Kit Lens Alternatives

ugaarguy · 01-10-2007, 08:17 PM

I recently posted a thread asking about both wide & tele zooms. While there is nothing really wrong with the 18-55 kit lens, the 40mm DA limited has really spoiled me as to what a really good lens feels like and how they shoot. The kit lens now feels plastic-ey, and bit rough around the edges when I handle it. I've done a bit more reading & looking at specs over and over.

I've narrowed it down to worrying about getting a replacement for the kit lens first, and dealing with the telephoto later. Most of my shooting is free hand, social pictures in varying light, often moderate to low; wider apertures quite helpful here. I also enjoy night scenes, but a tripod mitigates the need for wider apertures in this use. I've seen three lenses that appeal to me for this purpose. I'll go handle all three when I return from overseas service, hopefully within a month.

First, the Pentax DA 16-45 f/4. From reviews and specs it appears that it's a good step up from the kit lens, with gains in aperture except at the widest focal length, and only a slight loss of long end range.

Second, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. No gain or loss on focal length, but significant gain on the aperture.

Third, the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 - 4.5. Improved aperture vs the kit lens, a bit more range at 70mm on the long end with only a slightly slower aperture than the Pentax 16-45. This looks to be a good compromise of improved aperture and wider zoom range.

With the expected renewal of rebates now a reality the Pentax lens beats the other two on price by about $100 US. For the extra $100 The Sigmas each offer their own benefits. Comments on any of three in terms of build & image quality, comparison amongst them, or alternatives in that price range appreciated. I hope that this new thread provides a clearer view than my previous one of what I'd like in my next lens. Forgive me if my questions are redundant or bothersome.

Thanks,
"Uga"

WMBP · 01-10-2007, 09:23 PM

I recently purchased a Tamron 18-200 Di-II AF/macro zoom lens to replace both the Pentax kit lens and the Pentax 50-200 lens that I was using with my K100D. I didn't like having to switch lenses so often. I am not a connoisseur of lenses so I can't give a very technical review, but my test photos tell me that the new Tamron lens does as good a job as the Pentax lenses it's replacing, perhaps a better one, and it's a lot more convenient. I'm rather happy with it. At wide angle, I think it's got the same aperture as the Pentax kit lens (f/3.7, I think).

Will

SpecialK · 01-10-2007, 10:04 PM

I'm happy with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, though it's a bit heavier (by a few ounces) and $75 more than the after-rebate Pentax 16-45, but it is a stop faster, so it's a trade off.

The Pentax 50-200 is a good compact zoom lens, especially at rebate prices, and with the 16-45 would cover most needs.

Alvin · 01-10-2007, 10:51 PM

Uga,

Sure the wider field of view is compelling to get the 16-45mm, but seeing that you don't want to be tied down by a tripod, I'd suggest the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. The bigger and constant aperture should allow you to take better night time shots with lower ISO or higher shutter speed to catch a fleeting moment.

Happy shooting!

roscot · 01-11-2007, 03:21 AM

Sounds to me like you would want an f2.8 lens. If you can wait a couple of months, it may be worth looking at the new DA* 16-50 f2.8. Nothing against the Sigma, but I do prefer Pentax glass.

A couple of other options.

Tamron AF 28-75 XR Di LD

or my current favorite -

Pentax FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5 AL IF. It's a bit slower but it renders a lovely image. (and not expensive US$209.95 at B&H.)

Alvin · 01-11-2007, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by roscot

Sounds to me like you would want an f2.8 lens. If you can wait a couple of months, it may be worth looking at the new DA* 16-50 f2.8.

I gather that will be a very nice lens - I'm just hoping that it will be compatible with the K100. Does anyone know?

RBellavance · 01-11-2007, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by ugaarguy

Third, the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 - 4.5. Improved aperture vs the kit lens, a bit more range at 70mm on the long end with only a slightly slower aperture than the Pentax 16-45. This looks to be a good compromise of improved aperture and wider zoom range.

Note that the Sigma is actually never slower than the 16-45 f/4 over their common range. It (well, my copy at least) does not get to f/4.5 until 64mm.

ugaarguy · 01-11-2007, 11:14 AM

Thanks for the recommendations so far.

Quote:

Sounds to me like you would want an f2.8 lens. If you can wait a couple of months, it may be worth looking at the new DA* 16-50 f2.8. Nothing against the Sigma, but I do prefer Pentax glass.

That sounds like a great idea, but don't the DA* lenses only have hyper/ultra sonic motors, and no geared drive capability from the camera motor? From what I've read that's what I gathered, and unfortunately my K100 doesn't have the K10's sonic motor lens compatability. If playing with photography edges out my other expensive hobby - firearms - then I'll have to look at a K10. I guess I'll give it until fall of this year as a one year evaluation period.

