Lens for a Nashville Trip

gastch · 12-27-2014, 06:09 PM

I'm looking for a lens to take on a trip to Nashville the end of March. I'm relatively to dslr photograpy but have been learning alot and have good success with my k-3 and DA50 1.8 since I got camera earlier this month. My main focus is wildlife and wilderness stuff so I planned on getting the 18-135 WR for the trip and the DA*300 hopefully after I get back. The 18-135 seams to fit the bill for the trip, small, light, large focul range, and WR. My only reason for second guessing this is maybe IQ. So long as I do my job I want sharp pics. Should I maybe be thinking the 16-50 even though I read alot about SDM failures?

Thought?

Last edited by gastch; 12-27-2014 at 07:14 PM.

**jatrax** · 12-27-2014, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by gastch

Should I maybe be thinking the 17-50 even though I read alot about SDM failures?

That would be 16-50, 17-50 is either Sigma or Tamron. And there is a concern about SDM failure, but that seems to have mostly disappeared in recent production. Per Ricoh this was fixed in 2012. I would not hesitate to buy a new one, I doubt the failure rate is any different than any other lens at this point though the reputation remains damaged. It is a wonderful lens, but big and heavy.

Originally posted by gastch

so I planned on getting the 18-135 WR for the trip

Excellent lens, not quite up to the image quality of the DA*16-50 but in average photography and printed at normal sizes you would be hard put to tell the difference unless you really pixel peep.

I use the 16-50 my wife has the 18-135, sometimes my shots are better, sometimes her's are. For travel I would go with the 18-135 every time.

VoiceOfReason · 12-27-2014, 06:55 PM

I used to live in the area. The 18-135 will be perfect.

**Jacquot** · 12-27-2014, 06:55 PM

Yep, I'd go with the zoom, you'll want close-ups and panos. Nashville is not the winding streets of European cities, it's a good mix, and a zoom would do well for convenience. I'm not sure what you'll find for wildlife and wilderness (I'm from there), you may have more of that in New Brunswick, but it's an interesting city surrounded by farmland and interesting smaller towns if you go far enough. The quality of lens is up to you. The better zooms are pretty big. I've been thinking about the same things for my next trip to Quebec or Europe. My experience is 'handy' beats any other quality for travel. If you decide on an SDM zoom, just take a prime or two. I wouldn't hesitate to take my 16-50 for that reason, maybe some others, but I'd still take it. Gotta live dangerously... Have a good trip. Interesting place.

DSims · 12-27-2014, 06:56 PM

The DA*300 (or the earlier F* and FA* models) is a very good choice for when you need that focal length. My F*300 is one of my top two lenses.

I presume you mean the DA*16-50, since you mentioned SDM. There's no such in-lens focusing motor on the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Both lenses are very good, though I prefer (and have) the DA*16-50. SDM failures can occur, though if IQ is your highest priority I wouldn't let that fear get in the way. I wouldn't have been happy enough with the IQ from the Tamron (it's still good - just not up to the standard I wanted), so there wasn't much of a choice for me. The DA*16-50 was the only lens that could (just barely) give the IQ I was looking for in a zoom in its range. I haven't had an SDM failure, but of course it could happen someday.

Honestly, if IQ is that important to you, and you can afford a DSLR system in the first place, the risk from SDM failure should be mostly emotional pain - not financial. I don't want it to happen to me, but I can't spend time worrying about it.

As to whether you'd rather have a DA18-135 or DA*16-50, I can't say. Both are good lenses. If you don't need the whole 18-135mm range in one lens, the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 is a better choice - and matched with a *300 you'll have an outstanding kit. But for traveling, some prefer the DA18-135. Nevertheless, the DA*50-135 and *300s have such excellent IQ that it's worth "sacrificing" a little and getting the Tamron 17-50/2.8 in order to save money for them. Again, it's hard to beat that three-lens lineup for anywhere near the price, from any brand. You'll never get the kinds of images the DA*50-135 and *300 produce from lenses like the DA18-135 or DA55-300 (even though they're very good for the price). All of these lenses can be found used for less money.

If you only shoot around f/8 all the time, it won't make much difference which lens you get. But the point of getting a DSLR is usually to get the kinds of images that near-wide-open apertures produce. In that case, there's no contest between these * lenses and the others. If you're not going to do this, you should just save yourself a lot of trouble and weight, and get a superzoom - or something like a Nikon 1 or Pentax Q!

gastch · 12-27-2014, 07:13 PM

Haha thanks for the help guys. when I said wildlife I meant outside of this trip. I'll be downtown music city for 4 days at a trade show so I'm guessing the only wildlife I might see is a rat or a cougar. lol
Yes I did mean the 16-50 sorry about that.

