Mizzling and Puzzling

kyteflyer · 11-19-2010, 11:35 PM

I have decided for the moment to stay with my K200D, but a K5 body is on the horizon. My lens list is in my sig, but I have already decided that I probably want to go to a wider zoom (and may end up selling or passing the K200D on to a friend or relly).

The DA*16-50 is out of my price range, and having read about the potential for it to be a dud, am not really willing to buy on the offchance I might get a good one. So I am currently looking at the 16-45 and the 17-70...

Does anyone have any strong recommendations either way? Would it be too much to ask to say why, and to post examples? I've looked on the PPG but all the shots are so good, its difficult to really work out which would be the better choice. the 17-70 would fill a gap in my currently available zoom range, but the 16-45 seems like a really really good zoom.

All recommendations gratefully received

**Canada_Rockies** · 11-20-2010, 10:13 AM

I would lean toward the 16-45 because of the extra mm at the short end. It is a surprisingly large difference. I guess it works as a percentage of the field of view: 1/16 is 6.25% increase in field of view over 17mm, or if you want to work it on the 17, 1/17 = 5.9% which is still a large change in the field of view. If you lived a bit closer to me we could try the difference out with either my 12-24 or 16-50, but I think you are almost exactly the diameter of the earth from me, and that's if you cut straight through the middle rather than flying around over the surface [GRIN]. With any DSLR with 10 + megapixels, cropping at 45mm to compensate for the 46mm-70mm you lose will still allow decent sized prints. The difference means about 1.5X crop. Even with my K10d, that would make for more than acceptable 12x18 inch prints. The 16-45 is no slouch in image quality either.

SpecialK · 11-20-2010, 12:24 PM

I would also say the 12-24 or 16-45. 17mm is not much wider than 18, and neither is really wide enough :-)

A used 12-24 will be $600-ish, a used 16-45 less than half that.

12-24 is really a useful range, and as you have 35, it is not a large gap to the next lens. Prime users have gaps everywhere and it does not seem to stop them.

(Upon further review, you have a Tamron 18-250 which I did not figure into the equation. You really have no gap, but in fact some duplication. Unless you really need 250-300, the 70-300 seems redundant).

kyteflyer · 11-20-2010, 12:32 PM

Thanks, guys. Yes, I am tempted by the 12-24 VERY much but that too is out of my price range at the moment. Perhaps I should wait a little longer. I was planning to get the DA15 and 21... crikey, cannot decide. However, a replacement for the kit zoom is something I think I want, regardless of prime purchases. I think that the 16-45 is going to get the nod, esp since its pretty cheap in Australia at the moment.

**Ash** · 11-20-2010, 12:34 PM

Practically, and for your budget, there is little argument that the 16-45 is the logical choice for you. The 2mm makes a difference, but perhaps not as much as you'd need - depending on what exactly you'd like to shoot. It's decent in every way (other than lateral CA) but you may not appreciate a big difference in your results comparing them with your kit lens.

If you were going to keep your kit lens, then there's little advantage in going with either of your options, however a Sigma 10-20 or even Tamron 10-24 may be viable options, just a little more expensive than a 16-45. Any wider than 16mm, and the prices of lens go up significantly.

kyteflyer · 11-20-2010, 12:49 PM

Thanks, Ash. I guess I was considering future, when I will be wanting to send my K200D on, with the kit lens. At this point, I'm only planning on acquiring the K5 body, with no lens purchase at that time. I have also been looking at the Sigma and Tamron options as well as Pentax. I don't necessarily want super wide, but OTOH, LBA takes hold and then I want it all.

Perhaps concentrating on the primes I want might be sufficient (that DA15 is a decent price at B&H and significantly less than in AU). I confess to rarely using the kit lens since acquiring my DA35 macro, I seem to use it for everything. I think I'm stuck in that "must have a zoom" mentality... when perhaps its not really necessary.

Ira · 11-20-2010, 02:32 PM

Go with manual primes.

And since you asked to post examples, here are two examples from my 50 1.4 Super-Tak that I bought for 50 U.S. bucks last year. These days, it'll cost you about a hundred, but super fast, and damn cheaper than the modern stuff:

Ditch the zooms.

**Canada_Rockies** · 11-20-2010, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Ira

Go with manual primes.
[SNIP]
Ditch the zooms.

