[amalongi]

Hi,

I recently returned to Pentax after some misguided adventures into digicam land. Picked up a K7 from a very nice forum member and added the new 35/2.4 and a used 16-45 from another nice forum member! Just returned from a weeklong trip to Washington D.C. where I found that the 16-45 was great but that I needed a bit more reach on occasion (also found that I needed wider on a few occasions - 12-24mm?). So I have now paralyzed myself with analysis. In short, I enjoy street and travel photography mostly, do occasionally shoot inside of museums and I do place an emphasis on weight. I rarely, if ever, have found the need for anything over 100mm (35mm equivalent). Matter of fact, I lived in Europe for 10 years and happily used a Minolta Maxxum 7000i with the 24-105 as my only lens.

That said, what do y'all recommend as a compliment to the 16-45/35 combo that I currently have. I like the flexibility of the 16-45 although even it is verging on slightly bulky for my tastes. I have gravitated towards the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 but am not sure. 50mm and 70mm primes?? I should also add that I mostly shoot static objects, so changing lenses it not a big deal as building rarely move before I capture them! Thanks for any help and advice!

Tony A.

[blackcloudbrew]

You might want to consider the DA 17-70 f4 lens. It's a great outdoor lens and has SDM to boot.

[amalongi]

Actually, I was just looking at that option. Perhaps the 17-70, plus the DA15 for when a bit wider is required. Then I have the 35/2.4 (for now) for when I need a bit faster lens. I'm liking this option.

Tony A.

[pacerr]

I'm not an experienced UWA-user (in the Spotmatic era a 28mm was the widest I used) and I really like the DA 16-45 as it suits my lens perspective and IQ needs very well. But looking to explore the wider formats I recently spent about two months comparing the Sigma 10-20 (f 4) and the Tamron 10-24 in actual side-by-side use.

Both were very satisfactory for my purposes which is primarily rural landscapes and buildings with moderate ISO's and exposure scenarios. I found both lenses to deliver the results I expected from multiple reviews and browsing the web sites for images. Each had its weak and strong points but no more so than any other lens in my experience. In practical use I couldn't reliably tell which lens was used among 300+ images.

Ultimately I selected the Tamron because the extra 4mm at the top end seemed to be useful in many occasions where I would have otherwise switched to the DA 16-45 or Tam 28-75. Both were used lenses in the $400 price range so cost wasn't a significant issue while it would have been a consideration for the DA 12-24.

H2

[MikeW]

I took my DA 70 Ltd, along with my 16-45 on an extended trip this summer and was able to do about 99% of what I wanted. The nice thing about the 70 is that it didn't add much weight to my bag.

[gazonk]

I took my DA 70 Ltd, along with my 16-45 on an extended trip this summer and was able to do about 99% of what I wanted. The nice thing about the 70 is that it didn't add much weight to my bag.

+1

But after I got the DA35 Macro Ltd., I tend to use the 16-45 mostly for the wide end - for anything where a "normal" FOV lens can be used, I tend to leave the 35mm on the camera.

[interested_observer]

Your old film based 24-105 135mm camera, in a cropped sensor equals a 16-70 lens. Therefore, the 17-70 is a single lens replacement for what you had before. You could also go with the new 18-135 if you wanted something with a longer reach. The main limitation with these is the rather slow lenses ~ f4. You could go with faster lenses, at the expense of reach supplementing with additional lenses - however they would all be either larger and/or slower. You could also upgrade bodies in time for faster - better ISO speeds to support indoor shooting, or look in to flashes.

[kevinschoenmakers]

Another vote for the DA70. Get a DA15 later on and between the 3 primes there won't be anything you will ever need the DA16-45 for ever again.

[amalongi]

I like the 3 prime idea. As attractive as the 17-70 is, I really hate bulk and I am afraid that this will be too bulky - this is exactly what pushed me to digicams in the first place.

I think I am going to add the DA70 and continue carrying the 16-45 for now. Perhaps next year, I will add the DA15. I eventually plan to replace my 35/2.4 with the DA35 Macro Limited as well which would give me a great 15-35-70 kit that is essentially pocketable.

Thanks to all.

Tony A.

[alexeyga]

Unload the 16-45... keep 35 for "low-light" and get the new 18-135...

[joakimfors]

You know you want to.

[Pentaxor]

how about the FA77?

[thirdofthree]

I like the flexibility of the 16-45 although even it is verging on slightly bulky for my tastes. I have gravitated towards the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 but am not sure.

I'll chime in as the lone supporter of your idea for an FA 28-105/3.2-4.5. For some time, I've used for walkaround and travel zooms an FA 20-35/4 and FA 28-105/3.2-4.5. Over time, I've found the FA 20-35 not quite wide enough, so I've just recently swapped it out for the DA 16-45. But I'm sticking with my FA 28-105/3.2/4.5 for now.

If compact size and light weight are a priority for you, and zooms suit your general shooting style, then I think the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 is a great option. I find the IQ Good Enough*, the size and weight fantastic, and I really enjoy the color rendering of this lens.

* Sharpness wide open isn't outstanding, but most of my shots are stopped down at least a bit. And besides, by far the biggest challenge I face taking good photos has nothing to do with relative sharpness of the lens, but rather my mind's (creative) eye -- or lack thereof.

I believe all the lenses mentioned in this thread have their weights listed in the Lens Review DB. Note the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 weight of 255g is without the hood. Add another 25g for the hood.

I used to have a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 which I found an excellent walkaround, have considered the DA 17-70, but ultimately determined the 70mm wasn't long enough, hence my use of a two-zoom combo.

I'll admit, the new DA 18-135 is certainly tempting, and that's the next decision I'll have to make for my walkaround needs.

Oh, if it matters, the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 focal length / max aperture map as follows:

28-33mm - 3.2
34-42mm - 3.5
43-84mm - 4.0
85-105mm - 4.5

FWIW, my takeaway from the whole discussion: I'm glad we have so many good options!

[KxBlaze]

I just got the 16-45 and although it is a step up from the kit lens I was not overly impressed with the lens. It is bulky, extended all the way out at 16mm (this is really annoying since it renders the pop-up flash useless because it leaves a big shadow at the bottom of the photo), the IQ is a little better than the kit but not by a whole lot, so all in all I don't think it is worth the hundreds more than the kit lens. In the future I will probably sell it to try and fund a DA 15 or some 12mm - something zoom.

[Eagle_Friends]

easy easy easy

the DA 55-300mm is the only tele-zoom you'll need. =]