best walk around lens for K-5

paperbag846 · 07-17-2011, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

I notice interesting progressions in my favorite focal-length lenses. I'll start with the Zenitar 16/2.8 which defishes to about 12mm. Next is a 24mm, twice 12mm. Next is a 50mm, ~twice 24mm. Next is 100mm, twice that.

This is similar to my planned progression -

15 - 24 - 55

Which roughly corresponds to the full frame kit : 20 - 35 - 85.

I break the 2x rule a bit. But in general that sort of approach seems to make a lot of sense.

Now to find a 24mm lens that isn't crazy expensive. For now, the kit does the job.

Ladabu · 07-19-2011, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by aurele

F/ FA lenses are build for film (24x36), DA are build for digital (23,6 x 15,8 mm). F/FA lenses fit all body without vignetting. DA lense still fit on all body but with vignetting sometimes.

It is obviously advantage for having F/FA lens which gets rid of vignetting. I looked at some primes (35, 40, 43, 50). Those which are F/FA have usually stronger CA, then DA.
According measurement they do on Photozone:
Which numbers should I be worry about according CA and vignetting? When picture starts to be unpleasant on first view?

Thank you for your "macro" shots. I can understand, you will get close image, right?
So picture from DA35 will cover more or it covers the same, but you can get near to subject?

(I am really sorry, but whatever technical written according lens is very new for me. I am point and click person mostly, but I try to learn).

Ladabu · 07-19-2011, 06:07 AM

Thank you so much to all for your advices.
Please help me to decide which one for walk around:
Pentax SMC-DA 18-135mm or Tamron AF 18-250mm IF macro???
Before I was mostly into Tamron - less vignetting and CA, constant overall sharpness.
Pentax - very sharp in center, Water resistant.
Can anyone judge performance, specially when its getting darker outside? Which one is faster, more precise? Can you tell with your feel subjective opinion, what does better (pleasant looking) shots?

PS: 18-135 is cheaper when with K-5 with kit, but is is worth? It would be nice to have WR lens, but... it seems to be not very popular lens, according low sharpness in corners. And quite strong vignetting.

robgo2 · 07-21-2011, 10:18 AM

Given your parameters for zoom range, it would seem that the 18-135 is the logical choice. As for a high quality prime lens, much depends upon your preferred focal length. You are probably aware of the two Limited series of lenses. The FA Limiteds are FF while the DA Limiteds are APS-C. There have been countless discussions regarding the relative merits of these two series. Both are excellent. The FA Limiteds are more expensive and have achieved an almost mythical status. They are renowned for extreme sharpness and unique rendering qualities that I like to describe as silky smoothness. The DA Limiteds are just as sharp but render with greater crispness and punch. So, the choice depends upon personal taste and budget. With that introduction, I would strongly recommend the FA43/1.9 Limited, which I regard as possibly the finest lens that I have ever used. It is a tiny jewel that produces exquisite images. If the focal length suits your needs, you are certain to love it.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

Rob

**crewl1** · 07-21-2011, 11:01 AM

My walk around lens on my K-5 is the 18-135WR.

AF performance seems tuned to the K-5 and as the day starts to get dim it will acquire focus faster than my Tamron 18-250 on the K-5 by a slight margin.

I'll usually only swap it out for a special purpose lens.

I would like to start using my primes more but since most of my shooting is done in conjunction with family activities I feel I need the flexibility of the zoom.

stevelink · 09-20-2011, 04:53 AM

Greetings!
My choice is the fantastically sharp DA* 16-50 f/2.8. True, it is quite large and heavy, but for sharpness and convenience, it is amazing! Plus, the SDM makes for near silent AF, not to mention the WR characteristic, making the entire kit water and dust resistant. Good luck!
Steve

RickyFromVegas · 09-21-2011, 12:54 PM

I used to have Sigma 24-70. After researching my favorite shots and most used focal range was 40mm.
I got DA40mm and it's been glued to my camera most of the time.

jeverettfine · 09-21-2011, 02:49 PM

Lately I find myself carrying my Tamron SP AF24-135 f/3.5-5.6 and usually don't miss not having anything wider and the Tamron focuses down pretty closely. If I know I will need the width, I'll substitute my Pentax DA 16-45 f/4 and also carry an old KA mount Sigma 90 f/2.8 macro in my pocket. It goes down to 1:1.5 on a DSLR. The Pentax 16-45 and the Sigma is a pretty light weight combination. If I think I will need some speed beyond 2.8, I'll add a 50 1.4

pinholecam · 09-21-2011, 11:17 PM

The 18-135 seems ideally suited.
The 'WR' may come in handy for you.
Don't read too much into the "corner not sharp" talk that gets thrown about because lens review sites gives the edges a low resolution number.
In real photos, they seldom have any relevance. (Imagine the picture of Mona Lisa and what someone is interested is whether Da Vinci painted fine cloth textures on her clothing on the bottom corner sleeve.).

