Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-20-2012, 11:36 AM   #1
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lodi Ca
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 29
What lens next?

Ok, I currently have M28m 3.5, A50 2.8 Macro, 35 2.4 and 55-300 DAL. Just sold 16-45, F35-70 and 35-105 lens, wanting a general walk around lens. I liked the 16-45 but not enough range (up to 70-135mm would be better), the 35-70 was ok but not enough on wide angle end, the 35-105 too heavy. Was thinking about 18-135 zoom but have read too many negative reviews on it.
So I'm thinking about the Pentax 17-70. I just purchased a K5 so F4 wouldn't be much of a drawback since I would use it mostly in day time for my walks on nature trail and on the boat. Would have liked WR but guess I can live without it. Would like something with at least as good quality as my 55-300. Like the 50-135 zoom but a little out of my price range something under 500.00.
Any comments as to 17-70, I know sigma 17-50 2.8 has good reviews but not enough range for me. The more I research the more confused I get LOL
Would the 17-70 be a upgrade from my 16-45?

03-20-2012, 12:01 PM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 971
I think it's time to try out a Limited, DA or FA.

I think the DA 40mm f2.8 would be a great next lens, not too expensive in the used market (or new actually), and see what all the fuss is about.
03-20-2012, 12:48 PM   #3
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,289
18-135 fits your requirements best. Yes, it has some bad reviews but what are they comparing it to? It is not a Limited prime. And there are plenty of good reviews as well. The 17-70 you are looking at has exactly the same rating in the lens database (8.0) so I doubt there will be much if any difference in IQ. And for a walk around, especially nature trail, 18-135mm just works.
03-20-2012, 01:10 PM   #4
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lodi Ca
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 29
Original Poster
Thanks for suggestions, Maybe I will give the 18-135 a try. I can send it back if not happy, the DA 40 limited is a nice lens but if I were to go the limited route I might go for the 70 2.4 since I already have a 50 & 35. Its just when on nature trail I don't want to carry to much with me. I'm 72 now and got to keep it light. The 18-135 WR might come in handy when on the boat. Thanks, I know this subject has been discussed before but seems the more I read the more confused I get. Guess there is no perfect lens unless, I spend a lot of money. I'm not a professional but do like quality pictures.

03-20-2012, 05:04 PM   #5
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,440
17-70 is a good casual single lens, i.e., walk-around option. Just barely wide enough and just barely long enough. But enough :-)

I got a used Sigma 2.8-4.5 version for that purpose which I'm happy with.
03-20-2012, 05:16 PM   #6
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by gmachine Quote
Would like something with at least as good quality as my 55-300. Like the 50-135
That's a huge jump from a [Chevy Aveo] 55~300 to a [Lexus LS] 50~135 in terms of quality. IMO, if you are that close with $500, I would wait and save a couple hundred more and pop off a used 50~135...
03-20-2012, 06:29 PM   #7
Site Supporter
ramseybuckeye's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Elida, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,119
I bought a used Tamron AF 28-105 for a good price in a lot, intending to sell it. I'm keeping it as it is a great lens. There is a duplicate Pentax FA version (not the Power Zoom) and a Promaster copy. Not the fastest lens, but very sharp and pretty lightweight. Not as wide or long as the 18-135 and not WR, but I'm not complaining for $42, one tenth the price of the 18-135. It's been finding a lot of time on the camera.
03-20-2012, 06:35 PM   #8
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,252
QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
I got a used Sigma 2.8-4.5 version for that purpose which I'm happy with.
Plus one for the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. It's a very versatile lens with pretty good IQ and quick focus.

03-20-2012, 07:36 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,248
If you've read too many negative reviews about the 18-135mm then read more positive reviews

I have one and I like it -it's my primary lens given its reach and WR. Sure there's barrel distortion but it's hard to notice in real life (unless you take photos of lots of straight things like metal bars... i guess).
03-20-2012, 08:52 PM   #10
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lodi Ca
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 29
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Vylen Quote
If you've read too many negative reviews about the 18-135mm then read more positive reviews

I have one and I like it -it's my primary lens given its reach and WR. Sure there's barrel distortion but it's hard to notice in real life (unless you take photos of lots of straight things like metal bars... i guess).
I notice you also have the 55-300, how does it compare with the 18-135? Give me a positive answer I might go for it It really does have everything I want ie; range, size, wt and WR. Just don't want to PP everything to make crappy pictures look good. My DAL35 2.4, A50 2.8 Macro and 55-300 all do a good job, but I don't want to carry all of them with me and constantly change lenses. Don't think I'll be shooting too many metal bars unless I get arrested for taking pictures of something I shouldn't
03-20-2012, 09:29 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,248
Well, the 18-135mm is crazy fast at focussing compared to the 55-300 which is often known for having trouble - of course, it does have the really good advantage of a (pretty quiet) DC motor.

It can be soft at the corners unfortunately, but, I don't see it as too much a problem since I'm not really taking photos where the important stuff is there.

Heh, thinking about this just really reinforces how good the 55-300 is That said, the 18-135mm is an excellent lens for where it counts - it's light and fast for candid shots, and isn't bothered by the rain!

Unfortunately I'm interstate at the moment and don't have my gear with me. It's making me think that when I do get a chance, I try do comparison shots between the 18-135 and 55-300 in the focal lengths where they overlap
03-21-2012, 01:38 AM   #12
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Viet Nam
Posts: 27
I think U should try on 18 135 WR. It's a nice, sharp and colour lens...more fast AF and well built..It covers all range when u walked around.
I used to have a 18 135 lens and to be very sastified about it..

Last edited by smilingman82; 03-21-2012 at 01:47 AM.
03-22-2012, 11:57 AM   #13
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lodi Ca
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 29
Original Poster
Ok, I finally made a my decision, instead of getting a zoom (18-135) I just purchased a DA70 2.4 limited. I already have a M28mm, 35mm 2.4, 50mm 2.8 and 55-300 zoom, so I figured The 70mm would be fine for my walk around on nature trail. A little more reach for those small animals that are not too far away, and my 55-300 will work for further reach and my 28/35 for the landscapes and my 50 2.8 Macro for flowers ect. Should be better quality pictures and better suited for my K5. Purchased a used 70mm 2.4 Ltd. that is supposed to be like new and reasonable price. Will see when it get here. I really like the 35mm 2.4 and hoping the 70 is as good or better.
03-23-2012, 10:21 AM   #14
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 893
Start at some point. Start at image quality, or zoom trange, or max. aperture, or price or whatever.
You need to fix one variable before you discuss everything else - otherwise you will be lost.

Figure out what you like, figiure out what you need. Why not get a DFA 100 macro instead of the 70 and the 50M...
03-23-2012, 02:57 PM   #15
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,248
QuoteOriginally posted by zapp Quote
Start at some point. Start at image quality, or zoom trange, or max. aperture, or price or whatever.
You need to fix one variable before you discuss everything else - otherwise you will be lost.

Figure out what you like, figiure out what you need. Why not get a DFA 100 macro instead of the 70 and the 50M...
Actually.. yes, the DFA 100 WR is a good idea... on a nature trail and on a boat makes sense - apart from it being weather sealed, if on a nature trail, you can easily get those macro shots in without being too close (compared to the 50mm)... and it works as a good portraiture lens as well.

Last edited by Vylen; 03-23-2012 at 03:06 PM.
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, pentax lens, range, reviews, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Keep K-x buy premium lens, get K-r and get good lens, get the K-7 w/ lens or K-5? crossover37 Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 02-06-2011 10:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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