best 16,17,18-35/50 zoom range

amp · 02-25-2016, 11:11 AM

Hi there. Currently, I have 2 prime lenses and 1 short zoom lens, all falling in the 35-70mm range. I'm looking to go a bit wider. Normally I like primes but I'm not super crazy about changing them all the time. I'm really curious to know what people think of the performance of the Pentax 17-70, 18-135, 16-45 throughout the 16-35 range. The lens would be used for wide angle group portraits and landscapes. Any suggestions are appreciated. FYI, it would be on a k3. If I'm not being clear, let me know. I'll reword my question if necessary. Thanks.

timb64 · 02-25-2016, 11:21 AM

I could recommend the 16-85 but Norm will probably take it as a personal affront and threaten to fill me in

Seriously though look at the threads for that and the 18-135 which show images taken with these lenses,a further search of the focal length you're interested in will throw up lots of other opinions.

VoiceOfReason · 02-25-2016, 11:28 AM

I would second the 18-135 and an incredible walk around that is compact, WR, and has good center sharpness, but if you can afford it get either the sigma 18-35 f/1.8, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (actually quite cheap now), or the Pentax 16-50 f/2.8.

**blackcloudbrew** · 02-25-2016, 11:57 AM

I used to own the 17-70, I've had very limited time with the 18-135, and have never shot the 16-45 (although I've read many other users comments about it), I do own the 12-24, the 20-40, DA*16-50, and a number of other UWA lenses fisheye's and primes.

If you are looking for the 16-35mm range and money is not your first concern, my personal favorite is the DA*16-50. I always liked the DA 17-70 even with it's only SDM focusing etc. It was a very good walk around lens at the time. If I hadn't traded it for my 12-24 lens, I'd still have it. For outdoors it was a great lens and as a constant aperture lens at f4 while not the fastest indoors, it was always good. I view it a cut above both the 18-135 and 16-45 in image quality. From what I've read, while an older design and more on the commercial side the 16-45 is a very usable and inexpensive lens. I've seen great work from it. In my mind the 18-135 lens is good but not great. Well there's more data for you decision. There are good suggestions above as well.

pathdoc · 02-25-2016, 12:24 PM

Where do you live, and what sort of shots do you normally take? If you live in a large city with tall buildings and narrow streets, you might want to lean towards something that's 16mm at the wide end. If you're in prairies or mountain country with low buildings, long vistas, etc, or you like cropping people out of the crowd for candid shots or narrower depth of field at a distance, you may want to gravitate towards the 18-135 for the longer reach. Consider also whether your local weather makes having a weather-resistant lens an absolute requirement; in that case, some of the options you've been given may not be so good.

I know that for some people the image quality is everything, but I think in terms of the job(s) I want the lens to do, knowing that most lenses these days will do it quite acceptably for the size of pictures I take & print. I have the 18-135 and I find it just fine as a one-lens-does-all solution for walkaround in inclement weather. For sunny days, I bring Limited primes when I can be relaxed about the pace of my shooting or an 18-250 when I want flexibility - the slow long end (f/6.3) doesn't matter as much there. For indoor concert work it's the FA135, still the fastest tele lens in my collection, with the light and compact DA50 in my pocket if I get a front row seat.

All that being said, I have been known to go out during the day with nothing but an ME and a 40mm pancake lens and a spare roll of film in my pocket...

btnapa · 02-25-2016, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by amp

Hi there. Currently, I have 2 prime lenses and 1 short zoom lens, all falling in the 35-70mm range. I'm looking to go a bit wider. Normally I like primes but I'm not super crazy about changing them all the time. I'm really curious to know what people think of the performance of the Pentax 17-70, 18-135, 16-45 throughout the 16-35 range. The lens would be used for wide angle group portraits and landscapes. Any suggestions are appreciated. FYI, it would be on a k3. If I'm not being clear, let me know. I'll reword my question if necessary. Thanks.

I own the 16-45, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Sigma 10-20 f3.5-4.5. The Tamron is the sharpest of the three by far. I was amazed at how good it was on a recent nature photography trip. Shoot it above f4 and it will match lenses that are much more expensive. Build quality is not the best. Then again if you take care of it and do not abuse it, it will serve you for a long time. I have read a lot of good reviews on the 16-85.

**jatrax** · 02-25-2016, 12:57 PM

I would recommend the 16-85 over the 18-135 if you are mostly looking at the wide end. They are not too far apart though I think the 16-85 is better but of course it is useless above 85mm

The 16-45 is very well regarded for the price and might be worth a look, I've never had one so that is just from posts here.

bassek · 02-25-2016, 01:28 PM

I have the Sigma EX 15-30 which is pretty good. Not as flare resistant as my DA14 but it's FF.

