Pentax should offer a 1x-135mm walk-around lens.

[CSpronken]

Pentax should offer a 1x-135mm walk-around lens.

Currently the only option is the Sigma 18-125 and looking at the review that lens is not as good as such type of lens could be. Also Tokina will introduce the 17-135 probably at PIE2007, but so far I've only seen it mentioned with Canon and Nikon mounts. I really wish Pentax would rebadge the Tokina as a Pentax and offer it as a kit lens.

The budget DSLR killed of the IQ oriented prosumers, but Pentax isn't offering a walk-around lens with decent optical quality that offers the same zoom range and conveniece these people were used to in their prosumers.

Pentax has the ideal product line to attract these former prosumer buyers, they have the IQ, they have the in body IS, but the lack of a walk-around (like the 18-135 Nikon has as a kit lens) in my view hampers their ability to really offer a suitable single lens sollution for these kind off buyers.

[FotoPete]

the Sigma 24-135mm 2.8-4.5, weight aside, is a great walk around lens. Quality is pretty good across the zoom range. There's also the sigma 18-200 if you want a more compact package. (albeit a slight decrease in IQ)

[CSpronken]

Originally Posted by FotoPete

the Sigma 24-135mm 2.8-4.5, weight aside, is a great walk around lens. Quality is pretty good across the zoom range. There's also the sigma 18-200 if you want a more compact package. (albeit a slight decrease in IQ)

If the optical quality of the Sigma 24-135 would have been as good as the Tamron 24-135 I would have bought the Sigma for it's aperture.

Reason not to buy the Tamron (I nearly bought it though):
- 24 is a bit narrow for APS-C (but still ok for a walk-around)
- Lens is designed for FF so bit large for APS-C
- Aperture is slower than Sigma

Reason not to buy Sigma:
- 24 is a bit narrow for APS-C (but still ok for a walk-around)
- Lens is designed for FF so bit large for APS-C
- Optical quality not as good as the Tamron

The 18-200 has more zoom than I need for a walk-around thus compromising IQ too much.

I expect the Tokina's optical quality to be very good, I mean it has to be otherwise it's rather strange it has a smaller range than the Sigma which has the same maximum focus length AND was designed for APS-C. I really wished the Tokina was 2.8-4.5 like the Sigma though.

But Pentax just shouldn't make it this hard for potential customers it just need a good and reasonbly fast 1x-135 for the Pentax mount.

[FotoPete]

Originally Posted by CSpronken

If the optical quality of the Sigma 24-135 would have been as good as the Tamron 24-135 I would have bought the Sigma for it's aperture.

Reason not to buy the Tamron (I nearly bought it though):
- 24 is a bit narrow for APS-C (but still ok for a walk-around)
- Lens is designed for FF so bit large for APS-C
- Aperture is slower than Sigma

Reason not to buy Sigma:
- 24 is a bit narrow for APS-C (but still ok for a walk-around)
- Lens is designed for FF so bit large for APS-C
- Optical quality not as good as the Tamron

The 18-200 has more zoom than I need for a walk-around thus compromising IQ too much.

I expect the Tokina's optical quality to be very good, I mean it has to be otherwise it's rather strange it has a smaller range than the Sigma which has the same maximum focus length AND was designed for APS-C. I really wished the Tokina was 2.8-4.5 like the Sigma though.

But Pentax just shouldn't make it this hard for potential customers it just need a good and reasonbly fast 1x-135 for the Pentax mount.

Pentax prides on their primes.

Actually the quality is more then decent on the Sigma. If you want quantitative results, chop off the right end of the 24-135 MTF chart (account for APS crop). You'll see its amazing for $100-200 lens to produce that result. The Tamron rides it a bit slower at 3.5-5.6 and costs more.

I find that we don't need the 18mm all that much. Useless involved in special applications, most of the general photography falls into the slightly wider than eye to portraiture. (~35mm to ~135mm).

A 28mm lens yields a resultant focal length of 42mm. Very close to the FA Ltd. 43mm f1.9 which is claimed to be the 'true normal focal length' for film rather than the commonly accepted 50mm.

