[kokoperry]

Hey,

It's time to upgrade from the kit lens. Any recommendations? I'm debating between the 16-45 and the Sigma 17-70... thoughts? suggestions?

btw, I already own the 50 1.4

Thanks!!

[jgredline]

wEll, here we go...First, let me apologize for contributing to the many different hair pulling answers your sure to get

''IMO'' I would get the 18-250mm Tamron....It is a great all around lens with great results and reviews.

[elnero]

obvious first question would be, do you find yourself wishing the kit was wider or longer? 2mm on the wide can make a bit of difference.

[Ash]

Went through the same thoughts myself a couple of months ago.
Came down to preference of focal lengths for, given that each lens's IQ is excellent, but there was some concern with some 17-70 owners of excessive yellow colour in their captures. I'm sure there will be many 17-70 users who swear by the lens to produce excellent quality shots everytime, though.

For me what did it was the extra 1mm at the wide end (doesn't sound like much, but apparently it is significant), and its use mainly as a wide-angle landscape lens for me. If I were doing more weddings or events, I'd probably have gone with the 17-70 or even Tamron 28-75, which is also f/2.8, since there wouldn't be too many large group shots expected in those events.

If you want speed, though, you'll have to go with the Sigma, being an f/2.8. The 16-45 is a straight f/4.

[palmor]

Like others have said I think it would come down to needs/wants in focal range. As a general purpose walk around lens I do use the Sigma and love it. It was a great upgrade over the kit lens and I've been very happy with it. Check out my Alaska gallery on my pbase site for tons of samples from this lens.

palmor's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

John

[jgredline]

Like others have said I think it would come down to needs/wants in focal range. As a general purpose walk around lens I do use the Sigma and love it. It was a great upgrade over the kit lens and I've been very happy with it. Check out my Alaska gallery on my pbase site for tons of samples from this lens.

palmor's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

John

John
Beautiful gallery!!!!

[kokoperry]

i'd probably use it more at the wide end, so 16-45 it is. thanks for the insight.

[smokey]

I am wanting to replace the kits lens also. Looking at the Pentax DA 16-50 f/2.8 or the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I have read here of problems with the Pentax. With the Sigma $300 cheaper, I might get that one. Just can't decide.

[TimB]

Hah, I was about to post the same question....

A follow up question:
I'm primarily interested in speed (extra 15mm is nice but no crucial), and the Sigma seems only marginally faster. So is the Sigma "worth" extra $300?
I know it's a somewhat meaningless question, but I'm looking more for suggestions than a yes/no answer.

I've been trying to get my hands on a 1.4 or a 1.7 at a reasonable price. I wanted to take some circuis pictures over the weekend; didn't even bother bringing my kit with me

[Tbear]

There has been a lot of excitement expressed by forum members regarding the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II. This lens also has some very favorable reviews out there. Just do a Google search on it. This lens can be purchased in US for about $425 (cheapest DA* 16-50 is about $699). On the downside it does not have weather sealing or HSM.

Ted