What About This Core Lens Setup?

lastdodobird · 02-23-2008, 06:18 PM

Sigma 10-20
Sigma 17-70
Sigma 70-200
Pentax 40/2.8 ltd

The reason I'm asking is because I already have the Pentax 40/2.8 and the Sigma 10-20... and I was wondering what two other lenses I should have. The only concern on the setup above would be that the Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 17-70 overlaps at the 17-20 range, but is this redundancy a big issue in anyone's experience?

Would anyone have any other suggestions, considering that I already have the Pentax 40/2.8 and the Sigma 10-20?

What comments do you have on the 17-70 and 70-200? Maybe I should switch the Sigma 70-200 for a Tamron 70-300?

Thanks?

palmor · 02-23-2008, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by lastdodobird

Sigma 10-20

Maybe I should switch the Sigma 70-200 for a Tamron 70-300?

Thanks?

I wouldn't, the 70-200 (if it is anything like the previous generation) is a high end EX lens that is MUCH better then the 70-300. You'll be able to add a 1.4x and 2.0x to the Sigma 70-200 and still have very good IQ.

lastdodobird · 02-23-2008, 06:30 PM

or maybe I should just get the Sigma 18-200 and skip both the 17-70 and 70-200?

**Lowell Goudge** · 02-23-2008, 06:31 PM

Mine is similar

Sigma 10-20
Pentax FAJ 18-35
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Sigma 70-200 f2.8

This is the latest encarnation any way. You should go for speed in the two longer zooms if you have the wallet for it.

I have 24, 50, 100, 135, 300, 400mm primes plus an assortment of teleconverters.

the 24 50 and 135 are faster than any of the zooms at the same focal length and are the basis of my low light kit

heatherslightbox · 02-23-2008, 06:39 PM

I'm strongly leaning towards the 17-70 myself, as it would work nicely with the F70-210 that I already have. One of it's neat features is that it has macro capability (1:2.3, I believe). Even though it's not a constant 2.8, 2.8-4 isn't anything to sneeze at either. Just in case you aren't aware, pbase.com has a great feature where you can look up specific lenses and view sample pics taken with them. This is the one for the 17-70:
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens Sample Photos and Specifications

Just in case you didn't know it, Tamron is also coming out with their version of the 70-200/2.8. I looked up both it and the Sigma version on Adorama and as it turns out, the Tamron version is $100 cheaper than the Sigma (Sigma, $799, Tamron $699) + it's 8+ oz. lighter than the Sigma version. Here's the link to the Tamron on the Adorama website:
AF001P700 Tamron 70 - 200mm f/2.8 DI LD (IF) Macro, Fast AF Telephoto Zoom Lens for Pentax Autofocus Mount - USA Warranty
If I was in the position to buy a fast telephoto, I would definitely be leaning towards the Tamron.

HTH,
Heather

heatherslightbox · 02-23-2008, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by lastdodobird

or maybe I should just get the Sigma 18-200 and skip both the 17-70 and 70-200?

While the extra long zooms are convenient, you lose IQ since they have to pack so much into one lens. I think that the 17-70/70-200 is the way to go. You can pick up the 17-70 for $350-400 new and around $300 gently used, which is very reasonable for a lens that's this versatile. While the 70-200 is going to be the best in terms of IQ, it is expensive, whether you get the Sigma or Tamron version. If you don't want to spend a lot of money at this point, then picking up an older F70-210 like I have is a good option. Speedwise, it is slower than the 70-200, plus it has a fairly stiff zoom ring and loud AF, but it produces some really sharp pics. You can usually find one of these for $200 or less.

If you decide that you must have an extra-long zoom, go for the 18-250, either the Pentax or Tamron version, as the IQ is more highly regarded than the 18-200.

Again, HTH,
Heather

tux08902 · 02-23-2008, 08:19 PM

I'd replace that DA 40/2.8 Limited with the FA 43/1.9 Limited. You need something faster than your zooms.

egordon99 · 02-23-2008, 08:27 PM

Instead of the Sigma 17-70, look into the Tamron 28-75mm. I had this paired with my 10-20 and I didn't really miss the 20-27mm gap too much. And the 28-75 is f/2.8 throughout.

lastdodobird · 02-23-2008, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by egordon99

Instead of the Sigma 17-70, look into the Tamron 28-75mm. I had this paired with my 10-20 and I didn't really miss the 20-27mm gap too much. And the 28-75 is f/2.8 throughout.

I dunno... how important IS 7mm anyway? Hehe. Yeah I'll have a look at that lens. Especially now that it's been mentioned twice in this thread (Lowell Goudge also mentioned it earlier). Thanks!

Originally posted by tux08902

I'd replace that DA 40/2.8 Limited with the FA 43/1.9 Limited. You need something faster than your zooms.