**ramseybuckeye** · 12-27-2014, 07:26 PM

Depends on what you are doing in Nashville (there is a lot to do in Nashville), but I would hope you spend an evening or two in the Broadway area. I love my 18-135 but I would prefer something faster there for nighttime. I was there once with a K20D and manual 50. I missed focus a lot and also the 50 was way too long inside some of the bars. Daytime of course is easier, but at night there are more people and the neon lights are on. Your 50 is fast enough but I would want something wider. Of course the K-3 is a lot better in low light than my K20D was.

Docrwm · 12-27-2014, 07:44 PM

The combination of your fast 50 and the 18-135 ought to do fine. The 18-135 is not really a low light lens, but the 50/1.8 will do just fine. The 18-135 is pretty versatile, small for what it does, and light. Add in WR and descent image quality and its the best all-arounder that I can think of for a trip.

MikeD · 12-27-2014, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by DSims

The DA*300 (or the earlier F* and FA* models) is a very good choice for when you need that focal length. My F*300 is one of my top two lenses.

I presume you mean the DA*16-50, since you mentioned SDM. There's no such in-lens focusing motor on the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Both lenses are very good, though I prefer (and have) the DA*16-50. SDM failures can occur, though if IQ is your highest priority I wouldn't let that fear get in the way. I wouldn't have been happy enough with the IQ from the Tamron (it's still good - just not up to the standard I wanted), so there wasn't much of a choice for me. The DA*16-50 was the only lens that could (just barely) give the IQ I was looking for in a zoom in its range. I haven't had an SDM failure, but of course it could happen someday.

Honestly, if IQ is that important to you, and you can afford a DSLR system in the first place, the risk from SDM failure should be mostly emotional pain - not financial. I don't want it to happen to me, but I can't spend time worrying about it.

As to whether you'd rather have a DA18-135 or DA*16-50, I can't say. Both are good lenses. If you don't need the whole 18-135mm range in one lens, the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 is a better choice - and matched with a *300 you'll have an outstanding kit. But for traveling, some prefer the DA18-135. Nevertheless, the DA*50-135 and *300s have such excellent IQ that it's worth "sacrificing" a little and getting the Tamron 17-50/2.8 in order to save money for them. Again, it's hard to beat that three-lens lineup for anywhere near the price, from any brand. You'll never get the kinds of images the DA*50-135 and *300 produce from lenses like the DA18-135 or DA55-300 (even though they're very good for the price). All of these lenses can be found used for less money.

If you only shoot around f/8 all the time, it won't make much difference which lens you get. But the point of getting a DSLR is usually to get the kinds of images that near-wide-open apertures produce. In that case, there's no contest between these * lenses and the others. If you're not going to do this, you should just save yourself a lot of trouble and weight, and get a superzoom - or something like a Nikon 1 or Pentax Q!

interesting according to the compare done on the Tamron, Pentax, and Sigma the Pentax came out 3rd in the IQ dept. Where is beat out the Tamron was in build quality and WR. With the Tamron having best center IQ and the Sigma being the best overall. The IQ of the Pentax was third overall compared to the Sigma and Tamron.

DSims · 12-27-2014, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by MikeD

interesting according to the compare done on the Tamron, Pentax, and Sigma the Pentax came out 3rd in the IQ dept. Where is beat out the Tamron was in build quality and WR. With the Tamron having best center IQ and the Sigma being the best overall. The IQ of the Pentax was third overall compared to the Sigma and Tamron.

I know, I know - I just look at the photos, oddly enough. You're probably referring to this comparison on the forum: Review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Image Quality: Sharpness | PentaxForums.com Reviews Even there, if you look at the actual real-life ("field") photos (not test charts and brick walls), the Pentax gives better looking photos. I know I'm not the only one on the forum with this assessment. I would mostly compare the f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 examples, since that's where these lenses should generally be shot (between f/3.5 and f/5 or f/5.6 on the Pentax, and probably similar on the other lenses).

If you only care about mild advantages in sharpness, sure - choose another lens. But what about color and shadow detail? What about capturing and rendering the most information from the scene? They didn't test for that. Nor did they appear to account for it in the subjective evaluation, making it an inadequate review, IMO. I appreciate the review, and I'm not putting down the hard work that was done to write it. But I don't think it was possible for it to reach a fair and complete conclusion, because of these omissions. Fortunately, you can still judge for yourself by looking at the photos critically - you don't have to accept the review's stated conclusions.