Ira, that's not necessarily what the rest of us want to do, you know. Yes, I have a Mount Adapter K, and yes, I have a screw mount lens to use with it, but no, I will not ditch my zooms.

tentacles · 11-20-2010, 05:19 PM

Have you considered the tamron or sigma equivalents to the DA*16-50? They are strong competition to say the least, and the price is downright affordable.

**Ash** · 11-20-2010, 05:23 PM - **1 Like**

It really does depend on the subjects you shoot and the 'need' for quick selection of focal length. If you want fast adjustment, nothing can beat the versatility of zooms.

Most high end zooms come reasonably close to the IQ of primes, but of course they will be bigger in size and mostly heavier as well.

So if size matters, DA/FA ltds are simply the best you can get.

paperbag846 · 11-20-2010, 06:35 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by kyteflyer

Does anyone have any strong recommendations either way? Would it be too much to ask to say why, and to post examples? I've looked on the PPG but all the shots are so good, its difficult to really work out which would be the better choice.

Ah ha! I think you nailed it. I don't think you need primes for the best image quality... the difference is much much less noticeable than a while back. In addition, a good zoom costs less than the coupe good autofocus primes it would take to fill the void. There are other good reasons to choose primes (I'm a prime guy, myself).

While the limiteds might be nicer than the 16-45... add up the cost of the 15, 21, and 40... yikes! The 16-45 is not a whole lot slower, and you can always fill in the gaps with primes later on as you *see the need* which is important. I can attest that the prime option leads to higher IQ in situations where you will actually notice the difference, but for your needs and budget, I the zoom would serve you well over a single LTD or a bunch of manual focus primes. If you are happy with your results... don't listen to any of us

.

For you, I would buy the 16-45 for the wide angles and increase in image sharpness over the kit, and then a manual focus 50mm 1.7 or 55mm 1.8 (my nod is to the 55) because they are dirt cheap (50 dollars, should be anyways) will open the fast aperture door wide open. You don't need an adapter to use those lenses (the 55 is available in k mount), and while they are more finicky than an autofocus zoom, it's nice to have the option.

The limiteds are quite special (as you know) but I believe should be selected for ergonomics and IQ... not on the basis of IQ alone. The size of them is what makes them extra special (in my book).

Raybo · 11-20-2010, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Practically, and for your budget, there is little argument that the 16-45 is the logical choice for you. The 2mm makes a difference, but perhaps not as much as you'd need - depending on what exactly you'd like to shoot. It's decent in every way (other than lateral CA) but you may not appreciate a big difference in your results comparing them with your kit lens.

If you were going to keep your kit lens, then there's little advantage in going with either of your options, however a Sigma 10-20 or even Tamron 10-24 may be viable options, just a little more expensive than a 16-45. Any wider than 16mm, and the prices of lens go up significantly.

For some reason I almost ALWAYS agree with Ash

......i'd go with a "used" Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, you can find them for about $400.

Ray

Raybo · 11-20-2010, 06:51 PM

BTW,

I also have a 16-45 and it's a cracker of a nice lens!

kyteflyer · 11-20-2010, 10:50 PM

Well, again, thanks to all of you

Ira: I don't think I'll ever ditch the zooms completely, but I can get why you'd make those recommendations

VERY nice shots.

Ash: again, thanks. Reality is, I don't "need" any other lenses. I just want 'em

Tentacles: I had not seriously considered the Sigma equivalent, it weighs heaps more, and I hadn't looked at the Tamron... I guess I didnt register that there is one.

paperbag: Looked in my wallet and really, that's going to be the driver at the moment. I can get a 16-45 OR a DA15 but I can't get both. I have a manual 50, its a minolta MC Rokkor f/1.4 and works well with the K200. I'd probably be looking at DA70 or FA77(for preference!!) before I'd get a 50... but you never know

Raybo: Thanks for your words... Pretty much decided on the 16-45... for the moment

**Ash** · 11-20-2010, 10:56 PM

There's plenty of time to satisfy your LBA desires. So go slow, and you'll appreciate each purchase as you've saved up for them.

You won't go wrong with the 16-45. But you may still find your 35 ltd mounted on more.

Enjoy your wide angle photography...

