Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2010, 6:09 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
frank-in-toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 1,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braciola View Post
That's not on my list
Oh. I can see that. The sigma 1750 is larger according to
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/17-50...c-os-hsm-sigma

Just trying to help.
frank-in-toronto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 5:03 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

if money is no consideration i would go with the

pentax da* 16-50mm f2.8

if you dont want to spend that much but want great image quality then

tamron 17-50mm f2.8

for fractionally less sharpness but better build quality i would go with the

sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 10:37 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

I have the sigma 24-60 2.8 EX DG, the non HSM version.

I read the reviews of the, and as someone said the HSM version isnt as sharp as the non HSM versions. Since I do not really need fast auto focus for a 24-60mm lens, (and actually this is my only AF lens, I prefer manual myself) I went with the sharper/narrower focal range than the 24-70 HSM.

The 24-60 EX 2.8 is EXTREMELY sharp. I really forget that its a zoom at times when I look at my pictures at it rivals primes. There is little no no distortions that I've seen, and it was the sharpest in its class at the wide and long range (esp. at corners) which is why I picked it over the 24-60 and 17-70. The 17-70 is sharp at the 70 range but proved softer at 17mm and the 24-70 was almost as sharp at 24mm but much softer at 60 and 70mm at corners in an online review/comparison.

The price was phenominal too. I paid about 250.00 for the 24-60 ex 2.8 sigma, and that is much cheaper than many of the ones youve listed. (used but like new condition) I find the AF fast but use MF most of the time, its not as fast as the HSM motor, but like others have proven, it is sharper than those and produce better iq. IQ is my top priority so I dont mind the narrow focal range, its perfect for product photography, walk around/wide/landscapes/mascro.

The close focus on this lens is like 3 or 4 inches, so you can get macro shots as well. Its a great versatile lens, the 60mm is sharp as can be so you get nice portraits if people dont mind the camera being close. 2.8 is very sharp and can produce nice bokeh, but F4 and up corners and everything is incredibly sharp.


let us know which one you pick
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 10:39 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

you not find that 24mm on a aps-c camera is abit long for a general purpose lens?
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 10:43 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

no not at all, I've done many car shows with it and can fit a whole full size car (we're talkin 1970's caddies) in the frame from about 10 feet away. Its wider than you think.

To give you an idea of wideness, I can fit a guitar in the frame (entire thing) from about 4 feet away. IMO anything wider is just for effect or if you are going for that SUPER WIDE image, but then you're better off with something like the sigma 10-20.

A lens that covers super wide and medium focal lengths is going to have significantly much higher distortions at wide, and I find this lens controls distortion well throughout.

Id rather strap on a super wide when I need it than push a lens to do things it doesnt necessarily do well in the first place


Its also about 2/3rds the size and weight of the 17-70.
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 12:53 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.Pattullo View Post
if money is no consideration i would go with the

pentax da* 16-50mm f2.8

if you dont want to spend that much but want great image quality then

tamron 17-50mm f2.8

for fractionally less sharpness but better build quality i would go with the

sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro
Thanks again John

I think I'm going to go for the Tamron

I don't mind spending the extra cash for the Pentax 16-50 if I was convinced it had better IQ, but with all the review I've read on the web, I'm not so sure it does.
Also, it looks like many people get bad copies as QC in not so good.
Looks like its built extremely well, but the weatherproofing is kinda worthless if I'm using it with the Kx.

Do you really think the IQ is better than the Tamron 17-50, or is it the built quality why you're recommending first?
Braciola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 1:03 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braciola View Post
Thank you all so much for your help!

Okay, here is my short list of everything I'm considering.
I would like to order one of these ASAP.
Again, looking for best IQ to use with me Pentax Kx
I broke them up in two categories......if the longer reach lens are going to sacrifice too much IQ, then just ingnore them
What lens would you choose?


Sigma NEW 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM

Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF]

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM

===============================================

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)


Hi Braciola,

Some thoughts -- may be irrelevant to your choice, but might be considerations that don't really show up in the spec sheets. . .

There are a few features that might distinguish the Pentax DA*16-50 from the rest when used with the Kx.

WR -- I realize that the Kx isn't Weather Resistant, but carrying a small plastic bag is not really a bother, and having a lens with this feature means one less thing to worry about if you do a lot of outdoor shooting. Also, you never know, but a WR body might be in your future.

Lens Correction -- The Kx can correct for lens aberrations, both optical and color. This is only available for Pentax branded lenses.

Quick Shift -- The HSM models might also offer full time availability of manual focus override when the focus is locked in AF S. This is a handy feature, not only for making minor corrections after the AF has locked, but to manually prefocus the lens in very low light conditions to give the AF a little help.

Then again, if cost/performance ratio is a factor, it's hard to argue with the Tamron 17-50, but if silent focusing is a major consideration, then it's between the HSM of the Sigma and SDM of the DA*. . . Personally, I don't put too much stock in silent focusing, but to many, it's a high priority. . .

Although I own quite a few lenses, I don't often shoot wide, so this very common range (16-50 ish) constant f2.8 is about the only range that I've not yet made a decision on. I do have the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 (non HSM), so it's covered, but not with a constant f2.8, which can make a difference in low light AF capability. In my mind, the DA*16-50 sits at the top of the class, with the Tamron 17-50 the economy alternative. I'll probably end up with the DA*16-50 to go along with my DA* 50-135 for a WR wide to medium tele lens kit for my WR bodies.