I have a review here :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/140258-review-...ml#post1467071

Here is the review from various folks here in the lens review database :
Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

stevelink · 09-22-2011, 06:34 AM

Ladabu,
If you want a zoom without sacrificing much image quality, I recommend checking out the Pentax DA* 16-50 f/2.8. While a bit large and heavy, the optical quality in thecenter of this lens is fantastic, and it will give a wide to short tele perspective. Plus, it is built superbly, weather-resistant, and has a fast constant 2.8 aperture. It balances superbly on the K-5 as well. Some minnor CA in backlit, high-contrast situations, but that can be corrected in post-processing. Good luck!

stevelink · 01-05-2012, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by pinholecam

The 18-135 seems ideally suited.
The 'WR' may come in handy for you.
Don't read too much into the "corner not sharp" talk that gets thrown about because lens review sites gives the edges a low resolution number.
In real photos, they seldom have any relevance. (Imagine the picture of Mona Lisa and what someone is interested is whether Da Vinci painted fine cloth textures on her clothing on the bottom corner sleeve.).

I have a review here :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/140258-review-...ml#post1467071

Here is the review from various folks here in the lens review database :
Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Greetings!
Thanks for the detailed info on the 18-135. I actually got the DA 16-45 f/4-5.6, and find its image quality quite good, if not up to the DA* 16-50 in center sharpness, speed, or overall build quality. If only Pentax made a similar focal length with an f2 aperture, I could use that for low-light indoor nightclub photography!

jeverettfine · 01-06-2012, 08:30 AM

Lately I have rediscovered a lens that is something special: an FA 20-35 f/4. It is a fabulous walking around lens for street and candids. Full frame equivalent of a 30mm-52.5mm zoom. Perhaps it is because I come from the Leica rangefinder world where a 35 and a 50 are often all you want. Great lens on a DSLR. That and a 50-200 makes for a light-weight kit.

8540tomg · 01-08-2012, 12:32 PM

I've got the DA* 16~50/2.8 and it makes a great, if somewhat heavy, walk around lens. Of lateI find I reach for the DA 70/2.4 Limited for this purpsoe. It suits the type of things I normally shoot and is very lite to carry around.

Tom G

stevelink · 01-09-2012, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by 8540tomg

I've got the DA* 16~50/2.8 and it makes a great, if somewhat heavy, walk around lens. Of lateI find I reach for the DA 70/2.4 Limited for this purpsoe. It suits the type of things I normally shoot and is very lite to carry around.

Tom G

Hi Tom. I agree with your assessment of the DA* 16-50! It was my "go-to " lens in the cold wet Portland Oregon area, and performed admirably! I also have the DA 70 Limited, which I feel is my sharpest lens, with the DA* 55 and the FA 43 very close behind, almost too close to say which is sharper at a given aperture. (I'm talking primarily center, rather than edge sharpness.) As for build quality, they are all superb!

subidoc · 01-10-2012, 02:03 PM

When I had the A28/f2.8, I liked its compactness and what it could do. But it was a tad too wide. Then I found the Voigtlander Ultron 40/f2 - that blew me away. Compact, but not a pancake, yet very small. In contrast to what I had read earlier, it did not take me too long to get used to that focal length. I thought I would try the Zeiss 35/f2 Distagon... its good, but I am still exploring its utility to me. Thus far, I don't see it beeting the VL Ultron.

Dollar for dollar, I found more bang with the Ultron than the Distagon. Hurts to think about it now. Alas, the Ultron was sold for the Zeiss.... You live, you learn... As you can tell, I love MF lenses.

