Pentax K100D and what lens for modelling

Have fun! A DSLR re-invigorated my long-abandoned dreams of being a photographer! They are just fun, pure and simple! No worries about film costs, instant feedback and great quality at home.

 

For what kind of photography? Are you still talking primarily modeling?

One of the lenses in my collection is an 80-205, and I find I don't put myself into many situations where the extra reach is really necessary... especially when doing either model photography or railfanning...

Now, If I were doing more nature photography, the longer reach would certainly come in handy more often than it does for me now....

Paul

 

I'd go with the 55-200 mm, so that you don't have a gap. I rarely shoot beyond 200 mm, even in the field shooting wild life. I simply can not handhold any lens beyond about 150 mm, even when I crank up the ISO speed to 800. 200 is pretty long (300 equivalent). In 40 years, I think I've gone beyond 200 mm (or its equivalent of 300 mm) for about half a dozen shots, mostly of something like the moon rising. In 40 years, there have been perhaps half a dozen shots where I needed something longer than 200 mm.

At 300 mm you really have to be prepared for a shot. That means a tripod and a stake-out spot, and a lot of patience waiting for something to occur.

I've shot thousands of shots at 12 mm. The 12-24 Nikon zoom is my standard lens. Given a choice, I'd go short rather than long. So 55-200 would be my choice, if I couldn't get a wide-angle instead.

 

I think you made a wise choice. Next, I'd look at a wider lens than 18 mm before looking at something longer than 200 mm. I carry a 12-24. 24-85, and 70-300. The 70-300 is usually in my pocket rather than on a camera body. I do carry two cameras, which is sort of a luxury, but necessary for surprise shots. And I have an assistant, my wife Jeanne, always ready to catch any lens I'm replacing. Sometimes it's literally a toss, as I fumble through my pockets for a different lens. That's one reason why I like the bayonet mount of a Nikon rather than a screw-mount.

I've had a 450 mm lens for 35 years. I've taken one shot with it that's worth a damn. I don't even pack it any longer. It's just too big, heavy and clunky to bother with.

 

Paul,

I'd spend money on a good tripod, before I'd spend it on a camera bag. As I've related before, a good camera bag can save your gear when a drunken farmer pulls his tractor out in front of you. But that's happened only once, whereas a good tripod has been used many thousands of times. I spent as much, or more, time choosing a tripod as I did choosing a camera and lenses. My parameters were something I could carry easily, i.e, lightweight, and not break, i.e., robust. I'd simply broken the two previous tripods. This was not cheap, about US $450, IIRC correctly. But it's paid for itself many times over.

 

I think wanting a camera bag may depend on what you want to do with that camera as well.

I just recently spent some money on a new camera bag because of what I've been doing with the camera lately, not because my old one was warn out (The old one is a metal case with a foam insert, the exteriors on those don't wear out easilly, and the foam can be replaced).

As to what I've found myself doing lately, when my railfan buddies and I go out for a few days several times a year, we've been doing a lot more hiking than we used to. My old camera case had to be left in the car. The new case is a backpack, so it's much more condusive to a hike (and as a bonus, the new case can carry the computer, which means I can leave the deadicated laptop bag at home, instead of adding it to the clutter in the back of the car).

I do agree with what Pete says about tripods. I've got a cheap one I bought years ago, when I knew nothing about picking out a tripod. While it works, it just isn't stable enough to use with a long lens, or for timed exposures.

Another alternative to a tripod is a monopod. They are generally lighter weight than a tripod, and provide enough support to steady the camera for most shots. I find a monopod suitable for my railfan photograph, but not quite suitable for long timed exposures (since you have to at least make sure the monopod stays upright).

Paul

 

Colonel,

you may want to take a look at this forum for Pentax-related issues:

PentaxForums.com

I'm a member there, too. Great forum, uses vBulliten, too. :teeth:

 

Paul Bender,

A backpack camera bag is next on my list! Here's my thinking. If you have a single camera and two lenses, then why bother with a camera bag? I've gone on lots of day-hikes where I knew that a single camera with two lenses was all I was going to need. Usually these hikes, and their photo opportunities, didn't even require a tripod.

When I got up to two cameras and four lenses, a flash, filters, batteries, and wildlife photography that needed a tripod, and lots of travel to boot, then I needed a bag. I made a poor choice in a shoulder-mounted bag, as I never anticipated being out in the wild. The backpack bags were a little pricey in 2002. After 4 years of toting a shoulder bag around Alaska, New Mexico and other places, I realized that I had made a mistake. Penny-wise, pound-foolish?

I'm now saving my pennies for a backpack bag.

 

Pete, I have the LowePro Computrekker. I love it. I can pack my D70 outfit, my wife's Canon point & shoot, laptop, all the necessary chargers, and even a tripod if I have to. However, it gets heavy!!!!!!

 

I've looked at some of the backpacks mentioned above. Not as pricey as I thought. Still, I'll probably have two cameras always at the ready. I never know when a shot will present itself, and I'd hate to be fumbling with a bag while a bear slips away.

I'm stocking up on 4GB cards right now.

 

How do you like your K100D several months after getting it, Colonel? :teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth: