[soppy]

I am working on trying to figure out what lenses I should have on my wishlist so to speak. I find it helps me to actually have something to look forward to spending my money on that keeps me from spending it on random camera crap that I don't actually need (I only bought 1 lens and I think I have LBA...). Anyhow, I was wondering what everyone thinks of these lenses and if they are the higher quality lenses I could get. I am planning on sticking with Pentax for a while, so I am almost considering this more of an investment. My logix behind these lenses was as follows:

1)EX line because of higher build quality

2)1:2.8 constant aperture, because I want/need a fast lens

3)3 Lenses to cover the whole range, because I will be carrying them with me on day trips and don't want to have 8 different primes and break my back (I will also be taking them through airports if that matters)

4)Need a super wide angle (less than 12mm) without being a fisheye

5)Middle range lens should be suitable as a walk around, and have a little more than 55mm on the top end

6)Trying to cover as much as possible of all focal lengths in between the widest and most telescopic lens

So here is what I came up with. I feel a little wary about spending that much on a third party manufacturer's glass, but let me know what you think:

Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM Autofocus Zoom Lens 202109 - B&H
$650

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens 571109 - B&H
$900

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens 579109 - B&H
$800



Thanks guys!

[agsy]

Those are all nice lenses. I used a 28-70 Sigma EX and it is a great lens, built like a tank with sharp image quality. As far as a walk-around lens, Pentax/Tamron 18-250 would be a good choice IMO.

[soppy]

Well I was thinking the 24-70 would be enough range for the walk around, I don't want to lose IQ to barrel distortion if possible, which is what tends to happen on super zooms from what I have read...

Only problem is $900 is almost 4x what my camera is worth, and I might have to choose between taking the trip or getting the lens lol. Good to know that it is good quality though for when I eventually do get enough to buy some quality glass.

[SOldBear]

I'd replace the Sigma 24-70 with the Sigma 18-50 (or the Pentax 16-50 or the Tamron 17-50). It's likely to become the lens most used (it is for me. You can see my lens collection in my signature).

Yes, there will be a 50-70 mm gap. But IMHO, it is bearable. You can always use the 18-50 and crop a bit.

[JeffJS]

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED SDM Lens 21650 - B&H Photo

Pentax Zoom Telephoto 60-250mm f/4 ED DA* SDM Autofocus 21750 -

Add to cart for actual prices.

Just suggesting another option.

[agsy]

If you like the 24-70 range, the Tammy 28-75 is a great choice and a lot cheaper than the Sigma you are looking at. Very sharp lens.

[Lowell Goudge]

I'd replace the Sigma 24-70 with the Sigma 18-50 (or the Pentax 16-50 or the Tamron 17-50). It's likely to become the lens most used (it is for me. You can see my lens collection in my signature).

Yes, there will be a 50-70 mm gap. But IMHO, it is bearable. You can always use the 18-50 and crop a bit.

The gap is not too bad between 20 and 24 mm but the sigma 24-70 is a huge lens with 82 mm filter. The other two lenses I believe are 77 mm filters. You might want to look at the sigma 24-60 also

I use a tamron 28-75 between. The 10-20 and 70-200 the gaps are not that bad and I can fill it with the FAJ 18-35 if needed

[ponyt27]

Hello soppy.... if you`re ready to grab the Sigma 70-200 there`s one in For Sale section right now. Dumrox has it on for $640 US..... thot I`d pass on the info... good luck!

[soppy]

Hello soppy.... if you`re ready to grab the Sigma 70-200 there`s one in For Sale section right now. Dumrox has it on for $640 US..... thot I`d pass on the info... good luck!

I wish I could grab it right now! Anyone have $640 they wouldn't miss?

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED SDM Lens 21650 - B&H Photo

Pentax Zoom Telephoto 60-250mm f/4 ED DA* SDM Autofocus 21750 -

Add to cart for actual prices.

Just suggesting another option.

The 16-50 is intriguing, though the only reason I am hesitant with that one is on my current lens I often find myself wishing I had just a little more length, and that goes to 55mm... The telephoto I'm not crazy about simply because it is f/4, and while that is faster than my Tamron 75-300 1:5.6, I would prefer a 2.8 especially considering how much more the Pentax is over the Sigma... Thanks for the options though, I didn't know about those lenses.

If you like the 24-70 range, the Tammy 28-75 is a great choice and a lot cheaper than the Sigma you are looking at. Very sharp lens.

Hmm, that's interesting. Has anyone used both of these lenses? There has to be a reason why the Tamron is $400 less than the Sigma, but maybe I can live with that reason lol

I'd replace the Sigma 24-70 with the Sigma 18-50 (or the Pentax 16-50 or the Tamron 17-50). It's likely to become the lens most used (it is for me. You can see my lens collection in my signature).

Yes, there will be a 50-70 mm gap. But IMHO, it is bearable. You can always use the 18-50 and crop a bit.

