Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-29-2013, 02:18 PM   #16
Pentaxian
seventysixersfan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,710
QuoteOriginally posted by JayX2A Quote
The 17-70 is no quicker than the 18-135? Would not see that as an upgrade?
It is a faster zoom lens across the overlapping range.

Compare (these are approximations)

Sigma 17-70
f/2.8 from 17-23mm
f/3.2 from 24-27mm
f/3.5 from 28-49mm
f/4.0 from 50-70mm

Pentax DA 18-135
f/3.5 from 18-20mm
f/4.0 from 21-29mm
f/4.5 from 30-69mm
f/5.6 from 70-135mm


Last edited by seventysixersfan; 03-29-2013 at 02:29 PM.
04-03-2013, 12:59 AM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 120
Original Poster
Still think I want a constant f2.8 lens, whether it be a Sigma or Tamron.

My friend has the 24-70 HSM and its a bit of a beast! Guess that's the trade off for HSM and f2.8.
04-03-2013, 01:27 AM   #18
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4
QuoteOriginally posted by JayX2A Quote
Still think I want a constant f2.8 lens, whether it be a Sigma or Tamron.

My friend has the 24-70 HSM and its a bit of a beast! Guess that's the trade off for HSM and f2.8.
Heh, when I bought my Tamron I sincerely believed that f2.8 is absoletly nessesary. But in fact I use 2.8 very-very rarely, just for fun or for tests. I this focus range it is useless, may be only on wide angle in rooms at low light or for evening lanscapes. For portraits I prefer F3.5-4.5.
04-03-2013, 01:29 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 120
Original Poster
I was thinking it may be useful for sports, especially indoors as do some equestrian photography.

04-03-2013, 01:59 AM   #20
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4
QuoteOriginally posted by JayX2A Quote
I was thinking it may be useful for sports, especially indoors as do some equestrian photography.
For sports?!! May be only for chess Just for example: you shot at F2.8/70mm from distance of 10 m - then depth of field will be only 1,3 m. If I know anything about horse - it is a few larger And if horse moves it is very high probability that horse will out of focus. If you plan shot from longer distance then you need another focus range.
04-03-2013, 02:08 AM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 120
Original Poster
I was using the 30mm siggy for equestrian photos last weekend and it worked quite well! Just want more range.

The Tamron 28-75 seems a cheaper option than the Sigma.
04-03-2013, 02:20 AM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellington
Posts: 969
Another vote for the Tamron 28-75 im pretty sure the screw drive would be more tolerant of getting wet as well.
As for the upcoming 16-85 bring it on! Should be weather resistant as it is a DA* so a Pentax version of Sonys 16-80
04-03-2013, 03:55 AM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 153
I went the opposite way - I sold the Tamron 17-50 to fund the 18-135mm. The Tamron is a great lens, but I've got primes that more than match it for sharpness and speed, and had no WR lenses. Since getting the 18-135 I've used it far more than I thought I would. It's just a very nice, well performing lens. It also has a lovely build quality. I've no qualms about leaving it on the camera and swapping it for a prime as needed.

04-03-2013, 04:41 AM   #24
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 63
+1 on tamron 28-75. It's really useful for me taking pictures of my one year old boy running around the house. It's great for taking wedding event too.
04-03-2013, 05:36 AM   #25
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 86
QuoteOriginally posted by JayX2A Quote
I have yet to use the 18-135 WR extensivly, but I think I want something faster.

Was considering the 24-70 f2.8 as do not go wide very often. I am also considering the 70-200 f2.8 at a later date.

Any other fast zooms I should look in to?
I've gone through this process...I bought my K5 with DA 18-135, then three months later bought Tamron 28-75. I have to say the 18-135 is much sharper than the Tammy in the centre; however the Tammy is faster, less vignetting and more creamy which is good for indoor and people shots. So now I use 18-135 for outdoor and Tammy for indoor. But I'm still waiting for my idea zoom lens for ~20-70 FL. The new Sigma 17-70 doesn't sound great according to the reviews for Canon mount...so I can only hope the Pentax 16-85? or whatever appearing in the near future would fulfill my wish...
04-03-2013, 06:10 AM   #26
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
I spend a lot of time outdoors, so the 18-135 is a no brainer, and I can see wanting 2.8 in low light, but mostly for better autofocus.

We shoot with both the Sigma 70 2.8 and Tamron 90 macro 2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and despite what the narrow DoF guys may tell you, it's very rare in a 5 shot comparison that the 2.8 shot is the best shot, in fact if I was to generalize, shots taken at wide aperture are for the most part unusable in general terms. I know all the guys craving 1.4 will jump in and declare me insane, but I just take lots of images at different speeds and F-stops and choose the best images. If the 2.8 image is the best image, I use it, but as i said, it's rarely the best image as long as you can get a decent exposure without it.

More light for the auto-focus system is a completely different issue. If you're shooting in low light conditions, 2.8 is a wonderful thing. Shooting in the early morning with an F4 lens I've had trouble achieving a focus lock. But that was shooting into darkness that even the naked eye had trouble with. As a general rule, 2.8 zooms, are just too heavy to be carry around lenses. If you're a pro, and you're getting paid for it, that's not an issue, you have to be willing to suffer a little. The rest of the time, you don't want heavy lenses ruining your life.
04-03-2013, 09:02 AM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 120
Original Poster
The tamron is 105g heavier than the 18-135 so not a big deal for me.

Although the Sigma is 480g heavier so I can see your point on that particular lens!
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!
f2.8, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 18-135 WR - Is it worth the $400-500? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 43 03-24-2013 10:10 AM
K5 II - 18-135 WR or 15-55 & 50-200 WR JayX2A Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 02-11-2013 08:11 AM
18-55 vs 18-135 WR-ness Giklab Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 04-19-2012 10:56 AM
Better low-light performance: Tamron 18-250 or Pentax 18-135 WR wedge Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 09-06-2011 02:14 PM
WR lenses (not the 18-135) kyteflyer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 03-27-2011 07:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:25 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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