[nomadkng]

I've been seeing a lot of "Please help me choose a lens" threads lately, and I can understand it. It takes a lot of time and effort to read all the reviews, learn MTF charts, read more reviews from other sites, read marketing literature and then figure out what to buy in your budget.

What makes me an expert? Probably nothing, but what I have done is owned many of the lenses or it's contemporaries over the last 10 years that I have been in Digital Photography. I have logged hundreds, possibly thousands of hours reading reviews and mtf charts for these lenses, and I have shot 10's of thousands of pics with these lenses. I am not a pro, but I consider myself an advanced amateur. I do not have an unlimited budget, but this is nearly a self financing hobby, so I have justified expenses accordingly.

Below is a summary of what I would buy/have bought/currently use (and would consider worthy of a Pro's kit) and I'm offering it as a starting point for all the questions of "What lens should I buy.." with the caveat that I am a zoom shooter (gasp of horror) because of my style and locations. So if IQ is your first priority, followed by versatility and price here's your choices:

Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 - Yes it's 5.6 but this is a landscape lens and if you are shooting below f8 you are doing something wrong.
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 - I have owned the sigma 17-70, sigma 17-50, sigma 20-40, pentax fa20-35, da15, da40, fa35 all in this focal length. The Tamron wins for flare control + sharpness + diffraction control + versatility + price. This is really where my zoom bias comes into play. Honorable Mention goes to the Sigma 18-35, but it's an $800 lens and I'm not sure one can get 2-3x as much quality out of it.
Any 50 Macro - Honestly you are literally splitting hairs over the various AF 50 macros out there.
Sigma 50-150 f2.8 - I know it's not fair to include a discontinued lens, but I have owned the DA*50-135 and this lens blows it away in focusing and reliability. IQ is equal. Sorry Pentax but until you put a DC motor in the 50-135, it's not even a contest. Instead of the 50-135 I'd even recommend the next lens on this list.
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 - Only lens in this range available for Pentax shooters since Sigma is discontinued, and I much preferred Sigma, but the Tamron is not bad. It's not in my bag, but would be if I needed it. It beats out the 60-250 because of the extra stop and I just don't trust SDM.
DA*300 f4 - The only choice for Pentax shooters to reach Pro IQ AND stay around 1k. Sorry DA55-300, you can't play in this sandbox. You're a great value but you are slow and slower and your IQ is a step above kit lens, but not in the same league as ANY of the lenses mentioned here in your focal length. I'm not going to include legacy or discontinued glass, because there is no telling what would be available on the market and when. Besides, if you have your heart set on an FA*300 f4.5 then you don't need my recommendations anyway.
For 400mm, buy a Pentax TC and mount it to your DA*300. No other way to get pro IQ with a pentax. the sigma 120-400 is basically equal to the DA55-300 in terms of IQ. Good but not what I would consider awesome. The Bigma 50-500 and Little Bigma 150-500 are better than the 120-400 but still not quite there. For under 2k though, they are really your only options to get to 500mm. Which leads to....
500mm - There are 2 Pro IQ lenses out there- The Sigma 500 f4.5 and Pentax 560 f5.6. Both cost around 5k, both are amazing lenses. I'd be happy with either after I get my inheritance from a long lost rich relative.

There you have it. A 5-6 Lens kit from 10mm to 500mm that will go anywhere and have you covered from landscapes to critters. Let the debate begin...

---

Last edited by nomadkng; 11-26-2014 at 01:24 PM.

[blackcloudbrew]

Not going to quibble with any of the remarks here. Solid recommendations all. Might not be all of my choices but, I don't think one would go wrong with any of those. Great post.

[mwilky55]

With blackcloudbrew on this....might quarrel with individual lens choices, but I like the way you've laddered your choices to get all that range in a pretty small number of great lenses.

I wanted to get the Tamron 70-200, but was fortunate to find a used Tokina instead.

And completely agree on the 50MM macro. My FA 50 is an awesome lens.

Finally, I suspect this will turn into one of those 60-70 page threads

[Ikarus]

I disagree with narrowing the scope of the Sigma 10-20 to "landscapes". I'd rather call it a "tight space" lens, and for that, I wouldn't mind it being a bit faster. For the going price, it's still a great deal, though.