My 40/2.8 ain't going anywhere (let's attribute that to familiarity and sentimentality - lol). f2.8 is fast enough for me so far. Haven't looked for anything faster. Plus, I have no idea where to look for the FA 43/1.9 aside from online (I'm in the Philippines).

Originally posted by hwblanks

While the extra long zooms are convenient, you lose IQ since they have to pack so much into one lens. I think that the 17-70/70-200 is the way to go. You can pick up the 17-70 for $350-400 new and around $300 gently used, which is very reasonable for a lens that's this versatile. While the 70-200 is going to be the best in terms of IQ, it is expensive, whether you get the Sigma or Tamron version. If you don't want to spend a lot of money at this point, then picking up an older F70-210 like I have is a good option. Speedwise, it is slower than the 70-200, plus it has a fairly stiff zoom ring and loud AF, but it produces some really sharp pics. You can usually find one of these for $200 or less.

If you decide that you must have an extra-long zoom, go for the 18-250, either the Pentax or Tamron version, as the IQ is more highly regarded than the 18-200.

Again, HTH,
Heather

I had a creeping feeling that the 18-200 DID have a tradeoff, so I'm not surprised that it sacrifices IQ for the reach it offers. Knowing that, the 17-20/70-200 combo looks awful nice right now. Thanks Heather!

kjao · 02-23-2008, 11:52 PM

lastdodobird,

If money is not an issue, then I would suggest getting 18-200 (or Tamron 18-250) as a travel lens.

Other than that, you have got a nice setup there!

benplaut · 02-24-2008, 12:42 AM

I'm also going to push the Tamron 28-75mm. I don't personally have one, but I do know that the 20-28 gap, while large in terms of degrees and FL, isn't that big of a deal. 28 is about as wide as you'll ever want when taking pictures of people, because lower than that things start to look a bit funky (just a bit, but it's there). Landscapes are going to be best about 16-18mm, and it's rare that you'll need the middle.

Look... if it's missing, you can always pick up a 24mm prime.

roentarre · 02-24-2008, 01:52 AM

Sigma 17-70 would be an amazing zoom to match sigma 10-20

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a stellar lens on its own and it shall be a good lens to be added to your lens line up

02-23-2008, 06:18 PM	#1
lastdodobird Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 128	What About This Core Lens Setup? Sigma 10-20 Sigma 17-70 Sigma 70-200 Pentax 40/2.8 ltd The reason I'm asking is because I already have the Pentax 40/2.8 and the Sigma 10-20... and I was wondering what two other lenses I should have. The only concern on the setup above would be that the Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 17-70 overlaps at the 17-20 range, but is this redundancy a big issue in anyone's experience? Would anyone have any other suggestions, considering that I already have the Pentax 40/2.8 and the Sigma 10-20? What comments do you have on the 17-70 and 70-200? Maybe I should switch the Sigma 70-200 for a Tamron 70-300? Thanks?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which Lens Setup Should I Upgrade To?	jaieger	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	07-14-2010 08:17 AM
My lens setup (Let me know what you think)	A.M.92	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	07-01-2010 04:27 AM
: Samsung Licenses Apical's iridix IP Core For Semiconductor Imaging Products	eigelb	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	10-12-2009 12:21 PM
Best 4-5 Lense Setup/Your Dream Setup	68wSteve	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	65	02-11-2009 04:59 PM
Prime lens setup	dugrant153	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	11-21-2007 12:34 AM

02-23-2008, 06:23 PM	#2
palmor Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: North of Boston, MA Posts: 798	Originally posted by lastdodobird Sigma 10-20 Maybe I should switch the Sigma 70-200 for a Tamron 70-300? Thanks? I wouldn't, the 70-200 (if it is anything like the previous generation) is a high end EX lens that is MUCH better then the 70-300. You'll be able to add a 1.4x and 2.0x to the Sigma 70-200 and still have very good IQ.

02-23-2008, 06:30 PM	#3
lastdodobird Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 128 Original Poster	or maybe I should just get the Sigma 18-200 and skip both the 17-70 and 70-200?

02-23-2008, 06:31 PM	#4
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Mine is similar Sigma 10-20 Pentax FAJ 18-35 Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Sigma 70-200 f2.8 This is the latest encarnation any way. You should go for speed in the two longer zooms if you have the wallet for it. I have 24, 50, 100, 135, 300, 400mm primes plus an assortment of teleconverters. the 24 50 and 135 are faster than any of the zooms at the same focal length and are the basis of my low light kit