Seb

kh1234567890 · 02-25-2016, 04:15 PM

I find that there is quite a difference between 16 and 18mm on the wide end.
It all depends on how much you want to spend and what else you want to shoot, beside wide vistas

The DA16-45 is not that bad, considering its price - Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1645mmf40edal

stevebrot · 02-25-2016, 07:32 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by amp

I'm really curious to know what people think of the performance of the Pentax 17-70

If you are considering the DA 17-70, then you really should take a look at the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C) as well. I own the Sigma and could not be happier.

Examples (click through to access larger versions on Flickr):

Steve

btnapa · 02-25-2016, 07:44 PM

Fantastic Pics.

timb64 · 02-26-2016, 02:28 AM

Very nice Steve.

olli_tr · 02-26-2016, 09:58 PM

I just got a K-3II with the Sigma 17-50/2.8 and have been extremely happy with the lens. Fast, quiet and accurate AF, good image quality. It's a bit heavy though, but that does not bother me really.

robjmitchell · 02-27-2016, 04:37 PM

Summary of your options
Pentax 16-45 Good IQ with pentax colours. Very affordable option.
SIgma 17-70, extra versatility, semi macro, good IQ
Pentax 17-70 as above without macro, pentax colours
Pentax 16-85 Best corner quality of pentax lenses in wide end, longer but not as fast. pricey.

Tamron 17-50/2.8 Very Good IQ at fantastic price, can take a few tries to find good copy.
Sigma 17-50/2.8 Excellent sharpness but noisy bokeh (IMO) better for landscapes than people.
Pentax 16-50/2.8 Weather sealed, Excellent out of focus rendering, while not as good in the corner as the other two 2.8 zooms. Superb colours and contrast. Older batches prone to SDM failure(can be modified to screw drive). expensive.

Sigma 18-35/1.8 Superb IQ. Limited range and heavy, AF can be problematic.

Then there is your ultra wide zooms too!

amp · 02-29-2016, 07:14 AM

thanks for the suggestions. I've been looking around the forum to see what's for sale. I should have mentioned that I'm big on smaller lenses. I did have the sigma 17-70 1st edition not too long ago, and I was disappointed. I probably didn't give it enough time. I was also comparing it to the prime I had. All considered, I'm leaning towards the 18-135. It's rather compact compared to some other lenses.
Thanks again 😊.

02-25-2016, 11:11 AM	#1
amp Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 168	best 16,17,18-35/50 zoom range Hi there. Currently, I have 2 prime lenses and 1 short zoom lens, all falling in the 35-70mm range. I'm looking to go a bit wider. Normally I like primes but I'm not super crazy about changing them all the time. I'm really curious to know what people think of the performance of the Pentax 17-70, 18-135, 16-45 throughout the 16-35 range. The lens would be used for wide angle group portraits and landscapes. Any suggestions are appreciated. FYI, it would be on a k3. If I'm not being clear, let me know. I'll reword my question if necessary. Thanks.

02-25-2016, 12:43 PM	#6
btnapa Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,614	Originally posted by amp Hi there. Currently, I have 2 prime lenses and 1 short zoom lens, all falling in the 35-70mm range. I'm looking to go a bit wider. Normally I like primes but I'm not super crazy about changing them all the time. I'm really curious to know what people think of the performance of the Pentax 17-70, 18-135, 16-45 throughout the 16-35 range. The lens would be used for wide angle group portraits and landscapes. Any suggestions are appreciated. FYI, it would be on a k3. If I'm not being clear, let me know. I'll reword my question if necessary. Thanks. I own the 16-45, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Sigma 10-20 f3.5-4.5. The Tamron is the sharpest of the three by far. I was amazed at how good it was on a recent nature photography trip. Shoot it above f4 and it will match lenses that are much more expensive. Build quality is not the best. Then again if you take care of it and do not abuse it, it will serve you for a long time. I have read a lot of good reviews on the 16-85. Last edited by btnapa; 02-25-2016 at 12:45 PM. Reason: typo

02-25-2016, 07:32 PM - 2 Likes	#10
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by amp I'm really curious to know what people think of the performance of the Pentax 17-70 If you are considering the DA 17-70, then you really should take a look at the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C) as well. I own the Sigma and could not be happier. Examples (click through to access larger versions on Flickr): Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 02-25-2016 at 08:11 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Zoom lens (16-50 range) with aperture ring?	MightyJRC	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	02-18-2015 06:10 PM
best FF mid-range zoom?	windhorse	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	49	02-11-2015 11:49 AM

02-25-2016, 11:21 AM	#2
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	I could recommend the 16-85 but Norm will probably take it as a personal affront and threaten to fill me in Seriously though look at the threads for that and the 18-135 which show images taken with these lenses,a further search of the focal length you're interested in will throw up lots of other opinions.