[starjedi]

I've been seeing a lot of "Please help me choose a lens" threads lately, and I can understand it. It takes a lot of time and effort to read all the reviews, learn MTF charts, read more reviews from other sites, read marketing literature and then figure out what to buy in your budget.

What makes me an expert? Probably nothing, but what I have done is owned many of the lenses or it's contemporaries over the last 10 years that I have been in Digital Photography. I have logged hundreds, possibly thousands of hours reading reviews and mtf charts for these lenses, and I have shot 10's of thousands of pics with these lenses. I am not a pro, but I consider myself an advanced amateur. I do not have an unlimited budget, but this is nearly a self financing hobby, so I have justified expenses accordingly.

Below is a summary of what I would buy/have bought/currently use (and would consider worthy of a Pro's kit) and I'm offering it as a starting point for all the questions of "What lens should I buy.." with the caveat that I am a zoom shooter (gasp of horror) because of my style and locations. So if IQ is your first priority, followed by versatility and price here's your choices:

Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 - Yes it's 5.6 but this is a landscape lens and if you are shooting below f8 you are doing something wrong.
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 - I have owned the sigma 17-70, sigma 17-50, sigma 20-40, pentax fa20-35, da15, da40, fa35 all in this focal length. The Tamron wins for flare control + sharpness + diffraction control + versatility + price. This is really where my zoom bias comes into play. Honorable Mention goes to the Sigma 18-35, but it's an $800 lens and I'm not sure one can get 2-3x as much quality out of it.
Any 50 Macro - Honestly you are literally splitting hairs over the various AF 50 macros out there.
Sigma 50-150 f2.8 - I know it's not fair to include a discontinued lens, but I have owned the DA*50-135 and this lens blows it away in focusing and reliability. IQ is equal. Sorry Pentax but until you put a DC motor in the 50-135, it's not even a contest. Instead of the 50-135 I'd even recommend the next lens on this list.
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 - Only lens in this range available for Pentax shooters since Sigma is discontinued, and I much preferred Sigma, but the Tamron is not bad. It's not in my bag, but would be if I needed it. It beats out the 60-250 because of the extra stop and I just don't trust SDM.
DA*300 f4 - The only choice for Pentax shooters to reach Pro IQ AND stay around 1k. Sorry DA55-300, you can't play in this sandbox. You're a great value but you are slow and slower and your IQ is a step above kit lens, but not in the same league as ANY of the lenses mentioned here in your focal length. I'm not going to include legacy or discontinued glass, because there is no telling what would be available on the market and when. Besides, if you have your heart set on an FA*300 f4.5 then you don't need my recommendations anyway.
For 400mm, buy a Pentax TC and mount it to your DA*300. No other way to get pro IQ with a pentax. the sigma 120-400 is basically equal to the DA55-300 in terms of IQ. Good but not what I would consider awesome. The Bigma 50-500 and Little Bigma 150-500 are better than the 120-400 but still not quite there. For under 2k though, they are really your only options to get to 500mm. Which leads to....
500mm - There are 2 Pro IQ lenses out there- The Sigma 500 f4.5 and Pentax 560 f5.6. Both cost around 5k, both are amazing lenses. I'd be happy with either after I get my inheritance from a long lost rich relative.

There you have it. A 5-6 Lens kit from 10mm to 500mm that will go anywhere and have you covered from landscapes to critters. Let the debate begin...

Most of time, we do not need to carry all the lens covering all the range from 10mm -500mm... 18-135mm will work fine for most of us :-)

[carpents]

All of your suggestions are too big, heavy, and have trade-offs in IQ.

I would instead go:
15/4 Limited
21/3.2 Limited
FA 35/2 or FA 31/1.8, whichever floats your boat.
FA 50/1.4
70/2.4 Limited
Any of the 90/100/105mm macros, even manual focus. Without figuratively splitting hairs, they are all pretty good, and give you better working distance than the 50mm ones. 200mm macros are even better, but are as rare as hen's teeth.
DA* 200

If you're doing birds or outdoor sports, I'll agree with the DA*300, but I have heard/seen glorious things about the 60-250/4 too. If it were me, I would do the FA*300/4.5 because I've always wanted one of those.

If you want a 500mm, the Sigma is the way to go. But if you're shopping for a 500mm lens, you're not taking unsolicited forum advice on it.


With the lenses I listed, you can pack any number of combos which cover super-wide to telephoto in a package small enough to carry.

