1 premium WR zoom VS. cheap WR zoom-premium zoom combo

mythguy9 · 11-25-2013, 10:52 PM

I am looking for weather resistant zoom for field work (mainly forests, mud and rain, sometimes enjoys wet beach salty photos).

Pondering about the below options within a budget of slightly more than $1000:

Option 1: Pentax DA* 16-50mm (or equivalent) for $1000-ish

Option 2: Pentax DA WR 18-55mm kit ($300-ish) + Sigma 17-50 EX (or equivalent; $700-ish) = total $1000-ish

I may go for Option 2, but any opinions from you?

Sandy Hancock · 11-25-2013, 11:06 PM - **1 Like**

I had the Sigma, but sold it after I compared it with the DA*16-50. No regrets despite a SDM failure necessitating conversion to screw drive. It's a great lens.
I can't for the life of me understand why you'd want to get two zooms covering the same range.

**ak_kiwi** · 11-25-2013, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by mythguy9

1 premium WR zoom VS. cheap WR zoom-premium zoom combo

I went with the DA 18 -135 WR (better IQ than the 18-55) for "wet work" and reach and pair this with the Tamron 17 - 50 for the dry and low light.

If I had my choices again I would go for the DA* 16 - 50 because of the IQ, speed and WR/AW and then pair it with the DA 55 - 300, which is now WR, for extra reach.

For your budget, option 1 makes sense to me.

**Canada_Rockies** · 11-25-2013, 11:57 PM

I am quite happy with my DA* 16-50. When I got a small inheritance and bought the K10d, this was the zoom that came closest in field of view to the FA 24-90 I used with the MZ-S.
DxO does marvellous work with the distortion and so on.

mtux · 11-26-2013, 12:05 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ak_kiwi

I went with the DA 18 -135 WR (better IQ than the 18-55) for "wet work" and reach and pair this with the Tamron 17 - 50 for the dry and low light.

I did the same thing, and agree to go for DA* instead

**ak_kiwi** · 11-26-2013, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by mtux

I did the same thing, and agree to go for DA* instead

Hmm - Thinking about that the DA* 16-50 may fit my needs better than the new 20-40 I was looking at....

**felixkh** · 11-26-2013, 01:22 AM

Go for the DA*16-50 or the DA18-135. I have both. DA* for work and 18-135 for holidays.

mythguy9 · 11-26-2013, 03:04 AM

Thank you all. It seems I have more reason to go for da* 16-50. Gonna save money for a while first. Cheers!

DSims · 11-26-2013, 03:05 AM

Go for the DA*16-50; it's a good lens with very nice IQ for a zoom.

If you don't mind having them shipped overseas, Borrowlenses.com has them used if you want to save a few hundred dollars - about the same price I paid for a used one from a private party a couple of years ago. Or perhaps there will be a good sale on Friday!

Heie · 11-26-2013, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by felixkh

Go for the DA*16-50 or the DA18-135. I have both. DA* for work and 18-135 for holidays.

Ditto.

I LOVE my DA* 16-50

Also...this may be the first thread to collect such warm praise for the DA* 16-50. Most of the time it's "STAY THE F. AWAY! IT WILL FAIL ON YOU! IT'S STUPIDLY OVER PRICED, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT WILL FAIL ON YOU!"

Nice of you all to come out of the woodwork like this in support of what many consider their most critical lens

-Heie

bdery · 11-26-2013, 06:32 AM

If WR is important to you, there is no reason not to get the 16-50. Getting a cheaper WR lens like the 18-55 or 18-135 AND a non-WR high-quality lens like the Sigma 17-50 makes little sense.

The only reason to get a 18-55 and another lens on a similar range is if you're interested in a lens like the Sigma 17-70, which covers a broader range, with better close focusing, etc. But that's clearly not what you're looking for.

DeadJohn · 11-26-2013, 06:57 AM

I prefer option 1, the single lens solution. It eliminates the "do I need WR or wider aperture" decisions from the two lens option 2.

Personally, I am hoping for good Black Friday sale prices on the 16-50 for my own option 1.

sterretje · 11-26-2013, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by ak_kiwi

Hmm - Thinking about that the DA* 16-50 may fit my needs better than the new 20-40 I was looking at....

I'm still waiting for that 12-35WR that is / was somewhere on the roadmap. Totally off-topic, I know,

**crewl1** · 11-26-2013, 08:57 AM

I keep a da18-135 for family outings or inclement weather, and a Tamron 28-75 2.8 for indoor events like weddings.
They both get used regularly and I find it an easy choice.

I appreciate the light weight and zoom range of the DA 18-135 when running around an amusement park with the grandkids.
The Tamron is super sharp wide open and is also light weight.

I haven't experienced the 16-50 IQ but if it is like my DA*300 I would probably want it but I think I still would keep the 18-135 since I expect the 16-50 is heavy.

**Canada_Rockies** · 11-26-2013, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by crewl1

<snip> I expect the 16-50 is heavy.

Yes it is, but with the grip on my K10d it balances beautifully. Extra advantage - my wife finds the combination too heavy for her.

