Kit lens for landscapes?

eddie1960 · 08-15-2012, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by stormtech

And with that said, I seem to come full circle with this in thinking of getting the 18-55WR more to test out different focal lengths before I spend ~$500 on a lens.

Which is as good a reason as any to have it. I keep mine for bad weather, i shoot primes 98% of the time and in fact have sold off my good zoom (Sigma 24-70 2.8) just recently because it sits on the shelf

JenniferLeigh · 08-15-2012, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by stormtech

I've read through the reviews of this lens, and they haven't really scared me away. I just get to wondering if I am going to be really displeased with the WR kit lens since I am so used to the beautiful IQ of my current lenses (in my sig).

Any thoughts or opinions?

I've gotten some fantastic images out of my (non-wr) kit lens. I purchased a used 16-45 off a PF member, who was nice enough to let me test the lens before purchasing. I did some comparisons with my kit vs the 16-45 around my backyard, and in my findings the IQ was a tad better but not by much. However I love the extra 2mm. It is my main landscape lens, and I seem to notice less CA with the 16-45 than with the 18-55, but I've never done any comparisons in the field.

Since you are considering the 15 & 21, if you can find a copy of the 16-45 to play will you might get a better idea of your preferred focal length than the 18-55. However it is more money, and non WR.

If rental isn't an option in your area, then you could always buy from a place with a good return policy. Test the lens, if you don't like it... return it!

stormtech · 08-18-2012, 06:27 PM

Thought I would update this thread as I have finally made a decision - this decision also affects my other thread on a similar subject about which WA prime I should get:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/194422-lens-bu...rime-lens.html

Wow - between these two threads I sure have beat you guys up about my quandary!

Anyway, this thread is kind of a successor to the linked thread - I was originally going to get a WA prime, then with this thread thought about getting a kit zoom so I could try the different focal lengths. But, I was concerned with being disappointed with the IQ of the kit lens, plus if/when I decided on a prime, it would be another lens that I would need to sell.

I don't know why, but on the way home from work it hit me - why not just get a higher end zoom like the DA* 16-50 etc. This would give me a range of example focal lengths to work with, plus it would be a lens that I would certainly keep if/when the time came to get myself a prime. Also, who knows - maybe this fast zoom will satisfy me enough to even forgo a prime for now.

I won't get into the whole debate between the three 2.8 lenses here - I decided on the Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX HSM - this is the newest version without the OS. I think I made a good choice for now in my stage of indecision - I actually feel much better now that I made this decision and really looking forward to working with the new Sigma lens.

Thanks everyone who took the time to help with with their opinions and input - couldn't have made it to this point without it!

joe.penn · 08-24-2012, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by stormtech

I decided on the Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX HSM

That's a killer lens Stan!!!

stormtech · 08-24-2012, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by joe.penn

That's a killer lens Stan!!!

Just arrived today - going to put it through its paces this weekend.

joe.penn · 08-24-2012, 07:23 PM

Post some pictures that you make with it this weekend...

stormtech · 08-25-2012, 08:21 AM

Put the Sigma 17-50 through my standard initial testing. I do a series of test shots on a couple of the same objects with every lens. I like to do this to see exactly what the lens is capable of that way if I am having problems later, I can usually point to user error rather than the lens itself.

After an hour of shots and viewing, the lens back focuses badly in both close and distance focusing throughout the zoom range. The lens is being returned.

I'm a little discontented with Sigma in general right now, and this certainly didn't help. I had sent in my 180 3.5 macro for repair - needed a new aperture ring. When I received it back last week, the problem with fixed with the ring replacement, but the lens was not nearly as sharp in AF as before I sent it in. This lens was absolutely tack sharp. I noticed on the repair order that they adjusted the AF for some reason - now it is off. So I had to send the lens back in to them along with my K-5 for calibration. I know I could also send the 17-50 in to Sigma with my K-5 to do the same, but feel I shouldn't have to with a brand new EX lens.

So, back to square one with my quest for a wide angle lens. I am basically back to choosing between the 15 and 21 limited now.