Quote:

Note that the Sigma is actually never slower than the 16-45 f/4 over their common range. It (well, my copy at least) does not get to f/4.5 until 64mm.

RBellavance, at what focal length does the Sigma 17-70 leave f/2.8? Would it be too much trouble to ask at what the lengths the aperture changes occur? Thank you.

RBellavance · 01-11-2007, 12:14 PM

No problem at all, see this post I made a few weeks back:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/11596-post33.html

ugaarguy · 01-11-2007, 01:16 PM

RBell, thanks for the link. Good apertures for the lengths listed, makes the decision tough. Of course I'll have to handle them once I get home and see how each lens feels.

slip · 01-11-2007, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Alvin

Uga,

Sure the wider field of view is compelling to get the 16-45mm, but seeing that you don't want to be tied down by a tripod, I'd suggest the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. The bigger and constant aperture should allow you to take better night time shots with lower ISO or higher shutter speed to catch a fleeting moment.

Happy shooting!

I have the sigma 17-70mm lens and I love it.
But if I were to do it all over again, I think I would have spent the extra money for the sigma 18-50
reasons?
I am doing more indoor without a flash then I first thought I would. I really miss the 2.8 when my 17-70 is used around 50mm and longer.
at least for indoor work, I wouldn't have missed the 50-70mm range that the 18-50 doesn't have.
Now when the spring comes, I think this opinion will change..... the 17-70 has a very capable macro, and the 70mm will come in handy for outdoor portraits.

gee, I just contradicted myself again

so my opinon...
if you do more indoors without a flash, the 18-50 is the way to go.
If you do a lot of outdoor work, I would go with 17-70

cheers

RBellavance · 01-11-2007, 02:19 PM

My personal feeling is that f2.8 is not enough for indoor available light photography. What I am considering is getting a FA35 f2 (or a Sigma 30mm f1.4 if I win the lottery) for that purpose.

FWIW, I believe 50mm is a bit long for indoor work on a DSLR.

Alvin · 01-11-2007, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by RBellavance

My personal feeling is that f2.8 is not enough for indoor available light photography. What I am considering is getting a FA35 f2 (or a Sigma 30mm f1.4 if I win the lottery) for that purpose.

FWIW, I believe 50mm is a bit long for indoor work on a DSLR.

RBell - the Sigma is very likely one of the fastest for this range considering it's a zoom. I agree with you though. With 1.5x conversion factor 50mm is a bit long (75mm), but makes for a nice for a closeup without being in a person's face.

Guys, I'm not picking on RBell here - I just want to know - how big a difference is .8? (ie. Aperture of 2.0 vs. 2.8) Is it that big? I can understand an aperture of 1.4 vs 2.8 can be huge for indoor and very poorly lit shots, but I don't know the value of having a nearly full stop advantage (just haven't picked around enough in low lighting to know).

SpecialK · 01-11-2007, 07:02 PM

Quote:

I just want to know - how big a difference is .8? (ie. Aperture of 2.0 vs. 2.8) Is it that big? I can understand an aperture of 1.4 vs 2.8 can be huge for indoor and very poorly lit shots, but I don't know the value of having a nearly full stop advantage (just haven't picked around enough in low lighting to know).

It's a 1-stop difference. If you mean how important is 2.0 vs 2.8 in low light, I can't say.

However, if you use a very large aperture such as 1.4, you run the risk of missing the focus, which gets very narrow. If you decide to put it on a tripod so you can precisely focus, then the large aperture advantage is lost :-).

ugaarguy · 01-12-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

However, if you use a very large aperture such as 1.4, you run the risk of missing the focus, which gets very narrow. If you decide to put it on a tripod so you can precisely focus, then the large aperture advantage is lost :-).

And there's my issue. The 40mm Limited at f/2.8 is already quite narrow in depth of focus. However, to shoot effectively in diminshed light without a tripod f/2.8 is right around the tightest aperture I want. Given the K100 does a pretty good AF sensor system, at least to my novice expectations. It's looking like f/2.8 may be the best compromise to get acceptable low light exposure, while still having an acceptable focus depth. Using things like center point focus with the half-press to lock focus, thereby targeting a focal point and then shifting the frame for composition will likely be a good way to operate under these conditions. It's a catch 22, but I'll have to the best I can with equipment and then adapt my usage to the conditions.