[blackcloudbrew]

And that's why I like the Pentax system! So many ways to have a decent kit.

[Des]

Intelligent and provocative post. As good a fight-starter as "What are you looking at?"

OK, I understand we are looking at auto-aperture and autofocus. But why is it unfair to include discontinued lenses? If the sigma 70-200 f2.8 is better, why not look for one second hand? And you have had to break your own rule about SDM lenses by including the DA*300 rather than the F*300 f4.5 (which is lighter and some argue has even better IQ). "Current lenses only" leaves a very small choice at 400mm and excludes the Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO tele macro - IQ about as good as the DA*300+TC, at one-third the price. (Yes I know the counter-arguments: rare, noisy screw-drive AF scares the birds away, prone to AF breakdown, but bang-for-buck ...).

I agree with Carpents about the weight and bulk. Even before you include anything above 300mm the bag weighs about 4.5kg. A small prime or two is one answer. Another would be a versatile, light-weight walkaround lens like the DA 18-135 - which would also give the WR lacking in all but the DA*300 (and possibly the macro).

For macro purposes, I'd swap a D FA 100 f2.8 Macro WR for the 50mm macro, although I concede that with the rest of the kit you'd have medium telephoto well-covered (too well-covered I'd say, with unecessary duplication at 70-150mm).

The other thing conspicuously missing is anything faster than f2.8. Can't we have just one limited prime? Or if that blows the budget, at least a DA 50 f1.8 in the pocket?

[dadipentak]

If the sigma 70-200 f2.8 is better,

but it isn't.

Talk about "fight starter".

Also, too, Chevy

[Driline]

18-135mm will work fine for most of us :-)

He said IQ was his first priority. This lens does not meet that criteria.

---------- Post added 11-26-14 at 05:41 PM ----------

Sigma 50-150 f2.8 - I know it's not fair to include a discontinued lens, but I have owned the DA*50-135 and this lens blows it away in focusing and reliability. IQ is equal

I was not aware of this. I didn't know the Pentax 50-135 had an alternative. Dang I wish I would have been able to compare images. I see however that that Sigma is considerably more expensive used over the 50-135 used market.

[dadipentak]

I see however that that Sigma is considerably more expensive used over the 50-135 used market.

Wonder why that is.

[normhead]

I'm not even going to get into this, but to say, I'm sure everyone thinks the lenses they have are the best... so while I appreciate the opinions expressed, I'm not trading anythingI have to get what anyone else has.... the only lens we have in common with the OP is the Tamron 17-50, which is my wife's lens, and which we bought because we thought it would be silly to have two 18-135s.

The only WR lens in the OP's kit is the DA*300 ƒ4, no pancakes, no limited. IN fact there is absolutely no reason for him to choose Pentax at all. Almost every lens will work on other systems, apart from the DA*300 ƒ4. Given the speed of SDM, there has to be Canon and Nikon systems that focus faster. You gotta ask... why does the OP shoot Pentax?

Must have been the universe playing a cruel joke on him, or maybe an accident. A rich uncle gave him a Pentax for Christmas and he doesn't want to get cut out of the will.

Just saying...

[dadipentak]

I'm sure everyone thinks the lenses they have are the best...

Are you kidding? Just about everyone is desperate to upgrade--if only they had the cash. ;~)

[nomadkng]

I'm not even going to get into this, but to say, I'm sure everyone thinks the lenses they have are the best... so while I appreciate the opinions expressed, I'm not trading anythingI have to get what anyone else has.... the only lens we have in common with the OP is the Tamron 17-50, which is my wife's lens, and which we bought because we thought it would be silly to have two 18-135s.

The only WR lens in the OP's kit is the DA*300 ƒ4, no pancakes, no limited. IN fact there is absolutely no reason for him to choose Pentax at all. Almost every lens will work on other systems, apart from the DA*300 ƒ4. Given the speed of SDM, there has to be Canon and Nikon systems that focus faster. You gotta ask... why does the OP shoot Pentax?

Must have been the universe playing a cruel joke on him, or maybe an accident. A rich uncle gave him a Pentax for Christmas and he doesn't want to get cut out of the will.

Just saying...