02-25-2016, 11:28 AM	#3
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I would second the 18-135 and an incredible walk around that is compact, WR, and has good center sharpness, but if you can afford it get either the sigma 18-35 f/1.8, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (actually quite cheap now), or the Pentax 16-50 f/2.8.

02-25-2016, 11:57 AM	#4
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	I used to own the 17-70, I've had very limited time with the 18-135, and have never shot the 16-45 (although I've read many other users comments about it), I do own the 12-24, the 20-40, DA16-50, and a number of other UWA lenses fisheye's and primes. If you are looking for the 16-35mm range and money is not your first concern, my personal favorite is the DA16-50. I always liked the DA 17-70 even with it's only SDM focusing etc. It was a very good walk around lens at the time. If I hadn't traded it for my 12-24 lens, I'd still have it. For outdoors it was a great lens and as a constant aperture lens at f4 while not the fastest indoors, it was always good. I view it a cut above both the 18-135 and 16-45 in image quality. From what I've read, while an older design and more on the commercial side the 16-45 is a very usable and inexpensive lens. I've seen great work from it. In my mind the 18-135 lens is good but not great. Well there's more data for you decision. There are good suggestions above as well.

02-25-2016, 12:24 PM	#5
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Where do you live, and what sort of shots do you normally take? If you live in a large city with tall buildings and narrow streets, you might want to lean towards something that's 16mm at the wide end. If you're in prairies or mountain country with low buildings, long vistas, etc, or you like cropping people out of the crowd for candid shots or narrower depth of field at a distance, you may want to gravitate towards the 18-135 for the longer reach. Consider also whether your local weather makes having a weather-resistant lens an absolute requirement; in that case, some of the options you've been given may not be so good. I know that for some people the image quality is everything, but I think in terms of the job(s) I want the lens to do, knowing that most lenses these days will do it quite acceptably for the size of pictures I take & print. I have the 18-135 and I find it just fine as a one-lens-does-all solution for walkaround in inclement weather. For sunny days, I bring Limited primes when I can be relaxed about the pace of my shooting or an 18-250 when I want flexibility - the slow long end (f/6.3) doesn't matter as much there. For indoor concert work it's the FA135, still the fastest tele lens in my collection, with the light and compact DA50 in my pocket if I get a front row seat. All that being said, I have been known to go out during the day with nothing but an ME and a 40mm pancake lens and a spare roll of film in my pocket...

02-25-2016, 12:57 PM	#7
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	I would recommend the 16-85 over the 18-135 if you are mostly looking at the wide end. They are not too far apart though I think the 16-85 is better but of course it is useless above 85mm The 16-45 is very well regarded for the price and might be worth a look, I've never had one so that is just from posts here.

02-25-2016, 01:28 PM	#8
bassek Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 706	I have the Sigma EX 15-30 which is pretty good. Not as flare resistant as my DA14 but it's FF. Seb

02-25-2016, 04:15 PM	#9
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	I find that there is quite a difference between 16 and 18mm on the wide end. It all depends on how much you want to spend and what else you want to shoot, beside wide vistas The DA16-45 is not that bad, considering its price - Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1645mmf40edal

02-25-2016, 07:44 PM	#11
btnapa Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,614	Fantastic Pics.

02-26-2016, 02:28 AM	#12
timb64 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots! Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,510	Very nice Steve.

02-26-2016, 09:58 PM	#13
olli_tr New Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 15	I just got a K-3II with the Sigma 17-50/2.8 and have been extremely happy with the lens. Fast, quiet and accurate AF, good image quality. It's a bit heavy though, but that does not bother me really.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-27-2016, 04:37 PM	#14
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	Summary of your options Pentax 16-45 Good IQ with pentax colours. Very affordable option. SIgma 17-70, extra versatility, semi macro, good IQ Pentax 17-70 as above without macro, pentax colours Pentax 16-85 Best corner quality of pentax lenses in wide end, longer but not as fast. pricey. Tamron 17-50/2.8 Very Good IQ at fantastic price, can take a few tries to find good copy. Sigma 17-50/2.8 Excellent sharpness but noisy bokeh (IMO) better for landscapes than people. Pentax 16-50/2.8 Weather sealed, Excellent out of focus rendering, while not as good in the corner as the other two 2.8 zooms. Superb colours and contrast. Older batches prone to SDM failure(can be modified to screw drive). expensive. Sigma 18-35/1.8 Superb IQ. Limited range and heavy, AF can be problematic. Then there is your ultra wide zooms too!

02-29-2016, 07:14 AM	#15
amp Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 168 Original Poster	thanks for the suggestions. I've been looking around the forum to see what's for sale. I should have mentioned that I'm big on smaller lenses. I did have the sigma 17-70 1st edition not too long ago, and I was disappointed. I probably didn't give it enough time. I was also comparing it to the prime I had. All considered, I'm leaning towards the 18-135. It's rather compact compared to some other lenses. Thanks again 😊.