[ve2vfd]

Well, it's decision time...

I currently have the Tamron 17-50, but it front focuses too much to use below f4 on my K5 (it was "usable" on my K20 at -10 adjustment). I'll be sending it in to Tamron after the holidays for repair.

I've been wanting to upgrade to DA* glass for a while so I currently have a DA*60-250 on order.

Now, do I:

Keep the Tamron after it's been repaired and get the new DA 18-135 as a "Walk around" lens. I know it's not a DA*, but the weather sealing is a significant reason for wanting a DA*

or

Sell the Tamron after it's been repaired and get a DA*16-50

What do you think?

Pat

[paperbag846]

Sell the Tamron after it's been repaired and get a DA*16-50

This makes sense, but give it a try before you buy to ensure there are no front-focusing issues with this lens, either.

[ve2vfd]

Paperbag Yep, I fully intend on buying any new lenses somewhere I can test it in hand...

I'm just having the hardest time deciding between keeping my Tamron+getting the da18-135 or going for the DA*16-50...

Pat

[abacus07]

Do you use the 50-135 range much? If not then I think the 16-50 is the way to go.

[RBellavance]

I think I'd keep the Tamron and add the DA18-135WR. That is, if you really feel you need another lens

[pcarfan]

I have the 16-45 (new to me), the FA*28-70/2.8 and planning to get the DA 12-24/4 but I am not entirely sold on this set-up and i am breaking my head to find the ideal combo as well....I also just got the 60-250/4.

I am also looking at a lens that can be used for available light shootimng with F4 and be good at that aperture.

The 16-50's poor edge perfromance is making me think twich about that. I was considering the Tamron 17-50 and the focus issue you report is scaring me somwhat. Once I sort this K-5 Tungsten light focus with the 16-45 I may be happy with it.

fast wide angle zooms are VERY difficult to choose....may be I should look into the Sigma, did you?

[mlatour]

I think I'd keep the Tamron and add the DA18-135WR. That is, if you really feel you need another lens

Same opinion here since your signature shows a 55-300, but you seem to already have a DA*60-250 on order so..

As mentionned last time we spoke, are you sure you don't want to give my DA 12-24mm a try for a week?
Not looking to sell it btw.

---

Last edited by mlatour; 12-20-2010 at 08:23 AM.

[RBellavance]

As mentionned last time we spoke, are you sure you don't want to give my DA 12-24mm a try for a week?

That's a good point. An ultrawide is missing from Pat's arsenal !

[ve2vfd]

Do you use the 50-135 range much? If not then I think the 16-50 is the way to go.

Yup, the lens usually on my camera is my 55-300. Thats why that 18-135 is so tempting.

I think I'd keep the Tamron and add the DA18-135WR. That is, if you really feel you need another lens

You know we always "need" another lens! Part of my reasoning for the 18-135 is that the tamron is already giving me most of what the DA*16-50 has to offer.

I have the 16-45 (new to me), the FA*28-70/2.8 and planning to get the DA 12-24/4 but I am not entirely sold on this set-up and i am breaking my head to find the ideal combo as well....I also just got the 60-250/4.

I am also looking at a lens that can be used for available light shootimng with F4 and be good at that aperture.

The 16-50's poor edge perfromance is making me think twich about that. I was considering the Tamron 17-50 and the focus issue you report is scaring me somwhat. Once I sort this K-5 Tungsten light focus with the 16-45 I may be happy with it.

fast wide angle zooms are VERY difficult to choose....may be I should look into the Sigma, did you?

So how do you like that new 60-250? 12-24, 16-45 and 28-70 does seem to overlap a bit.

From many pics I've seen here, the tamron 17-50 can be a formidable lens if you get a good copy. Sadly a quick google search confirmed that many people get front or back focusing models. The Sigma is a bit too new, i'd give it a bit of time before considering it.

Same opinion here since your signature shows a 55-300, but you seem to already have a DA*60-250 on order so..

As mentionned last time we spoke, are you sure you don't want to give my DA 12-24mm a try for a week?Not looking to sell it btw.

I find I shoot mostly in the 100-250 range which is why I wanted the best possible quality zoom in that range (the DA*60-250). I'm afraid a lens as wide as 12mm is something I'll probably never have much of a use for. Even with my 17-50 I am usually at the 50mm end.

I will on the other hand get the DA10-17 one of these days for it's cool fish-eye distortion.

That's a good point. An ultrawide is missing from Pat's arsenal !

Would the DA10-17 count? It's on my list!

[Ash]

The Tamron 17-50 and 18-135 WR are very different lenses, so it'd make more sense to have both (if your WR lens doesn't need to be fast), or just replace the Tamron with the DA* 16-50 if you don't need a longer WR lens (since you'll be getting the 60-250, you've got yourself a versatile DA* setup).

12-24 (if you want the wide landscape ability), DA* 16-50, 60-250 and 300 is an unrivalled zoom kit IMO. Then adding the 10-17 is just icing on the cake.

[ewig]

Sell the Tamron after it's been repaired and get a DA*16-50

i think its a wise choice ... you will not regret it ..
for long range your 55-300 its enough ... i heard theres lot of trouble with SDM in 50-135... im not sure either... i dont have this lens ..

[abacus07]

If you're using the short telephoto range a lot then I would recommend 18-135. The whole point of a zoom is not having to change lenses and I'm guessing that there are a lot of times that 55mm is too long (the same as your new 60-250) which inevitably leads to a lot of lens changes.

But there are tradeoffs because 18-135 isn't fast at the telephoto end. You could instead get the 16-50 and later get the 70/77mm as your telephoto. Or get one of the relatively fast 85/100/105mm legacy lenses. It would require a lens change but it would be significantly smaller than the 60-250.

[GaryH]

I have the 16-50 and opted for the 55-300 after I rented the 60-250 for two weeks. The 60-250 is a very nice lens but it is rather large and as I already had the 50-135 for low light indoor stuff, I decided to go with the 55-300 since I generally use the longer end of it outdoors and do not necessairly require the speed or the bulk of the 60-250.

The 16-50 and the 55-300 make a good traveling pair.

[ve2vfd]

just replace the Tamron with the DA* 16-50 if you don't need a longer WR lens (since you'll be getting the 60-250, you've got yourself a versatile DA* setup).

Yup, I'm leaning more and more towards the DA*16-50... but I'll wait until my 17-50 is repaired before I make a final decision.

for long range your 55-300 its enough ... i heard theres lot of trouble with SDM in 50-135...

I like the 55-300, but I want the better quality and weather sealing of the 60-250.

If you're using the short telephoto range a lot then I would recommend 18-135.

I've been very tempted with the 18-135 for it's very versatile range as a "walk around" lens. The one thing that scares me is it's slow speed.

I have the 16-50 and opted for the 55-300 after I rented the 60-250 for two weeks. The 60-250 is a very nice lens but it is rather large

I have to admit I am not too worried about the weight of the 60-250, I'm not a small dude What did you think of the image quality and f4 at the far end of the 60-250? I find myself using my 55-300 in the 200-300mm range a lot which forces me to use pretty high ISO.

Pat

[ve2vfd]

UPDATE!

Thanks to everyone who advised me in this thread, here is what I did...


Bought the DA*60-250 (2yr Pentax Canada warranty)
Just ordered the DA*16-50 (comes with 2yr Pentax Canada warranty + 7yr MACK warranty so SDM issues should be )

I'll have the Tamron 17-50 repaired and keep it as backup

Next lens: DA10-17mm... a fish-eye just for fun!

Pat