Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-22-2011, 07:47 AM   #16
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
28 is pretty damn narrow for an all-around on a crop-sensor camera.
That depends I use a FA31Ltd as my walk around

03-22-2011, 08:05 AM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,452
QuoteOriginally posted by sterretje Quote
That depends I use a FA31Ltd as my walk around
Sure, and that works for some people. But the OP is looking for a zoom, presumably because he wants to as many shooting scenarios as possible with a single lens. I wouldn't want to rule out the wide-angle stuff.
03-22-2011, 08:53 AM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Saarbrucken
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 241
Original Poster
Thanks a lot for all your opinions.
For wild angle I have DA15 that I really love. I need to cover FL between 15 and 43. One option was DA21, but I would really prefer zoom lens for this. I had never shoot with zoom lens, so yours suggestions are very helpful for me. Thanks a lot.
Best regards,
Yuriy
03-22-2011, 01:12 PM   #19
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteOriginally posted by Chex Quote
I don't think I would be looking at the 17-50 when the 28-75 macro would probably be a better all around lens and can do double duty being able to shoot Macro. I'm sure after I get my 18-135 serviced it will be just fine. Having the WR lens to go on the K-5 for those wet days will be nice.
OP wants to do city & landscapes--I owned both Tamrons, & the 17-50 is far better range for this. Also, the 17-50 will close focus down to about 10" and does macro every bit as good as 28-75. Of course, neither lens is a Macro lens anyway.

QuoteQuote:
yurko_yr: I am shooting mostly landscapes and cityscapes.


03-22-2011, 02:08 PM   #20
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
Get the Tamron. You won't feel the need to replace it, or buy primes in that focal range. With the super-zoom, it's going to be weaker at the extreme ends, and slower. You might end up spending more money with fast primes and the like.

The Tamron goes up to 50. There are a tonne of consumer zooms (70-200 ish) that are as slow as the 18-135, but they go much longer. In conjunction, the 17-50 + 70 - 200 won't be much more expensive (if at all).

An example is the F 70-210, which is great. I think they are pretty common at 100 bucks. There are a lot of lenses in that range too, so it would not be hard to find a good deal.

When I have the funds, my kit lens is going to become the Tamron.
03-22-2011, 03:43 PM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Saarbrucken
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 241
Original Poster
Thanks a lot. That is why I so like this forum. So many thing possible to learn from this community.
I think I will go for tamron lens. I have a telefoto covered and planning to buy few primes – 43 and 77. For wild angle DA15 is a miracle for me. I don’t think I will buy FA31 and do not want to buy DA35/2.4 as well as DA35 limited (had this lens – great one, but for some reason did not fit my sole). I am thinking to cover these FLs (20-40) with zoom. Tamron looks like the best option. I do not need an expensive zoom, because prefer primes. The only thing that bother me know is a QC of tamron lenses. I was thinking to buy from prodigital2000, but they have a tricky return policy, so probably BH or Adorama would be the best options. What would you tell?
03-22-2011, 03:48 PM   #22
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by yurko_yr Quote
prodigital2000, but they have a tricky return policy, so probably BH or Adorama would be the best options. What would you tell?
I would confirm with prodigital, if they are not going to be easy, then go with BH / Adorama.

You will likely have a good lens from the get go but it's not worth the risk for 50 bucks.
03-22-2011, 05:32 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: europe
Posts: 148
what about the sigma 17-70 (non OS) for a walk around lens?

It's seems cheap and has good reviews.
It'll have better IQ than 18-135 and a bot more range than 17-50.
Plus it's a macro lens

03-22-2011, 05:57 PM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,452
QuoteOriginally posted by oliver939 Quote
what about the sigma 17-70 (non OS) for a walk around lens?

It's seems cheap and has good reviews.
It'll have better IQ than 18-135 and a bot more range than 17-50.
Plus it's a macro lens
It's not a macro lens. It has "macro" capability, which for a zoom means it focuses down to 1:4 or 1:5, typically. The Tamron has this as well.

The Sigma has a variable aperture and costs just as much as the Tamron. 20mm on the long end really isn't that much, either.

I've owned all three lenses. There's nothing wrong with the Sigma--it's a fine lens for what it is--but the Tamron is better in every way except for tele reach.
03-22-2011, 09:47 PM   #25
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,791
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
28 is pretty damn narrow for an all-around on a crop-sensor camera.

I tried the 28-75 as a single walk-around. I was backing up frequently, and running out of space. But, I like wide, and everyone is different.
03-26-2011, 07:55 PM   #26
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Saarbrucken
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 241
Original Poster
Dear Pentax Community,
Thank you for all your advises. This forum is a great source of knowledge and information.
So, I got a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and it looks like I really like it. The colors a great and the feeling of the lens is also very nice. The focus is fast and to my feeling quiet. However I tested the lens mounted on tripod and it looks like the upper corners are soft. Could you please tell if this is my error or it is really soft and I should exchange this for another copy?
Thank you in advance.
With the best regards,
Yuriy
Attached Images
   
03-26-2011, 07:57 PM   #27
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Saarbrucken
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 241
Original Poster
First picture – is center, second – upper left corner. Camera mounted on tripod, daylight, 35 mm, f 2.8.
03-27-2011, 12:33 AM   #28
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteOriginally posted by yurko_yr Quote
Dear Pentax Community,
Thank you for all your advises. This forum is a great source of knowledge and information.
So, I got a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and it looks like I really like it. The colors a great and the feeling of the lens is also very nice. The focus is fast and to my feeling quiet. However I tested the lens mounted on tripod and it looks like the upper corners are soft. Could you please tell if this is my error or it is really soft and I should exchange this for another copy?
Thank you in advance.
With the best regards,
Yuriy
Yuriy: I would be seriously skeptical about these results. When properly focused, I never got a real life shot with the 17-50 with anything but very good borders. @ f 2.8, this close on a tri-pod, DOF is so thin that you must have the test setup perfectly in order to have the corners of the shot in the same focus plane as the center of the image. Try shooting the lens in real life conditions, then look at the borders--they rival a prime. Have you seen Photozone's MTF scores on the lens?

Last edited by Jewelltrail; 03-27-2011 at 12:54 AM.
03-27-2011, 01:09 AM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Pilsen, Czech Republic
Posts: 224
It's field curvate - see Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Nikon) - Review / Test Report - Analysis paragraph MTF.
03-27-2011, 06:16 AM   #30
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Saarbrucken
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 241
Original Poster
Thanks a lot. I shoot some cityscapes today and corners looks sharp. It was my error during a test.
Thanks a lot for explanation.
Best regards,
Yuriy
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA18-135 or DA18-250? jatrax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 04-25-2011 08:41 PM
DA18-135 => Satisfied xGene Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 12-15-2010 02:17 PM
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 worth the upgrade over DA18-55mm WR? secateurs Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 35 11-02-2010 12:37 PM
Pentax 55- 135 f2.8 Vs. Tamron 70 -200 f2.8 mikejustice Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 08-23-2009 09:27 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top