I actually can't crop that much because I am shooting on a 6.2 megapixel K100D, and I would probably get a zoom with 50mm at the top if I wasn't already constantly wishing I had the gap between 50 and 70 covered lol. Seems I want to get just a bit closer with my 18-55mm and then as I do, I lose the shot.





Also a general question for all, on the 10mm, I like to do panoramas, does this lens have an amount of distortion that will make stitched panoramas look distorted? I usually put them together in Photoshop.

[JonPB]

Just to point out: going with primes will actually be lighter, and considerably so.

The collection of Sigmas you mention will weigh 2680g. If you stick with Pentax, get a 12-24, DA 35 macro, 50-135, and 200, and you're at 2155g. If you go entirely with primes--15, 21, 40, 70, 135 (I calculate the SMC-F version, which is heavier than FA), and 200--you're at 1792g, mostly in the long lenses.

Honestly, though, I think you should look at your own photography and see what ranges you need most. I know very few people who frequently use focal lengths from very wide to telephoto. You also should consider your approach to photography: will these mostly be snapshots, or will you take time to compose images? Snapshots favor zooms with the widest range you can tolerate the quality of; the time required to consider composition makes the time required to change lenses negligible, and primes remain higher quality than zooms, which leans toward a collection of primes.

My guess is that you'd be happy--photographically, not necessarily as an owner--with mid-range zoom lenses and a few excellent primes. It would be lighter and cheaper, but have the quality when you need it.

[soppy]

That is actually a really good point. I think I'm going with zooms out of not really knowing what to expect. It will be a study abroad trip through my college, so there isn't too much info on how much time we will have to wander off from the group, etc. Therefore I figured better to cover a large range so if an opportunity presents itself, I can grab it.

I can probably live without the long end though to be honest, and the 70-200mm was going to be the last one I bought, if I even ended up buying it. I really like macro though, so maybe I'll pick up a MF macro lens for cheap to do some of that and save the money. What are the limited lenses focal length again?

I am pretty set on the 10-24mm, simply because I really want to have that wide end (I like doing landscapes and panoramas, as previously mentioned).

The 17-70mm was just meant as a walk around because, as mentioned before, I don't know what kind of opportunities I will have to take time to compose. I kinda figured, the slight loss in quality would be worth it if I actually came back with photos to remember my trip, then when I do have time I can take the time to compose and make a photograph. The reason I want to spend so much on the zoom in particular is so I can have as little compromise over primes as possible. It is also why I'm not going with a 18-250mm or even the new 18-135mm.

I hope that clarifies my viewpoint a little. If I knew I would have all the time I wanted, I would go with ltd primes or other nice primes. But since I don't, I'm playing it safe so I can end up with some good memories of things I may not have been able to capture otherwise, as well as some great photographs that I took the time to compose.

Thanks for your help though, I guess the weight comment was uniformed on my part.

[alohadave]

If you are going to be traveling with the lenses, keep in mind that the 70-200 is 3 pounds. And, being f/2.8 it's a big lens. Sigma doesn't tend to make compact lenses.

It's not exactly a lens for extended handheld shooting.

[soppy]

Alright, well that is one more reason to take that lens off my list. The $650 would be better spent on things while I am abroad or for other photo gear. Maybe after college I'll get it for shooting auto races (which I like to do but never get the chance) or just stick with my current 75-300 if I don't cannibalize it to buy these other lenses. Thanks for the tip for sure though, saved me lots of cash lol

[Marc Sabatella]

1)EX line because of higher build quality

2)1:2.8 constant aperture, because I want/need a fast lens

3)3 Lenses to cover the whole range, because I will be carrying them with me on day trips and don't want to have 8 different primes and break my back (I will also be taking them through airports if that matters)

As mentioned, the combined weight of the three zooms you list is well over 2500g. Or, for those of us used to British measurements, over 5.5 pounds. Talk about back- breaking - that's *far* heavier than a set of primes covering most of that same range. Not to say that the zooms you are talking about wouldn't make for a fine kit, but if weight is a concern, you've got it backwards here.

By way of comparison, I carry the DA15, M28/2.8, DA40, DA70, and M135/3.5, which combined are barely 1/3 the weight of the three zooms you list. Replace the 28 & 40 with the new DAL35 and you'd knock off another 100g. You'd have the 15 - 135 range covered in under 800g. Of course, you're only up to 135mm here, and adding a 200/2.8 doubles the load. Frankly, I wouldn't bother unless I was a sports shooter. If I really needed more length than the 135, I'd just add a 50-200 for the lowest weight solution, M200/4 for the faster reasonably low weight and low cost solution, or 55-300 for the highest quality longer solution.

[irishwhite]

I just got the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 and was really surprised at how heavy it was. and 80mm filter diameter?!?! I'm glad it came with a filter attached is all I can say! As for the pano question, take a look at the sample I just put up on the sigma 10-20mm thread.