11-19-2010, 11:35 PM	#1
kyteflyer Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newcastle, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,444	Mizzling and Puzzling I have decided for the moment to stay with my K200D, but a K5 body is on the horizon. My lens list is in my sig, but I have already decided that I probably want to go to a wider zoom (and may end up selling or passing the K200D on to a friend or relly). The DA*16-50 is out of my price range, and having read about the potential for it to be a dud, am not really willing to buy on the offchance I might get a good one. So I am currently looking at the 16-45 and the 17-70... Does anyone have any strong recommendations either way? Would it be too much to ask to say why, and to post examples? I've looked on the PPG but all the shots are so good, its difficult to really work out which would be the better choice. the 17-70 would fill a gap in my currently available zoom range, but the 16-45 seems like a really really good zoom. All recommendations gratefully received

11-20-2010, 12:24 PM	#3
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	I would also say the 12-24 or 16-45. 17mm is not much wider than 18, and neither is really wide enough :-) A used 12-24 will be $600-ish, a used 16-45 less than half that. 12-24 is really a useful range, and as you have 35, it is not a large gap to the next lens. Prime users have gaps everywhere and it does not seem to stop them. (Upon further review, you have a Tamron 18-250 which I did not figure into the equation. You really have no gap, but in fact some duplication. Unless you really need 250-300, the 70-300 seems redundant). Last edited by SpecialK; 11-20-2010 at 12:37 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Puzzling lantern?	vroom_skies	Post Your Photos!	4	08-27-2008 11:57 AM

11-20-2010, 10:13 AM	#2
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	I would lean toward the 16-45 because of the extra mm at the short end. It is a surprisingly large difference. I guess it works as a percentage of the field of view: 1/16 is 6.25% increase in field of view over 17mm, or if you want to work it on the 17, 1/17 = 5.9% which is still a large change in the field of view. If you lived a bit closer to me we could try the difference out with either my 12-24 or 16-50, but I think you are almost exactly the diameter of the earth from me, and that's if you cut straight through the middle rather than flying around over the surface [GRIN]. With any DSLR with 10 + megapixels, cropping at 45mm to compensate for the 46mm-70mm you lose will still allow decent sized prints. The difference means about 1.5X crop. Even with my K10d, that would make for more than acceptable 12x18 inch prints. The 16-45 is no slouch in image quality either.

11-20-2010, 12:32 PM	#4
kyteflyer Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newcastle, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,444 Original Poster	Thanks, guys. Yes, I am tempted by the 12-24 VERY much but that too is out of my price range at the moment. Perhaps I should wait a little longer. I was planning to get the DA15 and 21... crikey, cannot decide. However, a replacement for the kit zoom is something I think I want, regardless of prime purchases. I think that the 16-45 is going to get the nod, esp since its pretty cheap in Australia at the moment.

11-20-2010, 12:34 PM	#5
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Practically, and for your budget, there is little argument that the 16-45 is the logical choice for you. The 2mm makes a difference, but perhaps not as much as you'd need - depending on what exactly you'd like to shoot. It's decent in every way (other than lateral CA) but you may not appreciate a big difference in your results comparing them with your kit lens. If you were going to keep your kit lens, then there's little advantage in going with either of your options, however a Sigma 10-20 or even Tamron 10-24 may be viable options, just a little more expensive than a 16-45. Any wider than 16mm, and the prices of lens go up significantly.

11-20-2010, 12:49 PM	#6
kyteflyer Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newcastle, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,444 Original Poster	Thanks, Ash. I guess I was considering future, when I will be wanting to send my K200D on, with the kit lens. At this point, I'm only planning on acquiring the K5 body, with no lens purchase at that time. I have also been looking at the Sigma and Tamron options as well as Pentax. I don't necessarily want super wide, but OTOH, LBA takes hold and then I want it all. Perhaps concentrating on the primes I want might be sufficient (that DA15 is a decent price at B&H and significantly less than in AU). I confess to rarely using the kit lens since acquiring my DA35 macro, I seem to use it for everything. I think I'm stuck in that "must have a zoom" mentality... when perhaps its not really necessary.

11-20-2010, 02:32 PM	#7
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Go with manual primes. And since you asked to post examples, here are two examples from my 50 1.4 Super-Tak that I bought for 50 U.S. bucks last year. These days, it'll cost you about a hundred, but super fast, and damn cheaper than the modern stuff: Ditch the zooms.

