[leadbelly]

I thought I would live without weathersealing, SDM, etc... tried one out and I feel I MUST have them... am saving up for the DA*s now. Which combo do you think I should go for?

16-50 + 50-135?
16-50 + 60-250?
17-70 (not weathersealed though, it's SDM I'm after here) + 60-250?
17-70 + 50-135?

F/2.8 is nice to have, but I'm really after SDM... if I go for the constant f/4's, I still have my primes for lowlight (though my longest prime is 105/2.8). Weathersealing is very nice, but the range of the 17-70 is just too good to pass up... thoughts and suggestions? This is gonna make a huge dent on my finances so careful thought must be made. I wouldn't want any regrets after I make the purchase...

Thanks!

[247nino]

17-250 sounds like a nice broad range if you are comfortable with f4


i went for 16-135... for the *

[daacon]

I am torn as well. Over 50% of my shots are between 17 -70. The 50-135 to me is a no brainer. F2.8 is nice but not generally needed for me at least and f4 is no slouch. So I am looking at a similar decision. It is between the DA* 16-50 and the soon to be released 17-70. Being in Canada I have the privilege like other non US countries where the DA* 16-50 is between $900 - $1000 - so I am going to wait and see what the 17-70 costs. Non weather sealing is not a show stopper as none of my current lens are weather sealed, but is a nice to have for sure.

If the price of the new 17-70 is considerably less than the DA* 16-50 that is route I will go. If the prices are close I will go with the DA* 16-50.

[leadbelly]

17-250 sounds like a nice broad range if you are comfortable with f4


i went for 16-135... for the *

I'm quite comfortable with f4 (I have a manual 70-200/4 that's just lovely to use.) however, with the 17-250 range, only one is a *. I'm considering which FL will I most likely use outdoors...(I'm from the Philippines, a tropical country where the two seasons are rainy and hot! With hot seasons, you can be sure it is dusty as well, hence my concern for weatherproofing)

As with daacon, if the price for the 17-70 is not that far off from the 16-50, I might go with the 16-50 as well... but then, if I go 60-250, I'm quite OC with the missing 10mm! Hahaha...

[Maxington]

16-50 & 60-250 is my goal, already got the 16-50 and now tapping my foot for Pentax to hurry up and release the 60-250.

That way I get two weather sealed SDM lenses covering a large range, and for hiking in the tropics you want as few lenses as possible, and weather sealed is a big plus.

Though I have found that I could use the 50-135mm at times, certain situations are ideal for it. I can't justify buying it though...

[Buddha Jones]

I wonder how big that 60-250mm is going to be.

[ryno]

I'm saving for the 16-135 combo. For my film hiking/camping kit I had the same range in two f4 zooms. I always ran out of light in the tele zoom first, so I want f2.8 there the most. 2.8 on the wide end is less important, but weather sealed is a nice plus. The 12-24 might be an option. You gain extra mm wide, but lose spead, weatherseal, and would probably need a lens to span 24 to 50.
Ryan

[nostatic]

I find the 50-135* to be a stunning lens. I can't say that about any other zoom I've shot or played with.

60-250 is currently vaporware and I think that the higher the difference in wide/tele, the lower the iq (all other things being equal). You can't win against physics.

[Buddha Jones]

I'd have to agree, unless Pentax pulls some serious magic out of their hats, 70/80-200mm is one thing, but 60-250 is in the sketchy range for IQ IMO. I hope that I am proven wrong though, but I still wont buy it. I just got the 200mm today, and with a TC it gives ample reach for now. The 300mm is still on my iffy list too.

[Canada_Rockies]

I thought I would live without weathersealing, SDM, etc... tried one out and I feel I MUST have them... am saving up for the DA*s now. Which combo do you think I should go for?

16-50 + 50-135?
16-50 + 60-250?
17-70 (not weathersealed though, it's SDM I'm after here) + 60-250?
17-70 + 50-135?

F/2.8 is nice to have, but I'm really after SDM... if I go for the constant f/4's, I still have my primes for lowlight (though my longest prime is 105/2.8). Weathersealing is very nice, but the range of the 17-70 is just too good to pass up... thoughts and suggestions? This is gonna make a huge dent on my finances so careful thought must be made. I wouldn't want any regrets after I make the purchase...

Thanks!

As you can see in my signature, I opted for the first of your options: DA* 16-50 and 50-135. The 17-70 is just too long for my taste at the short end. That 1 mm is a lot. I found I used my 24-90 on film at the 24mm end a lot. There is just a feeling to a 24mm shot that diminishes as one goes longer. 25.5 mm is quite a bit of field of view. I also found that sometimes 24mm is way to long. Here in the Rockies, there are places where you just cannot back up to get more in and live through the fall.

On the other hand, if you find that 50mm just isn't long enough for you, and you seldom are in wide angle mode, then the 17-70 would be a better choice for you.

[leadbelly]

Thanks for the replies...

I'm thinking, whatever combo I get, that I have the Sigma 10-20 for ultra wides... however, I am seriously contemplating selling my sigma 10-20 and sigma 105/2.8 for whichever combo (though the 105 is my fave lens and its hard to let it go, I assume the IQ of the 50-135 and hopefully the 60-250 will more than make up for it. But I lose macro capabilities...).

@Buddha: Finances permitting, I think your gear list is just perfect! 16-135/2.8, with a 200/2.8 for longer reach, and two fantastic macro lenses! What's missing is the DA* 11-16 and your all set! If only I had more clients to help me fund my LBA!

[Miserere]

I wonder how big that 60-250mm is going to be.

Scroll down to see it side by side with the other two DA* zooms. You can't miss the photo.

[Buddha Jones]

@Buddha: Finances permitting, I think your gear list is just perfect! 16-135/2.8, with a 200/2.8 for longer reach, and two fantastic macro lenses! What's missing is the DA* 11-16 and your all set! If only I had more clients to help me fund my LBA!

Thanks, I think I will have a pretty good kit when all said and done. If Pentax ever made that DA*11-16mm I would dance a jig in the streets wearing nothing but custom made PENTAX underwear.

Scroll down to see it side by side with the other two DA* zooms. You can't miss the photo.

Oh yes, I remember that picture now. That is a big mofo.

[leadbelly]

@Miserere: Thanks for the link. The 60-250 is one huge mutha... that would surely give me hand cramps... I'm leaning more and more towards the 50-135!

@Buddha: Looks like your dancing jig isn't that too far away too happen! Tokina has already announced its soon-to-be-released 11-16/2.8... And what do you mean by pretty good kit? It's freakin' awesome!!!

[Miserere]

@Miserere: Thanks for the link. The 60-250 is one huge mutha... that would surely give me hand cramps... I'm leaning more and more towards the 50-135!

No problem. Yeah, you might need to purchase a DA* Monopod to go with it.

@Buddha: Looks like your dancing jig isn't that too far away too happen! Tokina has already announced its soon-to-be-released 11-16/2.8...

It's announced, and available in Japan for Canikon; Adorama is now taking preorders for $570 in the USA. And not only that, but Ken Rockwell, who dislikes 3rd party lenses, thinks it's a great lens. What next? Pigs will fly? Tokina will release it in Pentax mount? Who knows!?!?