Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-14-2015, 10:10 AM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,854
QuoteOriginally posted by FantasticMrFox Quote
will primarily be used in the Scottish highlands, parts of which are among the wettest regions in Europe?
I spent most of my adult life (40+years) carrying cameras and lens up and down some of the biggest mountains in the world and Scotland was my winter playground and no WR. AS I said it's nice to have but I don't see why a lens should be excluded if it isn't.

10-14-2015, 10:51 AM - 1 Like   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 669
What are your typical subjects when you're shooting outdoors and in what kind of light? When my husband is mountain-climbing, about 60% of his photos are of the landscape, about 20% are portraits of the people he's with and the remainder is mixed, including the occasional critter. Generally, there's lots of light (all that snow, not a lot of trees). So the WR 18-135 works well for him and he throws in the nifty fifty (because it's inexpensive, lightweight and fast) - but the 18-135 is what's on his camera most of the time.

On the other hand, when we were photographing wildlife in Borneo in 2014, I often wished that I had a fast zoom. The WR 55-300 was nice and produced some good images in many circumstances, but I often found that when I was shooting from a distance into a forest (where the monkeys were chilling out) I wanted something faster.

So, if the environment in which you often shoot on your adventures is low light - then it might be worth splurging on a faster zoom. But if those moments are rare, then I'd be inclined to go for the 18-135 because of its longer range.
10-14-2015, 11:07 AM   #18
Veteran Member
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,349
WHy is constant f2.8 important? You aren't going to be shooting landscapes at f2.8. You mention this being an outdoors lens, so you will have plenty of light at your disposal (heck, you may even need an ND filter to use f2.8 in sunny conditions).
10-14-2015, 11:22 AM   #19
Veteran Member
FantasticMrFox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Munich
Posts: 2,211
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by IchabodCrane Quote
I suggest you take a look at the Pentax DA 17-70. It's bigger than the Sigma 17-70 C and not as fast at the wide end but the contrast is superior and, IMHO, so is the color for landscapes. By the way, I have both.
Hadn't thought of that one. Reviews seem to be positive, on the other hand it's 100 more than the Sigma version, and slower. How do you think it fares against the Sigma across the frame at 17 mm?

QuoteOriginally posted by mohb Quote
I spent most of my adult life (40+years) carrying cameras and lens up and down some of the biggest mountains in the world and Scotland was my winter playground and no WR. AS I said it's nice to have but I don't see why a lens should be excluded if it isn't.
I didn't exclude any lens due to lack of WR, if I had the two Sigmas and the Tamron would not be on the list I know people have taken and are still taking pictures in bad weather without weather resistant bodies and lenses, the same way people have taken sports pictures with manual focus lenses in the past. That doesn't mean that weather resistance and autofocus are not a blessing

QuoteOriginally posted by frogoutofwater Quote
What are your typical subjects when you're shooting outdoors and in what kind of light? When my husband is mountain-climbing, about 60% of his photos are of the landscape, about 20% are portraits of the people he's with and the remainder is mixed, including the occasional critter. Generally, there's lots of light (all that snow, not a lot of trees). So the WR 18-135 works well for him and he throws in the nifty fifty (because it's inexpensive, lightweight and fast) - but the 18-135 is what's on his camera most of the time.
Depending on the activity I mostly shoot landscapes, people scrambling/climbing/walking, and the occasional portrait. Wildlife isn't really important, and if something interesting crosses my path I have the HD DA 55-300 WR in my backpack. So wide-angle performance across the frame is important to me, but not necessarily wide open, and I will also zoom in for some whole body shots of climbers from different perspectives.

QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
WHy is constant f2.8 important? You aren't going to be shooting landscapes at f2.8. You mention this being an outdoors lens, so you will have plenty of light at your disposal (heck, you may even need an ND filter to use f2.8 in sunny conditions).
I didn't say that f/2.8 is important, I wrote that f/2.8 would be a plus, but not necessary. It can be useful in bad weather, for night sky photography (shots of the milky way) or at dusk or dawn. But it really isn't too important - my favourite lens out of the list doesn't have it.

