If you plan to enlarge any photos then the 28-300 tends to lack definition.
L Wells
wrote:
>L Wells wrote:
>
>> I've been looking at the Tamron 28-300mm and wondering if that would
>> be a sensible purchase?
>>
>> I know it's a little more than I'd hoped to spend, but it would be
>> nice to have one lens for most, if not all, of my photos.
>>
>> Just wondering what the picture quality is like...
>
>If that is what your after, you are better off buying either the Pentax
>24-90 f3.5-4.6 or the Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD. The 24mm end
>would be more helpful than the longer zooom for landscape work. They are
>both sharper and better quality than the 28-300. They currently can be
>bought for around $800-900.
>
>If you plan to enlarge any photos then the 28-300 tends to lack definition.
Well, I'm officially stumped. I was hoping to have a single lens that
I could take reasonably good landscape pictures with, which also had
reasonable zoom for uses like family portraiture (I find my current
28-70mm often doesn't get 'close' enough for single person portraits)
along with flexibility to pull in distant objects when out and about,
etc.
From comments in here it seems like the Tamron 28-300mm is not the way
to go, though, and I'm really not keen on the idea of having to swap
lenses on a regular basis to take different kinds of shots.
If I could afford it, I'd think about getting another Pentax body and
an 80-200mm lens, maybe, but I don't think the budget will stretch
anywhere near that far.
Anyone have any other suggestions?
Thanks for all the help!
L Wells
Miro
> I could take reasonably good landscape pictures with, which also had
> reasonable zoom for uses like family portraiture (I find my current
> 28-70mm often doesn't get 'close' enough for single person portraits)
> along with flexibility to pull in distant objects when out and about,
> etc.
The idea of a zoom is to also make you move. Zooming in on someone by going
from 70mm to 200mm makes their face flat and featureless because you have
totally warped the perspective of the face to one that is not flattering.
A portrait focal length has come into this popular expression because at
somewhere between 75mm and 100mm (35mm) the human face looks beautiful. In
fact a 50mm at f1.4 is amazing also. My favourite was the ultra sharp Macro
lens, of which I have owned several brands. but usually about 60mm.
A nice blur in the background without a squashed, flat field at the focus.
Zooming into someone is contrary to the ideal of using a lens to its full
potential, so I am being idealistic by suggesting you move your legs. This
is far more obvious when you limit yourself to a specific focal length in a
prime or zoom, moving the camera does become an important part of the
composition.
Glenn Schultes
my needs. Especially the 50mm F2.8 Macro EX lens. It's absolutely
stunning with it's sharpness.
I wouldn't mind trying the 80-200mm F2.8 sometime, but the price is
just too high for my budget. If I were to spend this much on my
photography, I'd probably go digital instead.
Glenn
On Wed, 07 Aug 2002 21:27:12 +1000, Rob
<audiobA...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Glenn Schultes wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:51:09 GMT, L Wells <urban...@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I use Pentax Cameras. I have for years, but I've always preferred
>> Sigma's lenses.
>
>Hi Glenn,
>
>I'd be interested to hear what Pentax lenses you've tried and how they
>compared to the equivalent Sigmas?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Rob
Paul Jones
I recall i used to have ones of those :)
> Yeah, well. You still don't know anyone selling their FA 200/2.8 >do you?
Regards,
Paul