Docrwm · 12-27-2014, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by DSims

I know, I know - I just look at the photos, oddly enough. You're probably referring to this comparison on the forum: Review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Image Quality: Sharpness | PentaxForums.com Reviews Even there, if you look at the actual real-life ("field") photos (not test charts and brick walls), the Pentax gives better looking photos. I know I'm not the only one on the forum with this assessment. I would mostly compare the f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 examples, since that's where these lenses should generally be shot (between f/3.5 and f/5 or f/5.6 on the Pentax, and probably similar on the other lenses).

If you only care about mild advantages in sharpness, sure - choose another lens. But what about color and shadow detail? What about capturing and rendering the most information from the scene? They didn't test for that. Nor did they appear to account for it in the subjective evaluation, making it an inadequate review, IMO. I appreciate the review, and I'm not putting down the hard work that was done to write it. But I don't think it was possible for it to reach a fair and complete conclusion, because of these omissions. Fortunately, you can still judge for yourself by looking at the photos critically - you don't have to accept the review's stated conclusions.

Interesting perspective. Although you forgot the issue of cost as a factor. The Tamron runs around 50% what the Pentax costs. The Sigma is between the two. Plus the CA was a big factor for only one of the lenses tested, the Pentax. I'll stick with the 18-135 plus a selection of primes and come out ahead.

VoiceOfReason · 12-27-2014, 10:18 PM

I have high quality zooms and even when they are in the bag while wandering I will likely have the 18-135 on. It really does have great IQ, or at least my copy does.

DSims · 12-28-2014, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Interesting perspective. Although you forgot the issue of cost as a factor. The Tamron runs around 50% what the Pentax costs. The Sigma is between the two. Plus the CA was a big factor for only one of the lenses tested, the Pentax. I'll stick with the 18-135 plus a selection of primes and come out ahead.

You only come out ahead if you like the lenses and the results they produce. That wouldn't have worked for me.

And it happens that while I don't like CA, it's one of the lesser evils in my mind, so that influences my choices as well. I usually say that if the photo looks good when viewed at 50% size, then it's good enough. That seems to work for me, so that I don't end up throwing out some very good looking photos just because the focus was slightly off, for example.

MikeD · 01-04-2015, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by DSims

I know, I know - I just look at the photos, oddly enough. You're probably referring to this comparison on the forum: Review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Image Quality: Sharpness | PentaxForums.com Reviews Even there, if you look at the actual real-life ("field") photos (not test charts and brick walls), the Pentax gives better looking photos. I know I'm not the only one on the forum with this assessment. I would mostly compare the f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 examples, since that's where these lenses should generally be shot (between f/3.5 and f/5 or f/5.6 on the Pentax, and probably similar on the other lenses).

If you only care about mild advantages in sharpness, sure - choose another lens. But what about color and shadow detail? What about capturing and rendering the most information from the scene? They didn't test for that. Nor did they appear to account for it in the subjective evaluation, making it an inadequate review, IMO. I appreciate the review, and I'm not putting down the hard work that was done to write it. But I don't think it was possible for it to reach a fair and complete conclusion, because of these omissions. Fortunately, you can still judge for yourself by looking at the photos critically - you don't have to accept the review's stated conclusions.

No I care about CA and lens flare also which were issues as well. Also I see things a little differently in overall image quality than you do which includes color and shadow detail. Each to their own.

**Wheatridger** · 03-20-2015, 10:51 PM

You may already be on your trip, and surely you've decided on a lens by now. But here's a tip--- take a long lens, because there is a quality wildlife photo opportunity within Nashville's city limits! Check out the Nashville Zoo. It's on an old plantation property south of town. They specialize in only a few species of "charismatic megafauna" such as elephants and giraffes, kept in large pens of several acres each. The animals are relatively free and happy, for captives, but that means that also can choose to be a hundred feet away or more. I haven't visited that many zoos, but I don't think you can find a better one in North America for big-game shooting.

