Noob camera questions (about to order stuff)
 

I have a K100D Super and the standard 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens it was bundled with. I did some lite reading and I think I'm ready to start buying some more stuff. I found this 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 lens
http://www.adorama.com/PX28105AFN.html#ProductReviews
that looks like a great replacement, but how much macro ability would I lose from the 18mm to the 28mm jump? And how much would I gain from the 55mm to 105mm jump? (I'm guessing double? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo.../confused1.gif)


oh and are all filters basically the same or do the more expensive filters work better even if it's only UV? Last question! should I buy a big filter and an adapator in case I get a bigger lens them 58mm in the future?

The link's not working for me, and I'm not an expert on Pentax stuff, but I think you might have macro confused. Macro lets you focus on something when the camera / lens is physically close to the object. Going from 18mm to 28mm, you would essentially be losing wide angle - the determining factor of how important this is to you really depends on of what and how you normally take pictures.

link fixed
I think I do have macro confused [surrender]


It's not that important to me, but it's nice to have. So you're saying that I could still have a close and detailed shot (with the camera physically close to the object) but between the 2 lenes, the 28mm would look cropped?

the lens you have found isn't much faster(in terms of aperture) than your current one, also, it just lacks wide-angle focal range, which is a big cons for most people. I think you should consider an additional lens that would add focal range, and not replace what you currently have, and as I said, as a replacement, it's not a good lens IMO, as it lacks wide angle.

As for filters- I don't use them personally. I only use them in situations where they really are needed, such as where there's water sprays or lots of dust etc...
The expensive ones such as B+W and some others are better, their optical quality is higher, as cheaper filters degrade image quality, and badly emphasize bad side effects such as ghosting and more lens flare.
IQ wise- shooting without a filter is much better than with any filter.

about that last question, I think that if you buy that filter, and then you plan spending some more for another filter or an adapter, just get another filter, even if it costs a bit more. This will spare you the hassle of removing the adapter over and over again.

I own a 400D\XTi and the lenses I have are the 18-55 kit lens, 50mm F1.8 prime and a 70-300 Tele. I only have a UV filter on my 70-300 just to protect it from scratches, which is the main idea of having UV filters. But that filter on the 70-300 goes off when I need sharper photos.

Different lenses have different minimum focusing distances. Usually lenses are designated macro if they're intended to be used for that purpose.

Going from 18mm to 28mm, the easiest way I can think to explain it is that you can fit less of a scene in the frame. It's really more complicated than that but I'm not really the one to try and explain it.

EDIT: I think if he wants a faster lens, primes are typically the best option if breaking the bank isn't really a question.

Thanks for the fast reply and info . I thought it was much better aperture wise[rofl] I have just the slimmest of ideas on what a wide angle lens is, but I'll start looking again in the 70+ tele range. Guess I'm going addition over replacement.

Get the 50mm f1.4 for portraits. You won't be disappointed.

I'd support that. May I also add that with such a fast lens you'd be able to shoot in the worst light conditions, including dim light indoors. I bought my fast 50mm as my second lens, shortly after getting my XTi with the kit lens. It lets you do so much more...

The F1.8 50mm is in many ways the better choice, especially for a beginniner SLR pohotgrapaher, as its MUCH cheaper, and the speed difference is only very slight.

[thumbup]
Thanks to biohazard I'm not so noobish anymore. Bought a 70-300 lense and will probably get a prime 50 soon. But I have one last question. While I was roaming around taking shots of just about everything, I noticed that one of the pictures had (what I'm assuming is) a dead pixel. Now this was the first time I've seen one- on my 998th picture and I know with the amount of dead pixels in a sensor that some are normal, but check out this low light shot:

(hmm, 10 meg picture) http://www.mediafire.com/?ymxmejannjt


Is over 10 dead pixels norm? I'm still under warrenty, would Pantex repair/replace this?

Dib where did you end up buying the lens from?

Didn't look at the picture, but are you sure it's not sensor dust?

I saw the picture, this is certainly not dust. It does remind hot pixels.

Dib- I forgot, do these spots appear at the same places every time? if they do then these are stuck\dead\hot pixels and you should grab pentax by their balls until they get it fixed for you I think.

buydig.com - they had the lowest price and free shipping for a few items. Though shipping is extremely slow and requires a signature.
One or two may be sensor dust, but the other 10 def aren't.
Yep, I got 2 photos with all in the same spot. Will commence ball grabbing [thumbup]