[daacon]

I am undecided so I thought you experts could help me out or at least offer as many opinions as I have and maybe a few new ones!

I am searching for a new lens. I suppose it ideally it can be in the 17-70 range or close to it. I should mention I am a huge fan of SDM with my recently purchased 50-135. The DA* 16-50 would be ideal just not sure. Even Camera Canada mentioned to me they had quite a few returned. Just not sure the price and potential hassle is worth it.

So the choices I see are in order of preference

DA* 17-70 Pentax - only drawbacks are it is not released yet, no idea when, unknown quality

Wait for Sigma / Tamron to offer some HSM in that range - only drawbacks are it is not released yet, no idea when, unkown quality

Sigma -17-70 most here suggest it is a very good lens - disadvantage (is it though?) variable aperture

Sigma 18-50 Macro - most here suggest it is a very good lens -disadvantage it is a little short on the Tele end - and one higher on the wide end - still could work with that.

Penax 16-45 most here suggest it a very good lens - disadvantage it is a little short on the Tele end

I know Peter recenty had a similar thread - but if the DA* 17-70 is released soon or Tamron , Sigma get something released soon I can wait. I do have my Tamron 18-250 to get me over the hump. Did I mention I like SDM

I am also open maybe to a couple or primes ideally the 31 but for what I am looking to spend that would be it. the 43mm Limited is pretty reasonable priced any idea on what the DA* 15mm is scheduled for release ? I am in no immediate rush - but knowing myself I will probably buy sooner than later haha.

[metalfab]

Playing a slightly different tune here. Have you considered the 24-70 range? All the 16, 17, 18 x 'something' zooms have too much barrel distortion at the wide end for my liking. When I had the 18-55 kit it bent every vertical line in the rooms I took photos in. Sometimes the people looked warped or flat, especially in the corners of the rooms. Now, I might have had a bad copy who knows.

Have you considered the Sigma 24-60, 24-70 or the Tamron 28-70? All 3 are about $500-530 Canadian. Or do you really need that wide end?

-

[SLC Flyfishing]

I'm about ready to sell my kidney for a 77 limited

That's what I'd be getting personally, but I'm not you and I have a thing for prime lenses.

SLC

[Derridale]

If it's any help, I have both the 50-135 and the 16-50 in the SDM DA* series. Perhaps I was just lucky, but my 16-50 is superb. Quick, sharp, and reliable.

Perhaps they've fixed the QC problems at Pentax, and if you buy a new one, you'd be more likely to get a good copy?

If you like SDM (I believe you did mention that... ) then I'd take a punt on the 16-50 personally.

[daacon]

metalfab - I have the Tamron 28-75 and it is indeed a great lens. I do find I need wider, mostly for tight quaters and landscapes.

SLC - Yeah I have hymmed and hawed over the 31,43,77 and newest entry 35mm just don't think there is currently one wide enough, You are correct though to date I am a zoom guy without a doubt.

Pete - part of me will regret if I don't at least try this lens. There is one in the local shop , however from the serial number it seems old. Maybe I should just ask them to order a new one or buy on online ....

Thnaks for the comments.

[heatherslightbox]

I have the Sigma 17-70 and I don't find the variable aperture to be a real issue at all. If you like to do any closeup work at all, then it also has the quasi-macro feature (1:2.3).

Since you want something WIDE for landscapes and close quarters, have you given any thought to the Sigma 10-20? I'm thinking about getting that lens myself and it has a great reputation in these parts. Cameralensrentals has them for rent if you want to try it out.

HTH,
Heather

[axl]

hard to choose Dave, isnt't it?
I've been stuck between Sigmas 17-70 and 24-70 for a while now, but I don't know.
None of them has SDM thoug. In your place. I'd save the cash for now. Wait until Pentax 17-70 SDM will be out. If it won't be that great, by then all bad copies of 16-50 should be gone...

[daacon]

Thanks Heather I had the 12-24 (just sold it) and don't need that wide and if I do I still have the DA 10-17 that can be de-fished and at 17 and depending on the scene can look non-fisheye.

Thanks Axl - yeah I may wait, I may not - tough decisions for sure - albeit in the grand scheme of things - I am trying to not spend any more $$ or just a little. If I want something I have to look at what I have and sell something...

[Rmpjr7]

Dave:

I have the 43 ltd. as well as the DA 70 and FA 50/1.4, and I think the 43 is the best lense I have ever owned (shot Nikon and Canon for years also)! I rented recently the DA 21 and the 16-45. The DA 21mm is very impressive but I was amazed at how close the results from the 16-45 were against the 21. There were some identical scene shots where I could not tell them apart. I am debating which of the two I am going to get but will probably get the 16-45 as I like wide, and don't own any zoom at the present time.

Hope this helps.

Bob

[squarerigger]

Dave:

I think you will always wonder why you didn't get the DA*16-50. Go to the store and try it out. Take test shots and see how they look. What's their return policy. Be up front with them about reported issues. Or order online from reputable dealer. Perfect mate for the other DA*. Anything else will be a compromise.

[little laker]

I can't help you out much Dave, except say that I'm very impressed with the Sigma 17 - 70 picture quality.

I'm considering getting one of these lenses myself in the near future.

[nostatic]

if you have the 50-135*, why is 16-45 short on the tele end? Other than for expediency.

I'm consistently surprised at how good the 16-45 is for the money. So it is a relatively cheap way into coverage of those focal lengths.

That being said, unless I'm traveling it doesn't spend much time on the camera. I'd rather switch between 35 and 77 ltd depending on my mood and needs. I might add a 21ltd although i'd like something a bit wider than that.

[bymy141]

I've got a good 16-50mm copy.
Here is what I did:
Called around to find a retailer with a few copies in house at a reasonable price.
Went there with a laptop and camera.
Did a small setup, just outside the store (it was a nice day!).
We looked a focus and cornersharpness for 2 copies.
The second one was good, I bought it.

I know, it was sort of a hassle, but with a satisfying result.

I wish the lens would be a DA* 16-70mm/f2.8 though....

- Bert

[heatherslightbox]

Pentax should've made the soon-to-be-released 17-70/4 a 2.8 instead. If they had done that, then I would've considered swapping my Sigma 17-70 for a Pentax. As great as a good copy of the 16-50 or Tamron 17-50 is, it's still not quite long enough at the tele end to satisfy my taste in walk-around zoom lenses.

Heather