02-23-2008, 06:39 PM	#5
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	I'm strongly leaning towards the 17-70 myself, as it would work nicely with the F70-210 that I already have. One of it's neat features is that it has macro capability (1:2.3, I believe). Even though it's not a constant 2.8, 2.8-4 isn't anything to sneeze at either. Just in case you aren't aware, pbase.com has a great feature where you can look up specific lenses and view sample pics taken with them. This is the one for the 17-70: Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens Sample Photos and Specifications Just in case you didn't know it, Tamron is also coming out with their version of the 70-200/2.8. I looked up both it and the Sigma version on Adorama and as it turns out, the Tamron version is $100 cheaper than the Sigma (Sigma, $799, Tamron $699) + it's 8+ oz. lighter than the Sigma version. Here's the link to the Tamron on the Adorama website: AF001P700 Tamron 70 - 200mm f/2.8 DI LD (IF) Macro, Fast AF Telephoto Zoom Lens for Pentax Autofocus Mount - USA Warranty If I was in the position to buy a fast telephoto, I would definitely be leaning towards the Tamron. HTH, Heather

02-23-2008, 06:51 PM	#6
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	Originally posted by lastdodobird or maybe I should just get the Sigma 18-200 and skip both the 17-70 and 70-200? While the extra long zooms are convenient, you lose IQ since they have to pack so much into one lens. I think that the 17-70/70-200 is the way to go. You can pick up the 17-70 for $350-400 new and around $300 gently used, which is very reasonable for a lens that's this versatile. While the 70-200 is going to be the best in terms of IQ, it is expensive, whether you get the Sigma or Tamron version. If you don't want to spend a lot of money at this point, then picking up an older F70-210 like I have is a good option. Speedwise, it is slower than the 70-200, plus it has a fairly stiff zoom ring and loud AF, but it produces some really sharp pics. You can usually find one of these for $200 or less. If you decide that you must have an extra-long zoom, go for the 18-250, either the Pentax or Tamron version, as the IQ is more highly regarded than the 18-200. Again, HTH, Heather

02-23-2008, 08:19 PM	#7
tux08902 Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North Brunswick, NJ Posts: 473	I'd replace that DA 40/2.8 Limited with the FA 43/1.9 Limited. You need something faster than your zooms.

02-23-2008, 08:27 PM	#8
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	Instead of the Sigma 17-70, look into the Tamron 28-75mm. I had this paired with my 10-20 and I didn't really miss the 20-27mm gap too much. And the 28-75 is f/2.8 throughout.

02-23-2008, 10:47 PM	#9
lastdodobird Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 128 Original Poster	Originally posted by egordon99 Instead of the Sigma 17-70, look into the Tamron 28-75mm. I had this paired with my 10-20 and I didn't really miss the 20-27mm gap too much. And the 28-75 is f/2.8 throughout. I dunno... how important IS 7mm anyway? Hehe. Yeah I'll have a look at that lens. Especially now that it's been mentioned twice in this thread (Lowell Goudge also mentioned it earlier). Thanks! Originally posted by tux08902 I'd replace that DA 40/2.8 Limited with the FA 43/1.9 Limited. You need something faster than your zooms. My 40/2.8 ain't going anywhere (let's attribute that to familiarity and sentimentality - lol). f2.8 is fast enough for me so far. Haven't looked for anything faster. Plus, I have no idea where to look for the FA 43/1.9 aside from online (I'm in the Philippines). Originally posted by hwblanks While the extra long zooms are convenient, you lose IQ since they have to pack so much into one lens. I think that the 17-70/70-200 is the way to go. You can pick up the 17-70 for $350-400 new and around $300 gently used, which is very reasonable for a lens that's this versatile. While the 70-200 is going to be the best in terms of IQ, it is expensive, whether you get the Sigma or Tamron version. If you don't want to spend a lot of money at this point, then picking up an older F70-210 like I have is a good option. Speedwise, it is slower than the 70-200, plus it has a fairly stiff zoom ring and loud AF, but it produces some really sharp pics. You can usually find one of these for $200 or less. If you decide that you must have an extra-long zoom, go for the 18-250, either the Pentax or Tamron version, as the IQ is more highly regarded than the 18-200. Again, HTH, Heather I had a creeping feeling that the 18-200 DID have a tradeoff, so I'm not surprised that it sacrifices IQ for the reach it offers. Knowing that, the 17-20/70-200 combo looks awful nice right now. Thanks Heather!

02-23-2008, 11:52 PM	#10
kjao Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 423	lastdodobird, If money is not an issue, then I would suggest getting 18-200 (or Tamron 18-250) as a travel lens. Other than that, you have got a nice setup there!

02-24-2008, 12:42 AM	#11
benplaut Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Central NY Posts: 268	I'm also going to push the Tamron 28-75mm. I don't personally have one, but I do know that the 20-28 gap, while large in terms of degrees and FL, isn't that big of a deal. 28 is about as wide as you'll ever want when taking pictures of people, because lower than that things start to look a bit funky (just a bit, but it's there). Landscapes are going to be best about 16-18mm, and it's rare that you'll need the middle. Look... if it's missing, you can always pick up a 24mm prime.

02-24-2008, 01:52 AM	#12
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Sigma 17-70 would be an amazing zoom to match sigma 10-20 Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a stellar lens on its own and it shall be a good lens to be added to your lens line up