Of the last 3, I chose the Tamron 28-75. I bought this lens with my DS about 5 years ago, and would never consider another lens in this FL range. It's exceptionally sharp at all FLs. Probably the thing that separates it the most from all the lenses mentioned is its size. The Aspherical front elements make this lens at least 10mm smaller in diameter (takes a 67mm filter) than any other lens in its class, and it makes a major difference if you want might want to be minimalist and just carry an extra lens or two in your pockets. This may sound like a minor point, but I can't tell you how many times this has been a major convenience for me. This is my goto up close to medium distance people lens. Its close focusing capability also makes it a great lens for flower sized subjects.This is a very versatile lens.

Good luck in your choice!

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 1:45 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snostorm View Post
Hi Braciola,

Some thoughts -- may be irrelevant to your choice, but might be considerations that don't really show up in the spec sheets. . .

There are a few features that might distinguish the Pentax DA*16-50 from the rest when used with the Kx.

WR -- I realize that the Kx isn't Weather Resistant, but carrying a small plastic bag is not really a bother, and having a lens with this feature means one less thing to worry about if you do a lot of outdoor shooting. Also, you never know, but a WR body might be in your future.

Lens Correction -- The Kx can correct for lens aberrations, both optical and color. This is only available for Pentax branded lenses.

Quick Shift -- The HSM models might also offer full time availability of manual focus override when the focus is locked in AF S. This is a handy feature, not only for making minor corrections after the AF has locked, but to manually prefocus the lens in very low light conditions to give the AF a little help.

Then again, if cost/performance ratio is a factor, it's hard to argue with the Tamron 17-50, but if silent focusing is a major consideration, then it's between the HSM of the Sigma and SDM of the DA*. . . Personally, I don't put too much stock in silent focusing, but to many, it's a high priority. . .

Although I own quite a few lenses, I don't often shoot wide, so this very common range (16-50 ish) constant f2.8 is about the only range that I've not yet made a decision on. I do have the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 (non HSM), so it's covered, but not with a constant f2.8, which can make a difference in low light AF capability. In my mind, the DA*16-50 sits at the top of the class, with the Tamron 17-50 the economy alternative. I'll probably end up with the DA*16-50 to go along with my DA* 50-135 for a WR wide to medium tele lens kit for my WR bodies.

Of the last 3, I chose the Tamron 28-75. I bought this lens with my DS about 5 years ago, and would never consider another lens in this FL range. It's exceptionally sharp at all FLs. Probably the thing that separates it the most from all the lenses mentioned is its size. The Aspherical front elements make this lens at least 10mm smaller in diameter (takes a 67mm filter) than any other lens in its class, and it makes a major difference if you want might want to be minimalist and just carry an extra lens or two in your pockets. This may sound like a minor point, but I can't tell you how many times this has been a major convenience for me. This is my goto up close to medium distance people lens. Its close focusing capability also makes it a great lens for flower sized subjects.This is a very versatile lens.

Good luck in your choice!

Scott
Thanks Scott, good stuff.

Yeah, I'm wondering about just getting the Tamron 28-75 for now.
I'll be using the lens on my list mainly for my business which is selling high end custom guitars

I think the Tamron 28-75 might be a good range for shooting a guitar, (what do you think?) although I realize I'll be sacrificing some IQ compared to the Tamron 15-50 & maybe some wider angles for when I want to use the camera for a walk around.

Do you think I'l even miss a wider angle using the 28-75.
It's a tough call, and I'm on the fence about it.

BTW, thanks for the info about using the Pentax DA*16-50 with my Kx.
What about IQ compared to the Tamron 17-50 though?

Last edited by Braciola; Oct 15, 2010 at 1:54 PM.
Braciola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 2:13 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
John.Pattullo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 613
Default

its certainly sharp enough to get the job done - some people have critised the bokeh of it but i did some looking around at photos take with the da* 16-50mm and i personally thought it looked fine - benjikan might ahve seen some of his posts is a professional fashion photographer shooting for vogue and bazzar? pah dont know not a fashion magizine person but regardless very high lelve photography and hes using it so its gotta be a good lens

i agree there is potential for autofocus troubles but reports are that pentax changed the motor in the lenses so if you get a new one should be ok

as for the wideness - 24mm i would say is pushing it for being wide enough 28mm is definately to far unless you getting a da 12-24 aswell

good thing about the pentax lens though is that it starts at 16mm so thats pretty wide and will do most of your wide angle needs - if i had the 16-50mm i doubt i would have got the 12-24mm - so might save you the cost of a wide angle lens further down the road too - but equally the tamron isn't far off at 17mm and is a great performer by all accounts for significantly less
__________________
Flickr
PENTAX K-5 & PENTAX K-7
Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 | Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f2.8 | Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 | Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro | Pentax-DA* 60-250mm f4 | Sigma 150-500mm
Pentax Photo Gallery
John.Pattullo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 10:02 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

John nailed that last statement on the head.

I think you have to ask yourself what lenses do you have already that are solid keepers, and which ones do you plan on buying in the future.

Too many times have I purchased a lens based on the sharp glass and speed just to find the overlap was rediculous. I settled on the sigma 24-60 ex apo because It fit my kit real well and the extra 10mm wasnt something I needed on the long or wide ranges. Like I said I was going for IQ not versatility, but I think you'll find versatility in just about any lens in this range. Its hard to find versatility in a super ultra wide, but any of the lenses mentioned are great performers, so I would just ask yourself what focal lengths you really NEED, and what price you have and what features you are lookin for. Snowstorms mention of the tamron 28-75 is a great one, one I considered myself but already having a 28mm prime and no wide angle lenses I went with the 24-60 (which is my widest angle lens, crazy perhaps, but I dont find a need for ultra wide with my shooting)


decisions, decisions.

If you need any image shots with the named lenses, I would just ask and Im sure you shall receive. You already know who has what now, so you should be able to atleast break it down to a few different choices
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 PM.