12-27-2014, 06:09 PM	#1
gastch Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Nackawic NB Canada Posts: 73	Lens for a Nashville Trip I'm looking for a lens to take on a trip to Nashville the end of March. I'm relatively to dslr photograpy but have been learning alot and have good success with my k-3 and DA50 1.8 since I got camera earlier this month. My main focus is wildlife and wilderness stuff so I planned on getting the 18-135 WR for the trip and the DA300 hopefully after I get back. The 18-135 seams to fit the bill for the trip, small, light, large focul range, and WR. My only reason for second guessing this is maybe IQ. So long as I do my job I want sharp pics. Should I maybe be thinking the 16-50 even though I read alot about SDM failures? Thought? Last edited by gastch; 12-27-2014 at 07:14 PM.*

12-27-2014, 06:56 PM	#5
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	The DA300 (or the earlier F and FA* models) is a very good choice for when you need that focal length. My F300 is one of my top two lenses. I presume you mean the DA16-50, since you mentioned SDM. There's no such in-lens focusing motor on the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Both lenses are very good, though I prefer (and have) the DA16-50. SDM failures can occur, though if IQ is your highest priority I wouldn't let that fear get in the way. I wouldn't have been happy enough with the IQ from the Tamron (it's still good - just not up to the standard I wanted), so there wasn't much of a choice for me. The DA16-50 was the only lens that could (just barely) give the IQ I was looking for in a zoom in its range. I haven't had an SDM failure, but of course it could happen someday. Honestly, if IQ is that important to you, and you can afford a DSLR system in the first place, the risk from SDM failure should be mostly emotional pain - not financial. I don't want it to happen to me, but I can't spend time worrying about it. As to whether you'd rather have a DA18-135 or DA16-50, I can't say. Both are good lenses. If you don't need the whole 18-135mm range in one lens, the DA16-50 and DA50-135 is a better choice - and matched with a 300 you'll have an outstanding kit. But for traveling, some prefer the DA18-135. Nevertheless, the DA50-135 and 300s have such excellent IQ that it's worth "sacrificing" a little and getting the Tamron 17-50/2.8 in order to save money for them. Again, it's hard to beat that three-lens lineup for anywhere near the price, from any brand. You'll never get the kinds of images the DA50-135 and 300 produce from lenses like the DA18-135 or DA55-300 (even though they're very good for the price). All of these lenses can be found used for less money. If you only shoot around f/8 all the time, it won't make much difference which lens you get. But the point of getting a DSLR is usually to get the kinds of images that near-wide-open apertures produce. In that case, there's no contest between these * lenses and the others. If you're not going to do this, you should just save yourself a lot of trouble and weight, and get a superzoom - or something like a Nikon 1 or Pentax Q! Last edited by DSims; 12-27-2014 at 07:09 PM.

12-27-2014, 07:44 PM	#8
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	The combination of your fast 50 and the 18-135 ought to do fine. The 18-135 is not really a low light lens, but the 50/1.8 will do just fine. The 18-135 is pretty versatile, small for what it does, and light. Add in WR and descent image quality and its the best all-arounder that I can think of for a trip. Last edited by Docrwm; 12-27-2014 at 08:07 PM.

12-27-2014, 08:55 PM	#10
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by MikeD interesting according to the compare done on the Tamron, Pentax, and Sigma the Pentax came out 3rd in the IQ dept. Where is beat out the Tamron was in build quality and WR. With the Tamron having best center IQ and the Sigma being the best overall. The IQ of the Pentax was third overall compared to the Sigma and Tamron. I know, I know - I just look at the photos, oddly enough. You're probably referring to this comparison on the forum: Review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Image Quality: Sharpness \| PentaxForums.com Reviews Even there, if you look at the actual real-life ("field") photos (not test charts and brick walls), the Pentax gives better looking photos. I know I'm not the only one on the forum with this assessment. I would mostly compare the f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 examples, since that's where these lenses should generally be shot (between f/3.5 and f/5 or f/5.6 on the Pentax, and probably similar on the other lenses). If you only care about mild advantages in sharpness, sure - choose another lens. But what about color and shadow detail? What about capturing and rendering the most information from the scene? They didn't test for that. Nor did they appear to account for it in the subjective evaluation, making it an inadequate review, IMO. I appreciate the review, and I'm not putting down the hard work that was done to write it. But I don't think it was possible for it to reach a fair and complete conclusion, because of these omissions. Fortunately, you can still judge for yourself by looking at the photos critically - you don't have to accept the review's stated conclusions. Last edited by DSims; 12-27-2014 at 09:19 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens selection for Italy trip	chucuyuco	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	03-11-2013 08:30 PM
Dilemma RE which lens to buy for a trip!	secateurs	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	02-14-2011 04:23 PM
Lens for a trip to Patagonia	koraldon	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	01-10-2011 08:11 AM
Lens decision for a special trip	JamieP	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	11-15-2010 08:09 AM
Help me choose a 3 lens setup for overseas trip!	catastrophe	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	10-16-2010 12:31 AM

