Kit lens replacement

[miniman82]

My 18-55 has never been right anyway, it's always had trouble with AF at 55mm; maybe I got a bad one. Anyhow it's now completely broken, so I've decided it's time to move up to something better. I was thinking about getting either the Pentax 50 f/1.4, or the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8. My other lenses are sigma 14 f/2.8, Tamron 28-200 f/3.8, and Sigma 100-300 f/4.5. I tend to shoot more landscape than anything else. I've alway wanted a standard prime, and the price of the Pentax 50 is very appealing. However, I feel the 17-70 Sigma might be a bit more versatile. Pros/cons? What would you buy?

[calicojack]

Originally Posted by miniman82

My 18-55 has never been right anyway, it's always had trouble with AF at 55mm; maybe I got a bad one. Anyhow it's now completely broken, so I've decided it's time to move up to something better. I was thinking about getting either the Pentax 50 f/1.4, or the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8. My other lenses are sigma 14 f/2.8, Tamron 28-200 f/3.8, and Sigma 100-300 f/4.5. I tend to shoot more landscape than anything else. I've alway wanted a standard prime, and the price of the Pentax 50 is very appealing. However, I feel the 17-70 Sigma might be a bit more versatile. Pros/cons? What would you buy?

I have the 17-70. It's a great, very versatile lens.
Brian

[palmor]

Originally Posted by calicojack

I have the 17-70. It's a great, very versatile lens.
Brian

I second that. I also love the 50/1.4 but since you won't have a good wild angle zoom to replace the Kit I think I'd go for the Sigma then the 50 at a later date.. that is just me though

Look here for a ton of 17-70 examples Alaska Photo Gallery by palmor at pbase.com

[Confused]

Hi miniman82

Re your present quandary:

I tend to shoot more landscape than anything else.

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, a Pentax 50 f/1.4 is going to give you a 35mm film equivalent coverage of 75mm, whilst the Sigma 17-70mm approximates to roughly 24 - 105mm. I imagine that 75mm would be pretty restrictive when attempting to capture panoramic landscapes, in which case I'd tend to opt for the Sigma. Hope this helps somewhat, but good luck which ever lens you eventually choose.

Best regards
Richard

[Canada_Rockies]

Originally Posted by miniman82

My 18-55 has never been right anyway, it's always had trouble with AF at 55mm; maybe I got a bad one. Anyhow it's now completely broken, so I've decided it's time to move up to something better. I was thinking about getting either the Pentax 50 f/1.4, or the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8. My other lenses are sigma 14 f/2.8, Tamron 28-200 f/3.8, and Sigma 100-300 f/4.5. I tend to shoot more landscape than anything else. I've alway wanted a standard prime, and the price of the Pentax 50 is very appealing. However, I feel the 17-70 Sigma might be a bit more versatile. Pros/cons? What would you buy?

I had enough cash, so I bought the Pentax DA* 16-50/2.8. With half the cash, it would have been the Pentax DA 16-45/4. I think that the 16mm wide angle (24mm on film) to 70mm or thereabouts equivalent field of view makes the 16-45 a nearly perfect landscape tool. 17mm is actually quite a bit longer (6+ percent) and restricts the wide open spaces shots quite a bit.

[Ash]

Not for landscapes, but you just can't go by the FA 50/1.4 for image quality, shallow depth of field and fast AF (much better in low light) - perfect for portraits.

[miniman82]

I looked at the Pentax 16-50 f/2.8 lens, but I'm afraid it's a bit out of my price range ATM. I have the Sigma 14 when I need an 'everything in it' shot, and I figured if I was going to spend the cash for a lens to replace the kit, it would need to be a tad faster so I didn't even look at the 16-45 f/4. I guess I'm leaning towards the 17-70 at this point, although like palmor said, I may still get the prime later on.

[miniman82]

Update- I decided on the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC SLD ELD Macro. It doesn't have as much reach as the 17-70, but it is 2.8 all the way and in the same price range. I figure if I need something longer, I'll use my Tamron lens.