[maceq]

Thanks again for all the info, it looks like the DA* 16-50 and 50-135 is the best way to go. I keep changing my mind all the time about what to buy.

I will buy the 15mm limited for sure, probably as soon as the new version hits the stores and first reviews show up. I have read only good thing about it and you guys only confirmed that so I am officialy in love with the lens. I will try to take a closer look and maybe a few photos before I buy it but this is 99% happening.

As for upgrading the kit lens I would like to buy a new lens before years end (I plan a photo-trip to the seaside in winter 2014).

So now my thoughts: DA* 16-50 or Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 28-75 for a walkaround lens. I would love to have the Pentax but is the IQ really much better than the Sigma or Tamron? I am afraid the 50mm will irritate me as it is a bit shorter than the kit lens which is already a bit short for me in a walkaround. Also is the DA* worth the big difference in price? I would feel much more comfortable carryina a cheeper lens with me, and I carry the camera almost all the time. I think I will go with the Tamron now and maybe switch to the DA* later when my skills improve.

I would like to have a "set" as soon as possibe so buying two is better for me as I will not be able to afford the next one for at least a year, keeping in mind that I would like something like the DA* 50-135.

slip it would be great if you could share your thought when the Tamorn arrives.

I have read revievs but I value the impression from a regular user (meaning not a tech pro who reviews lenses) so thanks again for all the thoughts. I have uploaded 10 photos as "Introduction" to the Albums to show what kind of photos I like taking, maybe this will help a bit.

---

Last edited by maceq; 09-17-2013 at 02:19 AM.

[TenZ.NL]

Hi!


I am using the 18-55 kit lens and I am quite satisfied with the range and quality (for a kit lens) but:

- I don't use the wide end a lot due to distortion, I usually start at 24mm;

- I often experience vigneting around 24mm but maybe thats my fault not the lens;

- I would like the tele end to be longer, around 75-80mm;

- I wold like the lens to be brighter;



So tu sum up:

- start at 18mm if the distortion is minimal if this is costly or impossible I will be happy to start around the mentioned 24-25mm

- end around 75-80mm, I have seen few lenses that end at 50mm with good reviews I would go with this if this would be worth it - but reaching the 75mm is quite important for me;

- I want it to be bright, possible constant light through the range;

- weather sealed/ resistant feature is welcome even if costly;

- I want it to be my main walk-around lens but it does not have to be very compact. If it is around 600-800 grams I don't mind carrying it around;

- It has to have AF;


Additional info:

- I am considering buying a wide angle lens, I have seen zoom lens ultra wide and wide to normal, but now I am leaning towards the 15mm limited and a good and cheap older lens around 28mm, I want it for landscapes mostly so I don't need AF. - please correct me if you think I could choose better. i also love portraits shot withe wide angle.

- I have already started buying older primes with MF - SMA 50mm f2, TAKUMAR 200mm f4 and SIRUS 135mm f2,8 - really positively surprised with the last one for macro. I want tele for wildlife mostly so a bright and sharp prime would do best for me. Buying a zoom tele with constant light is a plan for the long distance; - again if you think I could do better please tell.

- The concept is to have as much primes as possible and a universal zoom for main lens and situations when I can/want to take only one lens with me. Most of the time I will have the universal lens on and one or two other lenses in a bag; So this will be the main part of the set.

Thanks in advance for all help!

I used to feel the same and bought the sigma 17-70. While I still love that lens, the love is mostly directed towards it`s reach since I got the DA* 16-50.
IQ is totally different. While the sigma isn`t bad (remember I have the old version), the DA* 16-50 blows it totally out of the water and not only on sharpness.
I must add that I bought the DA* also 2nd hand for a price cheap enough not to worry about the SDM. New..difficult. If it`s as good as my current specimen probably yes.

If you want the best IQ, get the DA* 16-50. It has praktically the same reach as you kitlens (the 5mm @ the longside is allmost neglectable) and it is F2.8 thoughout the range. But if you only can get one lens and the 50mm is a concern to you, then I suggest you opt for the sigma because the Tamron falls short on the wide side (and 10mm is a lot). Remember that all have distortion on the wide end.

Good luck on deciding.

PS: reading the last part of your quote again...it looks like you could be a potential victim to LBA, beware!!

[lytrytyr]

it looks like you could be a potential victim to LBA, beware!

Once you start frequenting this part of the forum, it's already too late!

[Driline]

DA* 16-50 and 50-135 is the best way to go.

Great choice. I would love to get the DA* 16-50 as I already have the DA* 50-135 but I want something a bit smaller like a prime to take it's place. If the price was right though I'd jump all over a DA* 16-50.

[TenZ.NL]

Once you start frequenting this part of the forum, it's already too late!

Is there a doctor in the house??

[normhead]

According to photo zone the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is the best of the bunch in terms of edge to edge sharpness. And it's a lot cheaper than the others. It's screw drive so it's a little noisy when it focuses. But I have to say, when I go out, and my lens case isn't close to where I'm shooting, my 18-135 is on the camera. @ 24 mm in Pentax land, the Tamron and DA have no peers, at least according to photo zone.

It sounds to me like you could make do with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the DA* 50-135. In FF terms that's the focal length of a 50-135 is 70-200, a very popular and useful length. I'm not sure you'll find anything else in it's class. So maybe those two would be good for you. If you're shooting beside me I'll be shooting while you're changing lenses, but you won't miss too many shots, don't worry about it.

If it were me, I'd probably go for the Sigma 18-35 which seems to be being hailed as the latest thing since sliced bread, Sigma 70-200 and Tamron 28-70. New lenses come out every day. So while it's fun to play "if I knew then what I know now" when all is said and done, if you want my 18-135 you'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hand.

[maceq]

You really got me thinking guys. I started from the beginning on what I want and wanted to share my final (for now) thoughts. This horror has been going for three months now.

I am sticking to the 18-55 kitlens for now. I decided that if I want to spend a lot of money on a lens this needs to be WR so I don't have to worry about it too much.

The obvious thing is that the best option is to have both DA* the 16-50 and the 50-135 and this is my long term plan. I will probably get both in a year or two unless I find a a better option. I would love it if there were a DA* 25-75 or something like that.

For now I will try to fish out a few K and M series primes - I just enjoy shooting with manual lens - and the 15 mm limited, if the new version is not very different form the old one I will probably try to get the older version - the price should go down a bit I think, or even used.

The oldies are cheaper, easy to resell and it will be good to experiment with various options and find out more about what I enjoy best. Also hunting for them is a pleasure on its own. I know this are textbook symptoms.