[gelokrol]

hi,

I have a problem with lens for k-x camera. I want to buy all around walking lens to change the 18-55 kit (and M50/1.7 that is used mostly for portraits).

I went through many topics and reviews of lens and i chose to buy: Sigma 17-50 f/2,8 EX DC HSM.
My question is: will this lens work fine with such old camera? Will the quality of photos on k-x increase enough to justify spending this much money? (In Poland the price is quite high - it is about half of my monthly salary)

Some time in the future i might change the camera but probably not until 2016, or even farther. So my question is about lens performance on k-x.

Also i know that M50/1.7 is a really great lens!! but my wife is even more impatient so the usage of manual lens for portraits is a little hard to be done.

I also checked the tamron 17-50 (20% cheaper), sigma 17-70 (20% more expensive), but from what i read the 17-50 is sharper from both of them.

Help please!

Greg

[Adam]

hi,

I have a problem with lens for k-x camera. I want to buy all around walking lens to change the 18-55 kit (and M50/1.7 that is used mostly for portraits).

I went through many topics and reviews of lens and i chose to buy: Sigma 17-50 f/2,8 EX DC HSM.
My question is: will this lens work fine with such old camera? Will the quality of photos on k-x increase enough to justify spending this much money? (In Poland the price is quite high - it is about half of my monthly salary)

Some time in the future i might change the camera but probably not until 2016, or even farther. So my question is about lens performance on k-x.

Also i know that M50/1.7 is a really great lens!! but my wife is even more impatient so the usage of manual lens for portraits is a little hard to be done.

I also checked the tamron 17-50 (20% cheaper), sigma 17-70 (20% more expensive), but from what i read the 17-50 is sharper from both of them.

Help please!

Greg

A lens can't be too good for a camera To answer your question, yes, it would give you noticeably better image quality compared to the kit lens.

[savoche]

It will definitely be better, by quite a margin. If it's "worth the money", well, that's a question only you can answer, really...

That said, from what I have read, the Tamron should be at least as good as the Sigma in image quality. But it is a lot more noisy when focusing. And it seems some people have problems with front/back focusing with the Tamron.

[DSims]

Which of those three lenses is better for you I can't say, but they'll all give you significantly better photos than the 18-55 kit lens.


The K-x can take advantage of any quality lens you put on it. I didn't even bother to upgrade my K-x until after I had a quality set of lenses worth at least 5 times the original (new) price of the camera.

When I finally upgraded to the K-5 there was only a small additional improvement in IQ. I had already made all my IQ improvements when I got better lenses. In fact, it was only worthwhile upgrading the body because of the improved features and performance - not for the IQ improvement.

[gelokrol]

Which of those three lenses is better for you I can't say, but they'll all give you significantly better photos than the 18-55 kit lens.


The K-x can take advantage of any quality lens you put on it. I didn't even bother to upgrade my K-x until after I had a quality set of lenses worth at least 5 times the original (new) price of the camera.

When I finally upgraded to the K-5 there was only a small additional improvement in IQ. I had already made all my IQ improvements when I got better lenses. In fact, it was only worthwhile upgrading the body because of the improved features and performance - not for the IQ improvement.

Thanks a lot!! This is the answer i was waiting for.
Now that i have information from someone who already was in similar situation I just need to convince my wife

Thanks guys.

[Kozlok]

I had the same experience-the upgrade from KX to K-30 was a small IQ improvement. The lens makes a much bigger difference.

The reasons I upgraded were WR, focus peaking, better view finder and dual control wheels. The K-30 is a huge improvement in control scheme, but the IQ is close to the same.

To lower your cost, maybe try a used lens from here on the forum. The Tamron and Sigma are often available in the marketplace, try searching. I've been pleased with every used lens I've gotten here.

[Ahab]

It will definitely be better, by quite a margin. If it's "worth the money", well, that's a question only you can answer, really...

That said, from what I have read, the Tamron should be at least as good as the Sigma in image quality. But it is a lot more noisy when focusing. And it seems some people have problems with front/back focusing with the Tamron.

Originally I bought the Sigma 17-50 for my K20, I found it to be no better than my 18-55 rendering images. I took it back and got the Tamron 17-50 which was a whole lot better than the Sigma and is used on my K3 and K5 today. I have not experienced noisy focusing or front/back focusing with it on the K20, K7, K5, or K3.

[DSims]

Originally I bought the Sigma 17-50 for my K20, I found it to be no better than my 18-55 rendering images. I took it back and got the Tamron 17-50 which was a whole lot better than the Sigma and is used on my K3 and K5 today. I have not experienced noisy focusing or front/back focusing with it on the K20, K7, K5, or K3.

It's partly a matter of personal preference, but the Tamron 17-50 is considered better by many (possibly most?) forum members, and would have been my choice too if I didn't buy the Pentax lens instead. There was an official comparison and review here on the forum a while back. Even though the Sigma was declared the winner, and it's a good lens, many Pentaxians still decided they prefer the Tamron or Pentax in real life shooting.

www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-16-50-vs-sigma-tamron-17-50mm/introduction.html