01-10-2007, 08:17 PM	#1
ugaarguy New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 19	Kit Lens Alternatives I recently posted a thread asking about both wide & tele zooms. While there is nothing really wrong with the 18-55 kit lens, the 40mm DA limited has really spoiled me as to what a really good lens feels like and how they shoot. The kit lens now feels plastic-ey, and bit rough around the edges when I handle it. I've done a bit more reading & looking at specs over and over. I've narrowed it down to worrying about getting a replacement for the kit lens first, and dealing with the telephoto later. Most of my shooting is free hand, social pictures in varying light, often moderate to low; wider apertures quite helpful here. I also enjoy night scenes, but a tripod mitigates the need for wider apertures in this use. I've seen three lenses that appeal to me for this purpose. I'll go handle all three when I return from overseas service, hopefully within a month. First, the Pentax DA 16-45 f/4. From reviews and specs it appears that it's a good step up from the kit lens, with gains in aperture except at the widest focal length, and only a slight loss of long end range. Second, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. No gain or loss on focal length, but significant gain on the aperture. Third, the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 - 4.5. Improved aperture vs the kit lens, a bit more range at 70mm on the long end with only a slightly slower aperture than the Pentax 16-45. This looks to be a good compromise of improved aperture and wider zoom range. With the expected renewal of rebates now a reality the Pentax lens beats the other two on price by about $100 US. For the extra $100 The Sigmas each offer their own benefits. Comments on any of three in terms of build & image quality, comparison amongst them, or alternatives in that price range appreciated. I hope that this new thread provides a clearer view than my previous one of what I'd like in my next lens. Forgive me if my questions are redundant or bothersome. Thanks, "Uga"

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
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
Lost DA35 Ltd Lens Cap. What viable alternatives?	raider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	11-28-2010 03:03 PM
lens hood alternatives for DA* 50-135mm	laissezfaire	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	05-20-2010 12:26 AM
For Sale - Sold: WTT Pentax 18-55 AL II kit lens for 18-55 AL kit lens + money	wallyb	Sold Items	2	11-11-2009 02:26 PM

01-10-2007, 09:23 PM	#2
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	I recently purchased a Tamron 18-200 Di-II AF/macro zoom lens to replace both the Pentax kit lens and the Pentax 50-200 lens that I was using with my K100D. I didn't like having to switch lenses so often. I am not a connoisseur of lenses so I can't give a very technical review, but my test photos tell me that the new Tamron lens does as good a job as the Pentax lenses it's replacing, perhaps a better one, and it's a lot more convenient. I'm rather happy with it. At wide angle, I think it's got the same aperture as the Pentax kit lens (f/3.7, I think). Will

01-10-2007, 10:04 PM	#3
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	I'm happy with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, though it's a bit heavier (by a few ounces) and $75 more than the after-rebate Pentax 16-45, but it is a stop faster, so it's a trade off. The Pentax 50-200 is a good compact zoom lens, especially at rebate prices, and with the 16-45 would cover most needs.

01-10-2007, 10:51 PM	#4
Alvin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,517	Uga, Sure the wider field of view is compelling to get the 16-45mm, but seeing that you don't want to be tied down by a tripod, I'd suggest the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. The bigger and constant aperture should allow you to take better night time shots with lower ISO or higher shutter speed to catch a fleeting moment. Happy shooting!

01-11-2007, 03:21 AM	#5
roscot Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Virginia Beach VA USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,363	Sounds to me like you would want an f2.8 lens. If you can wait a couple of months, it may be worth looking at the new DA* 16-50 f2.8. Nothing against the Sigma, but I do prefer Pentax glass. A couple of other options. Tamron AF 28-75 XR Di LD or my current favorite - Pentax FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5 AL IF. It's a bit slower but it renders a lovely image. (and not expensive US$209.95 at B&H.)

01-11-2007, 09:08 AM	#6
Alvin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,517	Originally posted by roscot Sounds to me like you would want an f2.8 lens. If you can wait a couple of months, it may be worth looking at the new DA* 16-50 f2.8. I gather that will be a very nice lens - I'm just hoping that it will be compatible with the K100. Does anyone know?

01-11-2007, 09:11 AM	#7
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by ugaarguy Third, the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 - 4.5. Improved aperture vs the kit lens, a bit more range at 70mm on the long end with only a slightly slower aperture than the Pentax 16-45. This looks to be a good compromise of improved aperture and wider zoom range. Note that the Sigma is actually never slower than the 16-45 f/4 over their common range. It (well, my copy at least) does not get to f/4.5 until 64mm.