09-20-2011, 04:53 AM	#21
stevelink Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Dallas TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 92	Best "walk-around" lens for Pentax K-5 Greetings! My choice is the fantastically sharp DA* 16-50 f/2.8. True, it is quite large and heavy, but for sharpness and convenience, it is amazing! Plus, the SDM makes for near silent AF, not to mention the WR characteristic, making the entire kit water and dust resistant. Good luck! Steve

09-22-2011, 06:34 AM	#25
stevelink Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Dallas TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 92	Walk-around lens for K-5 Ladabu, If you want a zoom without sacrificing much image quality, I recommend checking out the Pentax DA* 16-50 f/2.8. While a bit large and heavy, the optical quality in thecenter of this lens is fantastic, and it will give a wide to short tele perspective. Plus, it is built superbly, weather-resistant, and has a fast constant 2.8 aperture. It balances superbly on the K-5 as well. Some minnor CA in backlit, high-contrast situations, but that can be corrected in post-processing. Good luck!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Walk Around Lens for K7	addicted2climbing	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	06-15-2011 09:58 PM
A walk in the woods - which lens?	loco	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	19	03-27-2011 07:29 AM
walk around lens	kevins	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	01-18-2011 05:41 PM
New walk around lens	ccf60	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	11-03-2010 08:14 AM
DA* 50-135 as a nature walk lens?	sebberry	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	10-17-2009 02:33 AM

07-17-2011, 10:25 AM	#16
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by RioRico I notice interesting progressions in my favorite focal-length lenses. I'll start with the Zenitar 16/2.8 which defishes to about 12mm. Next is a 24mm, twice 12mm. Next is a 50mm, ~twice 24mm. Next is 100mm, twice that. This is similar to my planned progression - 15 - 24 - 55 Which roughly corresponds to the full frame kit : 20 - 35 - 85. I break the 2x rule a bit. But in general that sort of approach seems to make a lot of sense. Now to find a 24mm lens that isn't crazy expensive. For now, the kit does the job.

07-19-2011, 05:51 AM	#17
Ladabu New Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: sailing Posts: 14 Original Poster	Originally posted by aurele F/ FA lenses are build for film (24x36), DA are build for digital (23,6 x 15,8 mm). F/FA lenses fit all body without vignetting. DA lense still fit on all body but with vignetting sometimes. It is obviously advantage for having F/FA lens which gets rid of vignetting. I looked at some primes (35, 40, 43, 50). Those which are F/FA have usually stronger CA, then DA. According measurement they do on Photozone: Which numbers should I be worry about according CA and vignetting? When picture starts to be unpleasant on first view? Thank you for your "macro" shots. I can understand, you will get close image, right? So picture from DA35 will cover more or it covers the same, but you can get near to subject? (I am really sorry, but whatever technical written according lens is very new for me. I am point and click person mostly, but I try to learn).

07-19-2011, 06:07 AM	#18
Ladabu New Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: sailing Posts: 14 Original Poster	Thank you so much to all for your advices. Please help me to decide which one for walk around: Pentax SMC-DA 18-135mm or Tamron AF 18-250mm IF macro??? Before I was mostly into Tamron - less vignetting and CA, constant overall sharpness. Pentax - very sharp in center, Water resistant. Can anyone judge performance, specially when its getting darker outside? Which one is faster, more precise? Can you tell with your feel subjective opinion, what does better (pleasant looking) shots? PS: 18-135 is cheaper when with K-5 with kit, but is is worth? It would be nice to have WR lens, but... it seems to be not very popular lens, according low sharpness in corners. And quite strong vignetting.

07-21-2011, 10:18 AM	#19
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Given your parameters for zoom range, it would seem that the 18-135 is the logical choice. As for a high quality prime lens, much depends upon your preferred focal length. You are probably aware of the two Limited series of lenses. The FA Limiteds are FF while the DA Limiteds are APS-C. There have been countless discussions regarding the relative merits of these two series. Both are excellent. The FA Limiteds are more expensive and have achieved an almost mythical status. They are renowned for extreme sharpness and unique rendering qualities that I like to describe as silky smoothness. The DA Limiteds are just as sharp but render with greater crispness and punch. So, the choice depends upon personal taste and budget. With that introduction, I would strongly recommend the FA43/1.9 Limited, which I regard as possibly the finest lens that I have ever used. It is a tiny jewel that produces exquisite images. If the focal length suits your needs, you are certain to love it. Good luck with whatever you choose. Rob

07-21-2011, 11:01 AM	#20
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	My walk around lens on my K-5 is the 18-135WR. AF performance seems tuned to the K-5 and as the day starts to get dim it will acquire focus faster than my Tamron 18-250 on the K-5 by a slight margin. I'll usually only swap it out for a special purpose lens. I would like to start using my primes more but since most of my shooting is done in conjunction with family activities I feel I need the flexibility of the zoom.