Although I would agree its not as good as say if the lens had a wide end in the teens. Looking at the MTF charts provided my Sigma, it seems like trying to maintain IQ for wide angle is a rather hard reality to physically achieve. You'll see even on their EX wide angle lenses, the lines waver quite drastically. This is probably due to the fact that light must be coverged at such extreme angles. Anything wider and having larger zoom capacities is going to be very detrimental to IQ let alone rather expensive. I know Nikon made a 18-135. Sigma has a 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 DC Macro which performs very well across its focal range. It goes for around $400-$500. Pentax is realizing its own 17-70 in the coming months and maybe that will be a good option to consider. (Maybe its a rebrand of the Sigma. Who knows? Olympus rebranded the Sigma 75-300)

I have the Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f2.8-3.5 as my standard walk around and it covers most of the stuff I do. (42-135mm) and its very sharp. A fellow photographer (shoots Nikon DX lenses) marvelled at its sharpness (it was wide open too).

So you don't have to look far for a good standard solution. Pentax may not have larger zoom ratios but it makes it up in IQ. The DA18-55mm may very well be the best standard kit out there. (Leica D 14-50 excluded). If Pentax standard options don't work for you, there are plenty of film lens options. (Remember just because a lens is digitally cropped doesn't necessarily mean its better than full frame lenses. When using full frame lenses on aps, you crop the center which is essentially the 'sweet' spot.)

[FotoPete]

I just checked the 18-125 out of curiousity and the MTF charts say that this lens should be very sharp. Maybe you can give it a try sometime. It might work for your walk around lens problem.

[SupremeMoFo]

CSpronken - noticed that in the current Pentax lens range, there's nothing over 4x zoom? Because you get much better results from building a shorter zoom range and waste less money on development no doubt.

[Dana G]

The 50-135 DA* f/2.8 is coming out this spring (2007). This replaces the 70-200 lens range that was so popular with film cameras.

It's a star lens, so it'll be really good. I pre-ordered from Adorama, and it is about $900 or so. Cheap for a lens that they are calling a star lens.

[FotoPete]

The star designation ain't what it used to be. I guess its just Pentax's way of dealing with the lack of a 'standard' premium lens line. (like the Canon L or the Sigma EX).

At least the Limited Lenses are still largely up to par with what they used to be.

[CSpronken]

Sorry for not replying, am just back from a short vacation.

About Pentax not having long zoom ranges, because of IQ, I realize that and can understand their way of thinking. I'm just saying that because they do so, they are in my view missing a whole lot of sales and people buying into their system. People like myself who come from a P&S and just want a decent quality lens with a decent zoom range just to get started in the DSLR world have very little choice with Pentax.

About the sharpness of the Sigma 18-125 and 24-135 if I see the reviews at Fred Miranda they don't look all to favourable.

[Cideway]

Wouldn't surprise me if there was a 17-135 on the horizon from Pentax.

[CSpronken]

Originally Posted by Cideway

Wouldn't surprise me if there was a 17-135 on the horizon from Pentax.

Well the part of the Tokina site that announced more info on their 17-135 at PIE2007 has been taken down and I haven't heard anything yet about it from PIE2007. So a Pentax version is already uncertain, but to get the lens at all in the near future doesn't seem very likely.

[blende8]

Ta da ...
it's there:
Tokina 16.5 - 135 / 3.5-5.6

�yPIE2007�zƒgƒLƒi�[�AƒfƒWƒ^ƒ‹�ê—pƒŒƒ“ƒY2–{‚ðŽQ�l�o•i

[CSpronken]

Originally Posted by blende8

Ta da ...
it's there:
Tokina 16.5 - 135 / 3.5-5.6

�yPIE2007�zƒgƒLƒi�[�AƒfƒWƒ^ƒ‹�ê—pƒŒƒ“ƒY2–{‚ðŽQ�l�o•i

Thanks for the heads up, no information about release date? Wonder what name they're gonna give it.