Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

olimatt · 09-28-2012, 03:49 AM

Hello,

I am looking for a zoom in the range of the 16-50 which performs better than the Pentax WR - a 24-70 could also do its job but only if its faster than f4.

I have heard that the 16-50 WR is really bad wide open which is for me a NO GO since I need it for quick portraits at the longest end.

I do not especially need WR but it would be nice, since I will use it in Jordan. if possible, FF compatible. Price is not important to me.

Thank you for your recommandations!

Olivier

VictorDA · 09-28-2012, 04:25 AM

Hi,
I'm afraid you have no other option in Pentax brand or with WR... However check out this comparison DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Introduction - PentaxForums.com
The Sigma and Tamron equivalents are more recommended. There is also a Sigma 24-70 which seems to be recommended by its users.
Good luck with your decision !

sb in ak · 09-28-2012, 08:51 AM

I'm looking for something in this range too. I'm leaning more toward the Pentax 16-50 though as I'm more of a landscape photographer and won't be shooting wide open often. Due to the weather in Alaska, WR is nice to have.

I used a friend's Sigma 17-50 a while ago and liked it. I'd probably go for this unless you really need the WR. I am not a big fan of the Tamron as I found it slow and noisy but maybe there is a different version out now.

Marc Sabatella · 09-29-2012, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by olimatt

I have heard that the 16-50 WR is really bad wide open

says who? and compared to what? in fact, by objective measures it does about as well as any other lens of similar specs - whch is to say, not as good as a prime, perhaps, but still more than good enough portraits. especially for portraits, in fact, as extreme sharpness is rarley desired. Amd actually, its sharpness is very good except in the extreme corners, which are seldom an issue in portraits anyhow. Ut the real question is. Why would ypu be wanting wide / normal zoom instead of one that covers the more usual portrai focal length ranges?

09-28-2012, 03:49 AM	#1
olimatt New Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 15	looking for a zoom Hello, I am looking for a zoom in the range of the 16-50 which performs better than the Pentax WR - a 24-70 could also do its job but only if its faster than f4. I have heard that the 16-50 WR is really bad wide open which is for me a NO GO since I need it for quick portraits at the longest end. I do not especially need WR but it would be nice, since I will use it in Jordan. if possible, FF compatible. Price is not important to me. Thank you for your recommandations! Olivier

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
200 zoom versus 300 zoom	EyeSpy	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	18	01-08-2012 06:02 AM
Zoom/Power zoom on flashes: why?	hray	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	11	03-03-2011 03:02 PM
Zoom grip decoupled from zoom ring	Eruditass	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	11-25-2009 09:39 AM
Is the Pentax - 75-300mm F4.5-5.8 SMCP-FA J AL Zoom Lens a good budget zoom?	Kornbread	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	01-16-2009 03:45 PM
Zoom in, focus, zoom out and recompose?	raider	Photographic Technique	4	09-28-2007 12:30 PM

09-28-2012, 04:25 AM	#2
VictorDA Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lyon area, France Posts: 718	Hi, I'm afraid you have no other option in Pentax brand or with WR... However check out this comparison DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Introduction - PentaxForums.com The Sigma and Tamron equivalents are more recommended. There is also a Sigma 24-70 which seems to be recommended by its users. Good luck with your decision !

09-28-2012, 08:51 AM	#3
sb in ak Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 612	I'm looking for something in this range too. I'm leaning more toward the Pentax 16-50 though as I'm more of a landscape photographer and won't be shooting wide open often. Due to the weather in Alaska, WR is nice to have. I used a friend's Sigma 17-50 a while ago and liked it. I'd probably go for this unless you really need the WR. I am not a big fan of the Tamron as I found it slow and noisy but maybe there is a different version out now.

09-29-2012, 09:13 PM	#4
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by olimatt I have heard that the 16-50 WR is really bad wide open says who? and compared to what? in fact, by objective measures it does about as well as any other lens of similar specs - whch is to say, not as good as a prime, perhaps, but still more than good enough portraits. especially for portraits, in fact, as extreme sharpness is rarley desired. Amd actually, its sharpness is very good except in the extreme corners, which are seldom an issue in portraits anyhow. Ut the real question is. Why would ypu be wanting wide / normal zoom instead of one that covers the more usual portrai focal length ranges?