12-27-2014, 06:32 PM	#2
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by gastch Should I maybe be thinking the 17-50 even though I read alot about SDM failures? That would be 16-50, 17-50 is either Sigma or Tamron. And there is a concern about SDM failure, but that seems to have mostly disappeared in recent production. Per Ricoh this was fixed in 2012. I would not hesitate to buy a new one, I doubt the failure rate is any different than any other lens at this point though the reputation remains damaged. It is a wonderful lens, but big and heavy. Originally posted by gastch so I planned on getting the 18-135 WR for the trip Excellent lens, not quite up to the image quality of the DA*16-50 but in average photography and printed at normal sizes you would be hard put to tell the difference unless you really pixel peep. I use the 16-50 my wife has the 18-135, sometimes my shots are better, sometimes her's are. For travel I would go with the 18-135 every time.

12-27-2014, 06:55 PM	#3
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I used to live in the area. The 18-135 will be perfect.

12-27-2014, 06:55 PM	#4
Jacquot Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sun City Center, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,544	Yep, I'd go with the zoom, you'll want close-ups and panos. Nashville is not the winding streets of European cities, it's a good mix, and a zoom would do well for convenience. I'm not sure what you'll find for wildlife and wilderness (I'm from there), you may have more of that in New Brunswick, but it's an interesting city surrounded by farmland and interesting smaller towns if you go far enough. The quality of lens is up to you. The better zooms are pretty big. I've been thinking about the same things for my next trip to Quebec or Europe. My experience is 'handy' beats any other quality for travel. If you decide on an SDM zoom, just take a prime or two. I wouldn't hesitate to take my 16-50 for that reason, maybe some others, but I'd still take it. Gotta live dangerously... Have a good trip. Interesting place.

12-27-2014, 07:13 PM	#6
gastch Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Nackawic NB Canada Posts: 73 Original Poster	Haha thanks for the help guys. when I said wildlife I meant outside of this trip. I'll be downtown music city for 4 days at a trade show so I'm guessing the only wildlife I might see is a rat or a cougar. lol Yes I did mean the 16-50 sorry about that.

12-27-2014, 07:26 PM	#7
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,288	Depends on what you are doing in Nashville (there is a lot to do in Nashville), but I would hope you spend an evening or two in the Broadway area. I love my 18-135 but I would prefer something faster there for nighttime. I was there once with a K20D and manual 50. I missed focus a lot and also the 50 was way too long inside some of the bars. Daytime of course is easier, but at night there are more people and the neon lights are on. Your 50 is fast enough but I would want something wider. Of course the K-3 is a lot better in low light than my K20D was.

12-27-2014, 08:03 PM	#9
MikeD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: traverse city MI Posts: 346	Originally posted by DSims The DA300 (or the earlier F and FA* models) is a very good choice for when you need that focal length. My F300 is one of my top two lenses. I presume you mean the DA16-50, since you mentioned SDM. There's no such in-lens focusing motor on the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Both lenses are very good, though I prefer (and have) the DA16-50. SDM failures can occur, though if IQ is your highest priority I wouldn't let that fear get in the way. I wouldn't have been happy enough with the IQ from the Tamron (it's still good - just not up to the standard I wanted), so there wasn't much of a choice for me. The DA16-50 was the only lens that could (just barely) give the IQ I was looking for in a zoom in its range. I haven't had an SDM failure, but of course it could happen someday. Honestly, if IQ is that important to you, and you can afford a DSLR system in the first place, the risk from SDM failure should be mostly emotional pain - not financial. I don't want it to happen to me, but I can't spend time worrying about it. As to whether you'd rather have a DA18-135 or DA16-50, I can't say. Both are good lenses. If you don't need the whole 18-135mm range in one lens, the DA16-50 and DA50-135 is a better choice - and matched with a 300 you'll have an outstanding kit. But for traveling, some prefer the DA18-135. Nevertheless, the DA50-135 and 300s have such excellent IQ that it's worth "sacrificing" a little and getting the Tamron 17-50/2.8 in order to save money for them. Again, it's hard to beat that three-lens lineup for anywhere near the price, from any brand. You'll never get the kinds of images the DA50-135 and 300 produce from lenses like the DA18-135 or DA55-300 (even though they're very good for the price). All of these lenses can be found used for less money. If you only shoot around f/8 all the time, it won't make much difference which lens you get. But the point of getting a DSLR is usually to get the kinds of images that near-wide-open apertures produce. In that case, there's no contest between these * lenses and the others. If you're not going to do this, you should just save yourself a lot of trouble and weight, and get a superzoom - or something like a Nikon 1 or Pentax Q! interesting according to the compare done on the Tamron, Pentax, and Sigma the Pentax came out 3rd in the IQ dept. Where is beat out the Tamron was in build quality and WR. With the Tamron having best center IQ and the Sigma being the best overall. The IQ of the Pentax was third overall compared to the Sigma and Tamron.