10-14-2015, 11:35 AM - 1 Like   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,157
My experience with the DA 17-70 vs DA 18-135 would lead me to pick the DA 18-135 unless I needed the constant f4 and the extra 1mm width but it is a nice lens. I prefer a soft 135 over no 135.
10-14-2015, 12:18 PM   #21
Pentaxian
ChatMechant's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 999
Save up for the 16-85. The 18-135 is small and light but 18 isn't that wide and it isn't that great at 18. It's better than the 18-55 for sure though and cheap.
10-14-2015, 12:29 PM   #22
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,571
QuoteOriginally posted by mohb Quote
AS I said it's nice to have but I don't see why a lens should be excluded if it isn't.
Because with it you don't have to worry about it, and you can get pictures that you couldn't otherwise. Try walking in the mist of a large waterfall without WR, to name an example.

QuoteOriginally posted by FantasticMrFox Quote
Hadn't thought of that one. Reviews seem to be positive, on the other hand it's €100 more than the Sigma version, and slower. How do you think it fares against the Sigma across the frame at 17 mm?
I'd go with the Sigma versions anytime.

Pentax 17-70mm Lens Comparison Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
10-14-2015, 12:46 PM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 376
FYI none of the 16 to 17 to 50 f2.8 have good wide open performance for astrophotography. This is just the nature of the optics. The DA 12-24mm is one of the sharpest corner to corner but might be too wide as a do it all lens. Each lenses have compromises, that is why you end up having LBA like me and buying a whole bunch.

10-14-2015, 01:04 PM - 1 Like   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 101
The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM really is a great lens. Apart from some vignetting at the low end, it is a stellar performer, optically. True, it's not weather sealed, and admittedly, it's heavy. But it's pretty awesome. Have you considered adding just one more lens to your walkabout bag? I've found the DA L 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR to be a good performer, especially for the price. It would be a good and affordable way to cover the long end of your focal range. It's a very likable lens, and doesn't take up much space or weight.
10-14-2015, 01:14 PM - 1 Like   #25
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow
Posts: 69
I've got 18-135, 16-85 and signa 17-50.
16-85 is the best in terms of IQ. I highly recommend it. But there is a probability of buying decentered one.
18-135 is very good in the range of 21-50 mm both center and corner. At 31 mm it's as good as 31/1.8 Lim ). At 18mm corners are too soft - that's a pity for me, because the short end is the most used by me.
Sigma 17-50. Sharpnes is ok. But I don't like colours.
10-14-2015, 01:18 PM - 1 Like   #26
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Inverness
Photos: Albums
Posts: 37
The 16-85 can be found for just under 400, and from what I've used of it so far on the hills, it's going to be my first choice for that sort of trip in the future.
10-14-2015, 01:55 PM   #27
Veteran Member
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,349
QuoteOriginally posted by frogfoot Quote
I've got 18-135, 16-85 and signa 17-50.
16-85 is the best in terms of IQ. I highly recommend it. But there is a probability of buying decentered one.
Same can be said of any lens...in fact photozone went through a few 18-135mm's in his testing and didn't get a good one.
10-14-2015, 02:37 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
The Tamron 17-50mm weighs only ~15 ounces and its IQ is notably strong (sharp) for its class at the wider FLs, where you need it most. Very good 50mm MF primes are a dime a dozen these days, not to mention inexpensive DA 50/1.8's. Keep in mind when checking reviews that the Pentax iteration is both smaller and has 3 fewer image degrading elements compared to the Di II VC version for the CaNikons. The difference shows up especially on the long end.

