Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-01-2011, 06:06 AM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
Walkaround question + Pentax 35mm f2.4 vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8@35mm

Hey guys,

I bought a K-X last christmas and then added a Tamron 17-50 2.8, Sigma 70-300 DG OS, Tamron 18-200 and a Takumar 135 2.8.
I feel that my 18-200 is pretty nice to have when walking around in my temporary home town of Guangzhou, China. However, it is not as sharp as I would have wished and the AF is not very much to cheer for. I currently feel that I have spent enough money on my kit but have the option to swap the Sigma and the 18-200 for either a Tamron 18-250 or a Pentax 18-135 WR. Which one is the better buy?

Another option is to keep the Sigma and only sell the 18-200 and buy a prime 35 f2.4 instead but I don't know if that's any idea since I believe that my 17-50 Tammy is pretty good, is the DA 35mm much better than the Tammy?

What would you have done?

11-01-2011, 07:08 AM   #2
Senior Member
metalmania's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Tammy 17-50 is better.
11-01-2011, 07:17 AM   #3
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
I'd probably keep the Tammy and pick up a DA70. The DA70 is so sharp that it crops nicely. It functioned as a longer lens when I took it traveling. As a second choice, perhaps a DFA 100 macro for a bit more reach, but more size.
11-01-2011, 07:41 AM   #4
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 4,199
If you donīt like the 18-200 then get rid of it. The 17-50 is a good lens, I also have one. I spent a long time wondering about the 35/2.4 but in the end got the DA35 Ltd. I wanted a standard prime but one that was well built. The extra half to 3/4 stop of the DAL 35mm is not much, but I would still get one if I got a very good price on it. Itīs apparently very good, and (hopefully) wonīt suffer the AF problems of the 17-50.

11-01-2011, 09:01 PM   #5
Senior Member
Frank B's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 149
I don't know if the 35/2.4 is better than the Tamron, but it certainly is a whole lot smaller and lighter. There might be times when that could be a good thing. In the end it depends on how you like to shoot, and what you're willing to carry - unless you're just in a studio shooting test targets.
11-01-2011, 10:06 PM   #6
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
Original Poster
Well since the Tamron 17-50 isn't that big and heavy and the K-x is pretty small and light by it self the size isn't a problem.
I guess I won't buy the 35/2.4 then since there is no improvement.

What about the others, should I swap my Sigma 70-300 and Tamron 18-200 for a Tamron 18-250 or a Pentax 18-135, The focal length issue is pretty insignificant, I care mostly about image quality in this case..
11-01-2011, 10:37 PM   #7
hcc
Pentaxian
hcc's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,518
QuoteOriginally posted by Snajder Quote
Well since the Tamron 17-50 isn't that big and heavy and the K-x is pretty small and light by it self the size isn't a problem.
I guess I won't buy the 35/2.4 then since there is no improvement.

What about the others, should I swap my Sigma 70-300 and Tamron 18-200 for a Tamron 18-250 or a Pentax 18-135, The focal length issue is pretty insignificant, I care mostly about image quality in this case..
The tammy 18-250mm will be an improvement compared with the 18-200mm which is an older generation lens. The 18-135mm has comparable IQ to the 18-250mm, lesser reach but WR. If I was in your shoes, I would go for the 18-250 mm which is in addition cheaper.

Hope that the comment will help...
11-01-2011, 10:53 PM   #8
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,418
I think you would see little difference between the 35/2.4 and the Tamron at 35mm. The 17-50/2.8 is a fine lens.

11-02-2011, 12:01 AM   #9
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
I recommend the DA18-250 or its Tamron twin as a general-purpose daylight get-around lens. But an 18-250 is not really right for low-light shooting. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 seems to be the most cost-effective kit-lens upgrade. With it, you won't need to hunger for any standard 21-28-35-50mm lens. You would only need primes in the 17-60mm region if you want speed, character, macro-focus, or some other special quality. (Like, I want a 28mm lens that weighs 60g!)
11-02-2011, 12:29 AM   #10
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
I recommend the DA18-250 or its Tamron twin as a general-purpose daylight get-around lens. But an 18-250 is not really right for low-light shooting. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 seems to be the most cost-effective kit-lens upgrade. With it, you won't need to hunger for any standard 21-28-35-50mm lens. You would only need primes in the 17-60mm region if you want speed, character, macro-focus, or some other special quality. (Like, I want a 28mm lens that weighs 60g!)
I might as well see if I can find any 18-250 tomorrow then, not very common here though
I already have the Tamron 17-50 and I think I will stick to that then together with a 18-250.
11-02-2011, 03:35 AM   #11
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bangalore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,447
If you have to chose one, it should be 17-50mm.
11-02-2011, 05:28 AM   #12
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hoek van Holland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,251
First thing you should think about is what you want with photography, and then decide which lens to sell, keep and buy. I Have the 35 2.4, but also have the 16-45. And my main lens is the 35. the 16-45 (which is exceklent) I only take out on occasion where I need the extra width (or the zoom, when I am with my kids). other than that, 90% of my pictures are taken with the 35. The rest with all the other lenses I have. But for me every lens has it purpose what I use it for. I think everybody should figure that out first before deciding on the lenses (eventhough you might go through a whole bunch before you know what you really want with photography).
11-03-2011, 02:54 AM   #13
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
Original Poster
I ended up swaping my 70-300+18-200 for a 18-250. It is the Tamron version though, can I use the lens correction or is it only for the Pentax model(which I believe is the same?)
Thanks for all your help.
My next lens will probably be a prime..
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!
f2.4, k-mount, option, pentax 35mm f2.4, pentax lens, sigma, slr lens, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 vs Pentax DA 35mm f2.4 sany Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 08-11-2011 08:32 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax *ist 35mm Camera with Grip and FA-J 18-35mm (CONUS) sunny16 Sold Items 2 02-27-2011 08:39 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC K 35mm/2 35mm F2 Rare Collector's Item, w/ Metal Hood (Worldwide) frank Sold Items 16 04-07-2010 05:03 AM
Tamron 35mm-210mm Macro Question kwetiaw Pentax Film SLR Discussion 4 10-04-2009 08:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:57 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