12-27-2014, 09:28 PM	#11
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by DSims I know, I know - I just look at the photos, oddly enough. You're probably referring to this comparison on the forum: Review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Image Quality: Sharpness \| PentaxForums.com Reviews Even there, if you look at the actual real-life ("field") photos (not test charts and brick walls), the Pentax gives better looking photos. I know I'm not the only one on the forum with this assessment. I would mostly compare the f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 examples, since that's where these lenses should generally be shot (between f/3.5 and f/5 or f/5.6 on the Pentax, and probably similar on the other lenses). If you only care about mild advantages in sharpness, sure - choose another lens. But what about color and shadow detail? What about capturing and rendering the most information from the scene? They didn't test for that. Nor did they appear to account for it in the subjective evaluation, making it an inadequate review, IMO. I appreciate the review, and I'm not putting down the hard work that was done to write it. But I don't think it was possible for it to reach a fair and complete conclusion, because of these omissions. Fortunately, you can still judge for yourself by looking at the photos critically - you don't have to accept the review's stated conclusions. Interesting perspective. Although you forgot the issue of cost as a factor. The Tamron runs around 50% what the Pentax costs. The Sigma is between the two. Plus the CA was a big factor for only one of the lenses tested, the Pentax. I'll stick with the 18-135 plus a selection of primes and come out ahead.

12-27-2014, 10:18 PM	#12
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I have high quality zooms and even when they are in the bag while wandering I will likely have the 18-135 on. It really does have great IQ, or at least my copy does.

12-28-2014, 12:10 AM	#13
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by Docrwm Interesting perspective. Although you forgot the issue of cost as a factor. The Tamron runs around 50% what the Pentax costs. The Sigma is between the two. Plus the CA was a big factor for only one of the lenses tested, the Pentax. I'll stick with the 18-135 plus a selection of primes and come out ahead. You only come out ahead if you like the lenses and the results they produce. That wouldn't have worked for me. And it happens that while I don't like CA, it's one of the lesser evils in my mind, so that influences my choices as well. I usually say that if the photo looks good when viewed at 50% size, then it's good enough. That seems to work for me, so that I don't end up throwing out some very good looking photos just because the focus was slightly off, for example.

01-04-2015, 03:48 PM	#14
MikeD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: traverse city MI Posts: 346	Originally posted by DSims I know, I know - I just look at the photos, oddly enough. You're probably referring to this comparison on the forum: Review: DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison - Image Quality: Sharpness \| PentaxForums.com Reviews Even there, if you look at the actual real-life ("field") photos (not test charts and brick walls), the Pentax gives better looking photos. I know I'm not the only one on the forum with this assessment. I would mostly compare the f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 examples, since that's where these lenses should generally be shot (between f/3.5 and f/5 or f/5.6 on the Pentax, and probably similar on the other lenses). If you only care about mild advantages in sharpness, sure - choose another lens. But what about color and shadow detail? What about capturing and rendering the most information from the scene? They didn't test for that. Nor did they appear to account for it in the subjective evaluation, making it an inadequate review, IMO. I appreciate the review, and I'm not putting down the hard work that was done to write it. But I don't think it was possible for it to reach a fair and complete conclusion, because of these omissions. Fortunately, you can still judge for yourself by looking at the photos critically - you don't have to accept the review's stated conclusions. No I care about CA and lens flare also which were issues as well. Also I see things a little differently in overall image quality than you do which includes color and shadow detail. Each to their own.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2015, 10:51 PM	#15
Wheatridger Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Colorado Front Range Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 644	You may already be on your trip, and surely you've decided on a lens by now. But here's a tip--- take a long lens, because there is a quality wildlife photo opportunity within Nashville's city limits! Check out the Nashville Zoo. It's on an old plantation property south of town. They specialize in only a few species of "charismatic megafauna" such as elephants and giraffes, kept in large pens of several acres each. The animals are relatively free and happy, for captives, but that means that also can choose to be a hundred feet away or more. I haven't visited that many zoos, but I don't think you can find a better one in North America for big-game shooting.