01-11-2007, 11:14 AM	#8
ugaarguy New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 19 Original Poster	Thanks for the recommendations so far. Quote: Sounds to me like you would want an f2.8 lens. If you can wait a couple of months, it may be worth looking at the new DA* 16-50 f2.8. Nothing against the Sigma, but I do prefer Pentax glass. That sounds like a great idea, but don't the DA* lenses only have hyper/ultra sonic motors, and no geared drive capability from the camera motor? From what I've read that's what I gathered, and unfortunately my K100 doesn't have the K10's sonic motor lens compatability. If playing with photography edges out my other expensive hobby - firearms - then I'll have to look at a K10. I guess I'll give it until fall of this year as a one year evaluation period. Quote: Note that the Sigma is actually never slower than the 16-45 f/4 over their common range. It (well, my copy at least) does not get to f/4.5 until 64mm. RBellavance, at what focal length does the Sigma 17-70 leave f/2.8? Would it be too much trouble to ask at what the lengths the aperture changes occur? Thank you.

01-11-2007, 12:14 PM	#9
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	No problem at all, see this post I made a few weeks back: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/11596-post33.html

01-11-2007, 01:16 PM	#10
ugaarguy New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 19 Original Poster	RBell, thanks for the link. Good apertures for the lengths listed, makes the decision tough. Of course I'll have to handle them once I get home and see how each lens feels.

01-11-2007, 02:04 PM	#11
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	Originally posted by Alvin Uga, Sure the wider field of view is compelling to get the 16-45mm, but seeing that you don't want to be tied down by a tripod, I'd suggest the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. The bigger and constant aperture should allow you to take better night time shots with lower ISO or higher shutter speed to catch a fleeting moment. Happy shooting! I have the sigma 17-70mm lens and I love it. But if I were to do it all over again, I think I would have spent the extra money for the sigma 18-50 reasons? I am doing more indoor without a flash then I first thought I would. I really miss the 2.8 when my 17-70 is used around 50mm and longer. at least for indoor work, I wouldn't have missed the 50-70mm range that the 18-50 doesn't have. Now when the spring comes, I think this opinion will change..... the 17-70 has a very capable macro, and the 70mm will come in handy for outdoor portraits. gee, I just contradicted myself again so my opinon... if you do more indoors without a flash, the 18-50 is the way to go. If you do a lot of outdoor work, I would go with 17-70 cheers

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-11-2007, 02:19 PM	#12
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	My personal feeling is that f2.8 is not enough for indoor available light photography. What I am considering is getting a FA35 f2 (or a Sigma 30mm f1.4 if I win the lottery) for that purpose. FWIW, I believe 50mm is a bit long for indoor work on a DSLR.

01-11-2007, 03:40 PM	#13
Alvin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,517	Originally posted by RBellavance My personal feeling is that f2.8 is not enough for indoor available light photography. What I am considering is getting a FA35 f2 (or a Sigma 30mm f1.4 if I win the lottery) for that purpose. FWIW, I believe 50mm is a bit long for indoor work on a DSLR. RBell - the Sigma is very likely one of the fastest for this range considering it's a zoom. I agree with you though. With 1.5x conversion factor 50mm is a bit long (75mm), but makes for a nice for a closeup without being in a person's face. Guys, I'm not picking on RBell here - I just want to know - how big a difference is .8? (ie. Aperture of 2.0 vs. 2.8) Is it that big? I can understand an aperture of 1.4 vs 2.8 can be huge for indoor and very poorly lit shots, but I don't know the value of having a nearly full stop advantage (just haven't picked around enough in low lighting to know).

01-11-2007, 07:02 PM	#14
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Quote: I just want to know - how big a difference is .8? (ie. Aperture of 2.0 vs. 2.8) Is it that big? I can understand an aperture of 1.4 vs 2.8 can be huge for indoor and very poorly lit shots, but I don't know the value of having a nearly full stop advantage (just haven't picked around enough in low lighting to know). It's a 1-stop difference. If you mean how important is 2.0 vs 2.8 in low light, I can't say. However, if you use a very large aperture such as 1.4, you run the risk of missing the focus, which gets very narrow. If you decide to put it on a tripod so you can precisely focus, then the large aperture advantage is lost :-).

01-12-2007, 10:32 AM	#15
ugaarguy New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 19 Original Poster	Quote: However, if you use a very large aperture such as 1.4, you run the risk of missing the focus, which gets very narrow. If you decide to put it on a tripod so you can precisely focus, then the large aperture advantage is lost :-). And there's my issue. The 40mm Limited at f/2.8 is already quite narrow in depth of focus. However, to shoot effectively in diminshed light without a tripod f/2.8 is right around the tightest aperture I want. Given the K100 does a pretty good AF sensor system, at least to my novice expectations. It's looking like f/2.8 may be the best compromise to get acceptable low light exposure, while still having an acceptable focus depth. Using things like center point focus with the half-press to lock focus, thereby targeting a focal point and then shifting the frame for composition will likely be a good way to operate under these conditions. It's a catch 22, but I'll have to the best I can with equipment and then adapt my usage to the conditions.