[SpecialK]

The 12-24 is excellent though obtrusive for inconspicuous street shooting. The 21 is about the right focal length and very small. The 15 is a bit wide a crewl1 indicated.

[DeadJohn]

I'll comment on all the lenses mentioned in the OP, but to summarize I prefer the Ricoh GR, get the DA 21 if you reject the GR, or get the 20-40 if WR and zoom flexibility are high priorities.

Street photography on an APS-C sensor works well in the 18-24mm range (28-35 full frame equivalent). If you get a zoom, look to fill the 16-40 gap between your existing lenses. Those focal lengths will also work for landscapes.

Ricoh GR. You didn't mention this one, but it's like buying a DA 18 (not an actual lens, but pretend it's a slightly wider DA 21) plus 2nd body for a price near a DA 21. The GR is arguably wide for street photos but it's very sharp with lots of cropping flexibility. The snap focus and several other features feel perfect for street. It's ultra compact for landscape photos while hiking. The GR is small enough to carry everywhere.

DA 21 is a nice compact lens. It's a good focal length, good image quality, and compact for hiking.

Sigma 18-35 f1.8. Good zoom range for you but a large lens, maybe too bulky for hiking and street. If it's too heavy to carry for your intended usage then the image quality is irrelevant.

Pentax 12-24. This zoom has a lot of overlap with your 8-16 and still leaves a gap at 24-40. Skip it.

Pentax 16-50. This completely fills your 16-40 gap. Size and weight might be a concern for hiking and street, though. WR is a bonus. The 16-50 is my most frequently used lens but it's more of an all purpose walk around lens. It's adequate for landscape and street usage but doesn't specialize in either area.

Pentax 20-40. In terms of capabilities this fills most of your 16-40 gap. It's wide enough for many landscapes, and when you need wider you can stitch or use your existing 8-16 lens. Great length for street photography. One of the smallest zooms around.

[yucatanPentax]

Gets mixed reviews ?

Popular Photography tested one a few years ago and named it best of the super wides. It's an excellent lens. I have one and have many 1000's of photos from it. It's top notch, picture quality is outstanding in my long experience behind a camera.

I have to cheerfully agree with this. The Pentax DA 12-24mm should be a * lens aside from not being WR. I feel the quality is that good.

Like lesmore49 & jrpower10, above, I use the 12-24 a lot and find it to be excellent. I don't know that I've seen mixed reviews of it, but maybe I've only looked for self-reinforcing opinions?

If your 8-16mm is too wide and you find yourself working at the longer end when you do use it, the 12-24 would be a good replacement for it, giving you flexibility, and coming closer to filling your 'gap.' Sell the 8-16 and get a 12-24. It'll have a bit narrower field than the DA 21 and let you widen up if you wish.

It does have a large hood which may seem more intimidating to potential subjects than small primes. The lens itself is not all that large.

So, there's another 2¢. Soon you'll have a pocketful of change!

[Sagitta]

I picked up a cheap F35-70 macro a while back. It looks cheap, it feels cheap, but its absolutely amazing for a zoom the size of a 50mm prime. If I were to get into street photography, that's the lens I'd grab from what I have at hand, and that's above my 50mm primes, my Sigma 10-20mm, or anything else zoom or prime that I own.

I don't have much from it online yet (I've been obsessing over another lens), but this is the thing shot wide open at 35mm. Go on and link through and peep at my kid's eye. How many zooms can do that wide open on its wide end?



As far as landscapes, this is the only one I have online yet. Yea, its an HDR, but I was trying to get the funky sunbeam to show in the final image.



I've used a LOT of old (and some new) lenses in the past, and this thing probably ranks multiple levels over any of the others as far as versatility goes.

The Sigma is nice, but its big and heavy. My 50mm f/1.4 has speed and size going for it but you're stuck at 50mm. If I'm street shooting, I want a zoom, (which also eliminates most zooms due to size).

Heres its review here PF. It's probably the best-rated of the easily attainable F-series zooms.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-35-70mm-F3.5-4.5-Macro-Zoom-Lens.html

[disconnekt]

The Sigma17-70 f2.8-4 may be an option for you.

[Kerrowdown]

Here's an alternative thought for you... recently I've been using my "Special Lady” (SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.2) for Landscapes and my "Good Lady” (SMC Pentax-A 20mm F2.8) for Street Photography both with reasonably pleasing results.

[photodesignch]

I personally do a lot of street photography. I recommend small prime with larger aperture. Wide angle is sometimes nice, but not always. The reason I suggest in such way is because :

1) smaller lenses aren't as intimidating. Makes snapshot much less noticed by subject (here I ruled out lots of zoom lenses. Maybe you should consider the new 18-50 WR?)
2) reason I force myself for prime lenses due to larger aperture and better IQ. Since you are going to handheld most of time, even a tiny bit of speed boost on shutter speed will give you much better chance of sharper images.
3) wide angle or not it's matter of preference. There are photographers all for wide angles to including much more surrounding and things happening in the same frame. There are photographers likes to use telephoto lenses to abstract subject from busy background to focus on human emotions, or what they are doing. To me, I use wide range of lenses for street photography. I tend to use zoom lenses when i don't feel like to crop at post work (you crop while you are making your composition). I tend to use 28, 35, 43, 50, 55 for snapshots a lot. They are all fair good on whatever I am photographing. It's matter of taste and what you want to do with it. (I am on full-frame, so if you are on APS-C, you probably want to stay around DA15, 21, 35)

I personally would not suggest any wider is because I have a hard time to use ultra-wide angle to do street photography. A lot of times photography is to exclude the business to concentrate on story telling. However, by using such wide angle, you will always somewhat included the trashcan, cropped off weird people at edge. Sure! You can use photoshop to re-crop your image.. Then... what's the point of using ultra-wide angle? Plus ultra-wide angle tend to have a lot more issues on the curvature distortion..