For bang-for-buck, **low $-depreciation factor** high IQ at the true telephoto FLs -- at a dead minimum of carry weight -- there is no better value to be had currently [to my knowledge] than a refurb Sony A5000 20.3mp body (< $150) + Commlite Canon EF to Sony E smart adapter ($69) + Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM, current version (~$170 new at eBay) ...IF (!) you are willing to accept sluggish or non-existent auto-focus with the A5000's non-hybrid, contrast detection only sensor (as used in the K-S1 & K-S2)... AND you appreciate the advantages of carrying a second, 9+ ounce (!) body, which can, of course, take Pentax lenses happily. You can get an A6000 later when used prices come down (a lot), IF something resembling normal, but very slow auto-focus performance is going to be a big deal. But for landscapes? Keep in mind, you get IN-LENS stabilization with this set-up!! And I strongly suspect that the A5000 will equal or outperform the A6000 in overall IQ at base ISO & up to 1 or 2 stops down from there! The DxO folks seem to think so, with +1 to even (in one or two cases) +2 'DxO Marks' advantage to the overlooked A5000 w/ various lenses, across the board... with less vignetting from the same lenses... and with nearly 1/2 stop more dynamic range. Interesting, no?

Yep, that solution is not for everyone. For sure. But if I were climbing and wanted zero lens changes... and wanted total FF-equivalent FL coverage from around 25.5 - 375mm (and where you're going, why wouldn't YOU?)... and [me being me] insisting on pushing my practical options for highest IQ to the max... then there is no rival, I think, to this set-up at around $380 and about 28 ounces total carry weight -- camera, lens, and adapter. This two body alternative will surely obliterate the performance of an 18-250mm super zoom on a K3, with far better handling overall, all things considered. Please note, that 13.3 ounce Canon lens is one of a kind. See it slay all rivals at Christopher Frost Photography on YouTube. See the amazing MTF-derived results WIDE OPEN to 1 STOP down at ePhotozine... at virtually ALL FLs. This lens is as good cranked out to 250mm as it is at short telephoto, if you can believe the evidence in the media. Try to find that elsewhere for under $1000, or for ?? -- Canon's own 70-300mm IS USM at 3x the cost can't match that. Canon guys say, get the cheap one for APS-C, not to save money... but for better IQ. And yes, I will be buying the little Canon for my own A5000 (to complement high quality MF primes on my K3) whenever I can get back on my feet after a prolonged disability and consequent absence from these pages. Hello and regards to anyone here who may have noticed.
10-14-2015, 02:43 PM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,157
QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
For bang-for-buck, **low $-depreciation factor** high IQ at the true telephoto FLs -- at a dead minimum of carry weight -- there is no better value to be had currently [to my knowledge] than a refurb Sony A5000 20.3mp body (< $150) + Commlite Canon EF to Sony E smart adapter ($69) + Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM, current version (~$170 new at eBay) .
Where can you buy this camera for this price? I can't find it for anything like that low. That would make for a nice body for me to take to Europe in the spring. Is there a wide to normal combo that's that good and cheap?
10-14-2015, 02:44 PM - 1 Like   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 5,474
My wife and I just came from a trip through the mountains in Montana and Wyoming . I had a few lenses with me, but I found myself using my 18-135 mostly. What a versatile and sharp lens.

I also had the Pentax 12-24...which Pop Photography magazine...rated as the best of the super wide angles a few years ago....and my 10-17 FE. I still found myself generally using my 18-135.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
40mm, a7, af, canon, da, f/2.8, film, frame, image, iq, k-mount, lens, lenses, level, mm, options, pentax, pentax lens, primes, quality, range, sigma, slr lens, sony, weather
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need a versatile all around lens! northmole Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 10-07-2013 03:00 PM
Sigma or Tamron all around lens (picture quality) jrcastillo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 10-02-2013 08:09 PM
Best All-around Lens? McDunk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 45 05-22-2011 02:39 PM
Good all-around portrait Lens ~$300? cputeq Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 04-26-2008 12:11 AM
lookin for good all-around lens pentaxk100d Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 03-06-2008 09:54 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top