I chose Pentax because my first SLR was the K1000 that I purchased with paper route money. I was semi attached to the brand. When I went digital, I went with the K10 because at the time, Pentax's feature set for the price was a big bang for your buck, in fact it still is. So why can't I have 3rd party lenses with a Pentax system? I didn't know I wasn't invited to the Reindeer Games if I didn't sip from the "give me a small prime or give me death" kool-aide. Or maybe it's the "WR or nothing" fountain. I stated I have tried many of Pentax's lenses and found some to be great, but many to be wanting. I have also tried and sold Sigma lenses because their performance didn't meet my expectation. This thread is a summary of my many trials and errors, In hopes someone gleans a pearl or 2 of wisdom that is beneficial to them.

This isn't actually my "exact" kit but I was trying to put together a modern day kit geared toward the current lens seeker. Yes I have the Sigma 50-150 and the Tamron, but I also have a Sigma 100-300 f4. I have a DA40 that I use a pseudo macro, a Sigma 70mm Macro and an FA100 macro, but those are all specialized lenses that get used 2-3x a year. I also have an F50 1.7 that I sometimes use for movies. It was not my intent to overload a reader in choices, it was my intent to cover 90% of all the "What's the best lens I can buy for x" or "Help me pick between this lens and that lens" threads that have permeated this forum lately.

If you don't like my choices of lenses, maybe we should be asking why someone can put together a "No compromise" kit and feel it outperforms most lens throughout the Pentax lineup? I'm not the first one to decry the lack of balance in the Pentax lineup, and I'm not the first to be unhappy with it's SDM performance.

If one is a zoom shooter, there's not a lot of Pentax offerings that give you the IQ within a reasonable price range. $350 for the Tamron 17-50 or $800 for Pentax 16-50? That's a no brainer. I purchased my 50-135 for close to $1000, but later sold it and purchased the Sigma 50-150 for $600. Another no brainer. I love my Sigma 20-40 that I picked up for $400ish. Yes it's big with an 82mm filter, but it goes pixel to pixel with the $900 Pentax lens.

All of your suggestions are too big, heavy, and have trade-offs in IQ.

I would instead go:
15/4 Limited
21/3.2 Limited
FA 35/2 or FA 31/1.8, whichever floats your boat.
FA 50/1.4
70/2.4 Limited
Any of the 90/100/105mm macros, even manual focus. Without figuratively splitting hairs, they are all pretty good, and give you better working distance than the 50mm ones. 200mm macros are even better, but are as rare as hen's teeth.
DA* 200

If you're doing birds or outdoor sports, I'll agree with the DA*300, but I have heard/seen glorious things about the 60-250/4 too. If it were me, I would do the FA*300/4.5 because I've always wanted one of those.

If you want a 500mm, the Sigma is the way to go. But if you're shopping for a 500mm lens, you're not taking unsolicited forum advice on it.


With the lenses I listed, you can pack any number of combos which cover super-wide to telephoto in a package small enough to carry.

I'm 6-1 250 and in pretty decent shape, so I don't care if I'm hiking with a 25lb backpack. What I do care about is if the damn SDM can't focus fast enough (or at all) or I have to fumble with a pocket full of primes on a precarious perch or difficult conditions. I sure as heck don't want to have to make 4,5 6 lens changes in a wet and/or windy or other inhospitable environment. And I don't have that many pockets to begin with. An all prime kit may be the ultimate in IQ, but it seriously lacks flexibility and lends itself to extra PP such as cropping after the fact. Unless we are comparing 48x60 prints, You really won't be able to tell the difference between a good zoom and good prime. What an all prime kit does do, is seriously limit your in camera compositional abilities because I promise you, "zooming with my feet" is NOT an option 90% of the time.

What I also care about is that I spent half on my kit opposed to what I would have had to spend, "staying loyal" and going all Pentax. I see no sane reason for doing that.

[Sandy Hancock]

I'm with Norm. While nomadkng's kit is versatile, it is also totally generic with no Pentax je ne sais quoi. Nothing fast, nothing compact, and only the 300 is WR.

Here's another combination which could work quite well.

DA10-17 (fish-eye fun plus it de-fishes quite nicely at 17mm to be almost indistinguishable from the DA15)
DA21 (you need some 14 starbursts in your life)
FA31 (DA35/2.4 as a budget option)
DA*55 (DA50 as a budget option)
DFA100WR
DA*300 and the 1.4x rear converter