Okay, I've been thinking a lot about, and I believe that the Sigma 17-50 2.8 for less than 300€ is the best option, maybe a bit out of my budget, but I think that is the better option. In fact i've found one here in Spain on ebay, for 285€ and i'm really thinking to buy it. The other option I'm thinking about would be to buy the DA 50mm now and wait a few months (Until christmas) to buy the Sigma.
Why the 17-50 and no any other? In summer when I go to my fathers town, I use to take some photos to sky at night (astrophotography) so the wider angle will be pretty good for that (wider than the 28)
Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim I don't know. The Pentax f/4 lens is so small that I question how well it will do in the corners. Having never mounted it on any of my film cameras, I don't know (and that isn't a foolproof indication due to incidence angle problems on digital).
Of all the alternatives out there, I feel the typical K-1 owner seeking a fairly economical, small medium-range zoom should be looking at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Having shot it extensively on crop and FF Canon, I found it strong on both formats starting at f/4. At the same time, it was borderline terrible at f/2.8 - especially on the long end. It is a better lens in all respects than the Pentax 28-70 f/4 - other than size of course! Even regarding size, the Tamron really isn't bad - and should balance nicely on the K-1 much as it did on the 5D (which was a bit lighter than the K-1).
The new zoom is very impressive, and apparently worth the price if you have the cash. The size and weight is a very valid concern, though. As a former medium format film shooter, I feel pretty strongly (and my back confirms) that the argument for primes gets stronger as you go up in format size. So, Pentax has some work to do in the lens department...
Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Keep in mind, Cartier-Bresson shot great environmental portraits... so it is a matter of what kind of shot is pursued. Very few of his shots were taken from less than 5 feet away, and most of those were for a dramatic effect that did not flatter the face.
We're disagreeing mostly on terminology. The OP has an arsenal of lenses that include AF in the normal-to-somewhat telephoto length. I took his inquiry to mean classic vertical portraits, but possibly the wider concept was meant.
Getting back to his original mission of looking for a relatively inexpensive option, I would mention that the FA 28-70 f/4 shot wide open can yield good portrait results. Even though it isn't very sharp past about 50mm, you don't need that for portraits. Color and rendering is nice, and the lens is small in case you do want to close in with a wider view. As long as the background isn't right behind the subject, f/4 is fine for portrait work, IMHO.
About the 28-70 f/4 I think that it's a great lens, but I prefer to wait and buy the 17-50, in fact I tried again my F 35-80 4/5.6 and is quiet good, It's much better than I thought (It was also my first lens, so I didn't took it serious, and I think that it was a mistake)
So, what do you think about buying the 17-50 for 285€ good price, bad, regular, could I find better offers?
Thanks