Last edited by stormtech; 08-25-2012 at 09:16 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Buying a K5 - but with 18-135mm lens kit? Or an 18-55 + 50-200mm lens kit?	robinfaz	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	12	06-04-2012 01:44 PM
Lens for landscapes and architecture	Matchete	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	10-21-2011 05:22 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-r, 18-55mm kit, 50-200mm kit, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro lens (CONUS	PastorOfMuppets	Sold Items	3	04-02-2011 07:31 PM
Good lens for landscapes	Seafood	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-09-2007 09:17 PM
K100D + Lens for Landscapes	amcneice	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	04-15-2007 09:29 PM

08-15-2012, 07:25 AM	#31
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by stormtech And with that said, I seem to come full circle with this in thinking of getting the 18-55WR more to test out different focal lengths before I spend ~$500 on a lens. Which is as good a reason as any to have it. I keep mine for bad weather, i shoot primes 98% of the time and in fact have sold off my good zoom (Sigma 24-70 2.8) just recently because it sits on the shelf

08-15-2012, 09:35 AM	#32
JenniferLeigh Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Southern Alberta Posts: 281	Originally posted by stormtech I've read through the reviews of this lens, and they haven't really scared me away. I just get to wondering if I am going to be really displeased with the WR kit lens since I am so used to the beautiful IQ of my current lenses (in my sig). Any thoughts or opinions? I've gotten some fantastic images out of my (non-wr) kit lens. I purchased a used 16-45 off a PF member, who was nice enough to let me test the lens before purchasing. I did some comparisons with my kit vs the 16-45 around my backyard, and in my findings the IQ was a tad better but not by much. However I love the extra 2mm. It is my main landscape lens, and I seem to notice less CA with the 16-45 than with the 18-55, but I've never done any comparisons in the field. Since you are considering the 15 & 21, if you can find a copy of the 16-45 to play will you might get a better idea of your preferred focal length than the 18-55. However it is more money, and non WR. If rental isn't an option in your area, then you could always buy from a place with a good return policy. Test the lens, if you don't like it... return it!

08-18-2012, 06:27 PM	#33
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744 Original Poster	Thought I would update this thread as I have finally made a decision - this decision also affects my other thread on a similar subject about which WA prime I should get: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/194422-lens-bu...rime-lens.html Wow - between these two threads I sure have beat you guys up about my quandary! Anyway, this thread is kind of a successor to the linked thread - I was originally going to get a WA prime, then with this thread thought about getting a kit zoom so I could try the different focal lengths. But, I was concerned with being disappointed with the IQ of the kit lens, plus if/when I decided on a prime, it would be another lens that I would need to sell. I don't know why, but on the way home from work it hit me - why not just get a higher end zoom like the DA* 16-50 etc. This would give me a range of example focal lengths to work with, plus it would be a lens that I would certainly keep if/when the time came to get myself a prime. Also, who knows - maybe this fast zoom will satisfy me enough to even forgo a prime for now. I won't get into the whole debate between the three 2.8 lenses here - I decided on the Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX HSM - this is the newest version without the OS. I think I made a good choice for now in my stage of indecision - I actually feel much better now that I made this decision and really looking forward to working with the new Sigma lens. Thanks everyone who took the time to help with with their opinions and input - couldn't have made it to this point without it!

08-24-2012, 05:11 PM	#34
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by stormtech I decided on the Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX HSM That's a killer lens Stan!!!

08-24-2012, 05:42 PM	#35
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744 Original Poster	Originally posted by joe.penn That's a killer lens Stan!!! Just arrived today - going to put it through its paces this weekend.

08-24-2012, 07:23 PM	#36
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Post some pictures that you make with it this weekend...

08-25-2012, 08:21 AM	#37
stormtech Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: In the boonies (NW Penna) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,744 Original Poster	Put the Sigma 17-50 through my standard initial testing. I do a series of test shots on a couple of the same objects with every lens. I like to do this to see exactly what the lens is capable of that way if I am having problems later, I can usually point to user error rather than the lens itself. After an hour of shots and viewing, the lens back focuses badly in both close and distance focusing throughout the zoom range. The lens is being returned. I'm a little discontented with Sigma in general right now, and this certainly didn't help. I had sent in my 180 3.5 macro for repair - needed a new aperture ring. When I received it back last week, the problem with fixed with the ring replacement, but the lens was not nearly as sharp in AF as before I sent it in. This lens was absolutely tack sharp. I noticed on the repair order that they adjusted the AF for some reason - now it is off. So I had to send the lens back in to them along with my K-5 for calibration. I know I could also send the 17-50 in to Sigma with my K-5 to do the same, but feel I shouldn't have to with a brand new EX lens. So, back to square one with my quest for a wide angle lens. I am basically back to choosing between the 15 and 21 limited now. Last edited by stormtech; 08-25-2012 at 09:16 AM.