09-21-2011, 12:54 PM	#22
RickyFromVegas Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Las Vegas Photos: Gallery Posts: 366	I used to have Sigma 24-70. After researching my favorite shots and most used focal range was 40mm. I got DA40mm and it's been glued to my camera most of the time.

09-21-2011, 02:49 PM	#23
jeverettfine Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Austin, Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 328	Lately I find myself carrying my Tamron SP AF24-135 f/3.5-5.6 and usually don't miss not having anything wider and the Tamron focuses down pretty closely. If I know I will need the width, I'll substitute my Pentax DA 16-45 f/4 and also carry an old KA mount Sigma 90 f/2.8 macro in my pocket. It goes down to 1:1.5 on a DSLR. The Pentax 16-45 and the Sigma is a pretty light weight combination. If I think I will need some speed beyond 2.8, I'll add a 50 1.4

09-21-2011, 11:17 PM	#24
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	The 18-135 seems ideally suited. The 'WR' may come in handy for you. Don't read too much into the "corner not sharp" talk that gets thrown about because lens review sites gives the edges a low resolution number. In real photos, they seldom have any relevance. (Imagine the picture of Mona Lisa and what someone is interested is whether Da Vinci painted fine cloth textures on her clothing on the bottom corner sleeve.). I have a review here : https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/140258-review-...ml#post1467071 Here is the review from various folks here in the lens review database : Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

01-05-2012, 03:25 PM	#26
stevelink Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Dallas TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 92	Originally posted by pinholecam The 18-135 seems ideally suited. The 'WR' may come in handy for you. Don't read too much into the "corner not sharp" talk that gets thrown about because lens review sites gives the edges a low resolution number. In real photos, they seldom have any relevance. (Imagine the picture of Mona Lisa and what someone is interested is whether Da Vinci painted fine cloth textures on her clothing on the bottom corner sleeve.). I have a review here : https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/140258-review-...ml#post1467071 Here is the review from various folks here in the lens review database : Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Greetings! Thanks for the detailed info on the 18-135. I actually got the DA 16-45 f/4-5.6, and find its image quality quite good, if not up to the DA* 16-50 in center sharpness, speed, or overall build quality. If only Pentax made a similar focal length with an f2 aperture, I could use that for low-light indoor nightclub photography!

01-06-2012, 08:30 AM	#27
jeverettfine Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Austin, Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 328	Lately I have rediscovered a lens that is something special: an FA 20-35 f/4. It is a fabulous walking around lens for street and candids. Full frame equivalent of a 30mm-52.5mm zoom. Perhaps it is because I come from the Leica rangefinder world where a 35 and a 50 are often all you want. Great lens on a DSLR. That and a 50-200 makes for a light-weight kit.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-08-2012, 12:32 PM	#28
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	I've got the DA* 16~50/2.8 and it makes a great, if somewhat heavy, walk around lens. Of lateI find I reach for the DA 70/2.4 Limited for this purpsoe. It suits the type of things I normally shoot and is very lite to carry around. Tom G

01-09-2012, 04:15 PM	#29
stevelink Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Dallas TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 92	Originally posted by 8540tomg I've got the DA* 16~50/2.8 and it makes a great, if somewhat heavy, walk around lens. Of lateI find I reach for the DA 70/2.4 Limited for this purpsoe. It suits the type of things I normally shoot and is very lite to carry around. Tom G Hi Tom. I agree with your assessment of the DA* 16-50! It was my "go-to " lens in the cold wet Portland Oregon area, and performed admirably! I also have the DA 70 Limited, which I feel is my sharpest lens, with the DA* 55 and the FA 43 very close behind, almost too close to say which is sharper at a given aperture. (I'm talking primarily center, rather than edge sharpness.) As for build quality, they are all superb!

01-10-2012, 02:03 PM	#30
subidoc Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Somewhere near the middle... Posts: 325	When I had the A28/f2.8, I liked its compactness and what it could do. But it was a tad too wide. Then I found the Voigtlander Ultron 40/f2 - that blew me away. Compact, but not a pancake, yet very small. In contrast to what I had read earlier, it did not take me too long to get used to that focal length. I thought I would try the Zeiss 35/f2 Distagon... its good, but I am still exploring its utility to me. Thus far, I don't see it beeting the VL Ultron. Dollar for dollar, I found more bang with the Ultron than the Distagon. Hurts to think about it now. Alas, the Ultron was sold for the Zeiss.... You live, you learn... As you can tell, I love MF lenses.