[Sunnyqueensland]

** My cash is in your hands **

Hi,

I am a keen amateur and the owner of a K10d and have never had a lens I have been happy with. I purchased the body only about 12 months ago and have used a Sigma 28-105mm and a 70-300mm. Both have been very difficult to use without a strong source of light or indoors. I really want to get a wider FOV and at the same time get a faster lens. They have now been retired to feeBay.

I have purchased a 50mm f1.4 (its on the way) but I would like another tele lens to go as wide as possible (not fish-eye) while staying as fast as possible. I also own the D-BG2 but still no flash.

Its confusing when there are many reviews out there that say so many positives and yet so many negatives about the same lens. I don't want nor can afford half a dozen lenses. So keeping the 50mm in mind, what second lens will be the holy grail so to speak?

Regards

---

Last edited by Sunnyqueensland; 04-15-2008 at 07:38 PM.

[Sunnyqueensland]

.................

[procyon]

Have you tried the kit lens ?
It's really very good value for the money. And beats most cheap 3rd party lenses.
If you don't have deep pockets, then this really is the thing to start with.

[Sunnyqueensland]

Have you tried the kit lens ?
It's really very good value for the money. And beats most cheap 3rd party lenses.
If you don't have deep pockets, then this really is the thing to start with.

Your right! at $85.00 it does seem like they are giving it away. I bought the body only at the time so I have never used this lens, but I imagine I want something a little better. What if my budget was US$400.00 ?

[benplaut]

maybe the Sigma 18-50/2.8 or Tamron 17-50/2.8

[procyon]

Prices are different around the world, so I suggest you do the price research yourself, but some lenses that are considered very good are for example:
Pentax 16-45/f4
Tamron 28-75/f2.8 (this one lacks the wide side though)
With the exception of Pentax 16-50/f2.8 (quality control issues) most new Pentax DA lenses are considered quite good.

[Sunnyqueensland]

What about the Sigma 17-70mm 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 ?

Anyone have this and like it?

[Entropy]

I have one of the 17-70s, I have not had many opportunities to use it yet. So far I like it though.

The kit lens is cheap and good, but given that you are unhappy with the low-light performance of the lenses you had, the kit lens will be too slow for you.

I would have kept the 70-300 (or maybe gone for a Tamron instead? Known for more PF (bad), but significantly sharper (good) and significantly better quality control (good) than the Sigma 70-300). It is a bit on the slow side, but if you want speed in that range you're going to be spending a LOT of money. (Sigma 100-300 f/4 is around $1000 if I recall correctly, while the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 is $130-150)

Edit: Oh yeah, the 70-300 teles are a perfect match range-wise to the Sigma 17-70.

[Tbear]

** My cash is in your hands **

Hi,

I am a keen amateur and the owner of a K10d and have never had a lens I have been happy with. I purchased the body only about 12 months ago and have used a Sigma 28-105mm and a 70-300mm. Both have been very difficult to use without a strong source of light or indoors. I really want to get a wider FOV and at the same time get a faster lens. They have now been retired to feeBay.

I have purchased a 50mm f1.4 (its on the way) but I would like another tele lens to go as wide as possible (not fish-eye) while staying as fast as possible. I also own the D-BG2 but still no flash.

Its confusing when there are many reviews out there that say so many positives and yet so many negatives about the same lens. I don't want nor can afford half a dozen lenses. So keeping the 50mm in mind, what second lens will be the holy grail so to speak?

Regards

Are you feeling lucky? Then go for the DA* 16-50mm f/2.8. When built to specs, this lens rocks. The problem is that the QC has been inconsistent to put it mildly. I had to return two copies before landing a real winner. The lens is awesome when it is built with the proper care. If you do decide to go for this lens, just make sure the retailer has liberal return policy.

Ted

[247nino]

for a budget of $400 go with a sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5

great lens although i didnt keep mine


if youre tired of sigma's ugly finish and coating that doesnt match any camera body, go for the da*16-50.

[heatherslightbox]

My vote is for the Sigma 17-70. I have this lens and for under $400 new, I think it's one of the best values for people who want something better than the kit lens, but don't want to spend a small fortune. Not only is it faster than the 18-55, the focal range is longer, and it has a quasi-macro feature (1:2.3) that's really good. Gently used, you can find these for around $300 or so in the marketplace.

HTH,
Heather

[craig1024]

I would dsy, if you liked your 28-105 as far as the wide side, then you could get a 28-75mm and be very happy. It is a great lens. If you want wider, then go with the Sigma 18-50 or the Tamron 17-50 both f/2.8.

Foget about the cheap kit lens if you want low light capability. It is not good in low light.

[q10]

Might I suggest an alternative approach? Start with one or two fairly general-purpose lenses (the 50mm, the kit lens, something like that) and wait to buy anything else until you see what you find yourself wanting. When you see which jobs you're asking your lens to do that it either can't do or doesn't do very well, you'll have a good sense of which lens that you don't yet have you'd derive the most benefit from.

[Ash]

G'day Sunnyqueensland,
Welcome to the club!

I would have to agree with q10 - know what you really want, then the choice will be much easier.
As of now, your choices for a wide and fast lens include:

1. Pentax DA* 16-50 (fast, wider than the rest and best IQ if you can land yourself a good one)
2. Sigma 17-70 (fast at least at the wide end)
3. Tamron 17-50 (constant f/2.8)
4. Sigma 18-50 EX DC (also constant f/2.8)

The Pentax DA 16-45 is a good lens too (better than the kit lens), but is not as fast (constant f/4).
If you really wanted something wider than 16mm, you may have to resort to the DA* 14 f/2.8 (who knows where you'll find one of these...) or if f/4 is OK for you at this focal length then the DA 12-24 could do.

It really depends on what you want to pursue with your shots and then be able to justify the cost of the lens(es). If you're thinking of buying anything other than the DA* 16-50 locally, may I suggest you go to B&H photo's website in the US and shop there - their prices are MUCH cheaper and shipping is blisteringly fast.

[Ben_Edict]

** My cash is in your hands **

I would like another tele lens to go as wide as possible (not fish-eye) while staying as fast as possible.

"a tele lens to go as wide as possible ... as fast as possible"??? What you want is going to be expensive or simply not possible. If you want to combine a wide angle of view with a tele, you need one of the "super-zooms", like a 18-200 or even the 18-250. But those are slow, very slow indeed, exactly where you would need a fast aperture most, at the long end.

Or you need to split the range into at least two lenses, a "standard" zoom lens, like one of those mentioned in the thread and a tele zoom. Both of course of the fast variety, which is going to be expensive (Pentax 50-135/2.8 or Sigma/Tamron 80-200/2.8 and the like).

A fast, all-encompassing zoom lens does not exist. Even if it would, the quality would be low or the price excessive, because combining everything into one package is very demanding.

Ben