11-20-2010, 05:03 PM	#8
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by Ira Go with manual primes. [SNIP] Ditch the zooms. Ira, that's not necessarily what the rest of us want to do, you know. Yes, I have a Mount Adapter K, and yes, I have a screw mount lens to use with it, but no, I will not ditch my zooms.

11-20-2010, 05:19 PM	#9
tentacles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Winnipeg, MB Photos: Albums Posts: 48	Have you considered the tamron or sigma equivalents to the DA*16-50? They are strong competition to say the least, and the price is downright affordable.

11-20-2010, 05:23 PM - 1 Like	#10
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	It really does depend on the subjects you shoot and the 'need' for quick selection of focal length. If you want fast adjustment, nothing can beat the versatility of zooms. Most high end zooms come reasonably close to the IQ of primes, but of course they will be bigger in size and mostly heavier as well. So if size matters, DA/FA ltds are simply the best you can get.

11-20-2010, 06:35 PM - 1 Like	#11
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by kyteflyer Does anyone have any strong recommendations either way? Would it be too much to ask to say why, and to post examples? I've looked on the PPG but all the shots are so good, its difficult to really work out which would be the better choice. Ah ha! I think you nailed it. I don't think you need primes for the best image quality... the difference is much much less noticeable than a while back. In addition, a good zoom costs less than the coupe good autofocus primes it would take to fill the void. There are other good reasons to choose primes (I'm a prime guy, myself). While the limiteds might be nicer than the 16-45... add up the cost of the 15, 21, and 40... yikes! The 16-45 is not a whole lot slower, and you can always fill in the gaps with primes later on as you see the need which is important. I can attest that the prime option leads to higher IQ in situations where you will actually notice the difference, but for your needs and budget, I the zoom would serve you well over a single LTD or a bunch of manual focus primes. If you are happy with your results... don't listen to any of us . For you, I would buy the 16-45 for the wide angles and increase in image sharpness over the kit, and then a manual focus 50mm 1.7 or 55mm 1.8 (my nod is to the 55) because they are dirt cheap (50 dollars, should be anyways) will open the fast aperture door wide open. You don't need an adapter to use those lenses (the 55 is available in k mount), and while they are more finicky than an autofocus zoom, it's nice to have the option. The limiteds are quite special (as you know) but I believe should be selected for ergonomics and IQ... not on the basis of IQ alone. The size of them is what makes them extra special (in my book).

11-20-2010, 06:48 PM	#12
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	Originally posted by Ash Practically, and for your budget, there is little argument that the 16-45 is the logical choice for you. The 2mm makes a difference, but perhaps not as much as you'd need - depending on what exactly you'd like to shoot. It's decent in every way (other than lateral CA) but you may not appreciate a big difference in your results comparing them with your kit lens. If you were going to keep your kit lens, then there's little advantage in going with either of your options, however a Sigma 10-20 or even Tamron 10-24 may be viable options, just a little more expensive than a 16-45. Any wider than 16mm, and the prices of lens go up significantly. For some reason I almost ALWAYS agree with Ash ......i'd go with a "used" Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, you can find them for about $400. Ray

11-20-2010, 06:51 PM	#13
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	BTW, I also have a 16-45 and it's a cracker of a nice lens!

11-20-2010, 10:50 PM	#14
kyteflyer Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newcastle, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,444 Original Poster	Well, again, thanks to all of you Ira: I don't think I'll ever ditch the zooms completely, but I can get why you'd make those recommendations VERY nice shots. Ash: again, thanks. Reality is, I don't "need" any other lenses. I just want 'em Tentacles: I had not seriously considered the Sigma equivalent, it weighs heaps more, and I hadn't looked at the Tamron... I guess I didnt register that there is one. paperbag: Looked in my wallet and really, that's going to be the driver at the moment. I can get a 16-45 OR a DA15 but I can't get both. I have a manual 50, its a minolta MC Rokkor f/1.4 and works well with the K200. I'd probably be looking at DA70 or FA77(for preference!!) before I'd get a 50... but you never know Raybo: Thanks for your words... Pretty much decided on the 16-45... for the moment

11-20-2010, 10:56 PM	#15
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	There's plenty of time to satisfy your LBA desires. So go slow, and you'll appreciate each purchase as you've saved up for them. You won't go wrong with the 16-45. But you may still find your 35 ltd mounted on more. Enjoy your wide angle photography...