I guess I just have such older mindset.. ultra-wide angle is purposed to use on "landscape" instead of street photography. Sure you can do whatever you want! But here is my 2 cents.

[kh1234567890]

wide angle or not it's matter of preference. There are photographers all for wide angles to including much more surrounding and things happening in the same frame. There are photographers likes to use telephoto lenses to abstract subject from busy background to focus on human emotions, or what they are doing.

Too true. You can do street photos (or landscapes) with just about any focal length - it depends on what effect you are after.

Snappy AF does help to catch the right moment though. Personally, I hate big fat lenses

[Nicolas06]

What is the main point of street photography? In my opinion it is to record urban humanoids in their natural habitat. As such, the 15 is not appropriate, as it diminishes them, by including too much of the habitat! Not to mention the (probable) distortion effects in the corners and edges. So forget the 15. Forget the 35s, they are too close to the 40. Forget most Sigmas, they are enormous and would influence the subjects. (I have the Sigma 17-50). Buy the 21, it is perfect for street work, and quality enough to crop when needed.

The 21 and your 40 are great for landscapes too, but maybe you could add a macro 70/90/100/105, to do selective landscape work, flower shot, plus sneaky-snoopy street candids?

Following, a few DA15 in the streets of Paris, MontMartre. I think it can be really interresting too. All focals can be used for street photography depending of what you are after, including UWA or long tele.

I agree that something arround 20-30mm on APSC can do many many things and that DA15 would be more specialized if you use only one lense. But at the risk to be outside the common knowledge, I'd say for street photography, you need the same lenses that you need for other occasions. Lenses from 10 to 500 all are usefull and can given interresting result. And like for the rest some focals are easier to use than others.

A Few DA15 shoots







In India I used mostly the DA21 and FA77 for stree photography. I had more interresting shoots with the FA77 I think and it allowed me to take some portraits that would not be the same at all with DA21.as the framing would have not fit.

A few FA77 shoots:

[Vihmameister]

Originally posted by biz-engineer Quote Zoom: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 on K-3 These would cover a great range. Do the hold up on the low end range in an IQ sense compared to the 18-35? Are they better at 40 than the 40 Ltd?

It depends. IF 18-35 will focus, it would be sharpest from those zooms. Some people have problems, specially with low light and wide end with narrow DOF. It's heavy, you don't hike with this one.

Sigma 17-50 -i own it, is my current standard zoom main lens. It's controversial one. Sometimes slow, hard to use against strong sunlight, flares enough, needs filter use. Bokeh -not best one (7-8)
Heavy, but not so big as 18-35. Very good from 30-50mm, fully or usable enough from 17-30 at F4-11, not so good wide end at F2,8-4, good color, some CA you may get at wide end at low stops. But it's still very good value for price. I move around with bicycle, but there are much easier lenses to handle (weight, filter size)

Tamron 17-50- is vice versa to Sigma - performs well at wide end, soft at long end.
Have not used 17-70 sigma.

If you are not going to primes (15,21,31), want WR and small weight, take DA20-40. It does not pop, but does reliable job on his range. (This one does not have any macro capabilities)... good on landscape or architecture, well but on people or moving subjects- it's quite slow.

Forget DA16-85, if quality matters.

[BarryE]

A bit off, but have you considered the Ricoh GR ? I love my da21/k-3 combo, but I've just picked up the Ricoh and I'm impressed. The APCs sensor, Pentax like settings, inconspicuous, 220g, one handed, 28mm (35mm eq) and now at bargain price, makes for a very convenient option, especially when travelling light and about in the streets. Just a thought.

[ramseybuckeye]

I don't get to do much street shooting, but ultrawides are OK if you're trying to get buildings and signs also. Ultrawides can be good for certain types of landscapes, especially where you cannot back up. Of course landscapes can be shot at any focal length, but we're talking about your gap. In that gap I use a Tamron 10-24, a Cosmicar-A 28mm, a DA 35/2.4, and the da18-135. The Tamron is sharp enough, but flare can be bad, the Cosmicar is a gem I got when I bought a "lot" to get an A 50/1.7. It's sharper than the Pentax-A 28 I used to have. The other two are pretty well documented. For landscapes primes and MF are fine, I thing zooms will be better for street.

[Conqueror]

A small unobtrusive fast prime (both fast in aperture and AF) is good for street

Its quite subjective but I find 30-35mm* a good range for landscape unless its big mountains involved (70mm+ helps IMO)... its also a nice range for street

------------------

*Based on that and sticking with Pentax glass these might be worth a look

DA 2.4 (best VFM)
DA 2.8 macro (versatile)
FA 1.8 (possibly best rendering but subjective)


The DA 20-40mm though it seems if you get a good copy, looks a very capable lens and gives you a lot of nice features... silent/WR/good range/small/metal etc..

[Sandy Hancock]

I see a DA21 in your near future

Tiny, lovely rendering, great flare resistance, the coolest hood ever and it pretty much bisects the gap between your 8-16 and 40.