11-25-2013, 10:52 PM	#1
mythguy9 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 276	1 premium WR zoom VS. cheap WR zoom-premium zoom combo I am looking for weather resistant zoom for field work (mainly forests, mud and rain, sometimes enjoys wet beach salty photos). Pondering about the below options within a budget of slightly more than $1000: Option 1: Pentax DA* 16-50mm (or equivalent) for $1000-ish Option 2: Pentax DA WR 18-55mm kit ($300-ish) + Sigma 17-50 EX (or equivalent; $700-ish) = total $1000-ish I may go for Option 2, but any opinions from you?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 20-40mm DC WR Limited and Q 08 Wide Zoom Officially Announced	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	131	11-08-2013 08:28 PM
Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster and Premium Photo Paper Glossy compared	bwDraco	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	04-24-2013 02:52 AM
Pentax Zoom 90 WR - Has anyone used in concert setting??	cody59	Pentax Compact Cameras	5	08-31-2012 08:43 AM

11-25-2013, 11:06 PM - 1 Like	#2
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	I had the Sigma, but sold it after I compared it with the DA*16-50. No regrets despite a SDM failure necessitating conversion to screw drive. It's a great lens. I can't for the life of me understand why you'd want to get two zooms covering the same range.

11-25-2013, 11:56 PM	#3
ak_kiwi Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Auckland, New Zealand. Posts: 328	Originally posted by mythguy9 1 premium WR zoom VS. cheap WR zoom-premium zoom combo I went with the DA 18 -135 WR (better IQ than the 18-55) for "wet work" and reach and pair this with the Tamron 17 - 50 for the dry and low light. If I had my choices again I would go for the DA* 16 - 50 because of the IQ, speed and WR/AW and then pair it with the DA 55 - 300, which is now WR, for extra reach. For your budget, option 1 makes sense to me.

11-25-2013, 11:57 PM	#4
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	I am quite happy with my DA* 16-50. When I got a small inheritance and bought the K10d, this was the zoom that came closest in field of view to the FA 24-90 I used with the MZ-S. DxO does marvellous work with the distortion and so on.

11-26-2013, 12:05 AM - 1 Like	#5
mtux Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: the Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,444	Originally posted by ak_kiwi I went with the DA 18 -135 WR (better IQ than the 18-55) for "wet work" and reach and pair this with the Tamron 17 - 50 for the dry and low light. I did the same thing, and agree to go for DA* instead

11-26-2013, 12:27 AM	#6
ak_kiwi Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Auckland, New Zealand. Posts: 328	Originally posted by mtux I did the same thing, and agree to go for DA* instead Hmm - Thinking about that the DA* 16-50 may fit my needs better than the new 20-40 I was looking at....

11-26-2013, 01:22 AM	#7
felixkh Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,201	Go for the DA16-50 or the DA18-135. I have both. DA for work and 18-135 for holidays.

11-26-2013, 03:04 AM	#8
mythguy9 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 276 Original Poster	Thank you all. It seems I have more reason to go for da* 16-50. Gonna save money for a while first. Cheers!

11-26-2013, 03:05 AM	#9
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Go for the DA*16-50; it's a good lens with very nice IQ for a zoom. If you don't mind having them shipped overseas, Borrowlenses.com has them used if you want to save a few hundred dollars - about the same price I paid for a used one from a private party a couple of years ago. Or perhaps there will be a good sale on Friday!

11-26-2013, 03:05 AM	#10
Heie Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 968	Originally posted by felixkh Go for the DA16-50 or the DA18-135. I have both. DA for work and 18-135 for holidays. Ditto. I LOVE my DA* 16-50 Also...this may be the first thread to collect such warm praise for the DA* 16-50. Most of the time it's "STAY THE F. AWAY! IT WILL FAIL ON YOU! IT'S STUPIDLY OVER PRICED, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT WILL FAIL ON YOU!" Nice of you all to come out of the woodwork like this in support of what many consider their most critical lens -Heie

11-26-2013, 06:32 AM	#11
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	If WR is important to you, there is no reason not to get the 16-50. Getting a cheaper WR lens like the 18-55 or 18-135 AND a non-WR high-quality lens like the Sigma 17-50 makes little sense. The only reason to get a 18-55 and another lens on a similar range is if you're interested in a lens like the Sigma 17-70, which covers a broader range, with better close focusing, etc. But that's clearly not what you're looking for.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-26-2013, 06:57 AM	#12
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,833	I prefer option 1, the single lens solution. It eliminates the "do I need WR or wider aperture" decisions from the two lens option 2. Personally, I am hoping for good Black Friday sale prices on the 16-50 for my own option 1.

11-26-2013, 08:21 AM	#13
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by ak_kiwi Hmm - Thinking about that the DA* 16-50 may fit my needs better than the new 20-40 I was looking at.... I'm still waiting for that 12-35WR that is / was somewhere on the roadmap. Totally off-topic, I know,

11-26-2013, 08:57 AM	#14
crewl1 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,807	I keep a da18-135 for family outings or inclement weather, and a Tamron 28-75 2.8 for indoor events like weddings. They both get used regularly and I find it an easy choice. I appreciate the light weight and zoom range of the DA 18-135 when running around an amusement park with the grandkids. The Tamron is super sharp wide open and is also light weight. I haven't experienced the 16-50 IQ but if it is like my DA*300 I would probably want it but I think I still would keep the 18-135 since I expect the 16-50 is heavy.

11-26-2013, 10:56 AM	#15
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by crewl1 <snip> I expect the 16-50 is heavy. Yes it is, but with the grip on my K10d it balances beautifully. Extra advantage - my wife finds the combination too heavy for her.