[Sasha]

Hi guys,

a very few of you may know me. For the others, I'm a student who, for 4 years, shots mainly videos with a camcorder. Then I saw timelapses, I wanted to make my own and I developed my own interpretation of a motorized slider + head (pan/tilt) controlled with Arduino. I've already read Langford's Advanced Photography and saw a lot of videos. So I may know things, but I don't have direct experiences at all with photography and camera gear. For this, I seek your help

I made up my mind and, short after the next Photokina I plan to buy this stuff:

1. -Pentax K-3 II
2. -Sigma 8-16
3. -Sigma 18-35
4. -Pentax 55-300 (newer or older version?)

for these reasons:

1. 719€ on amazon.de, K-70 at 699€... so far, it seems a better choice for autofocus and astrotracer - might be worse for autofocus...this is also my price ceiling unfortunatelly, so probably I can't afford a K-3 III soon.
   I am losing in low light abilities compared to K-70?
2. resolution and linear wide lens. Pentax 10-17 is fisheye right? What I am honestly losing if I will "defished" all my future shot made with a Pentax 10-17? Are there some reasons to prefer the Pentax interpretation?
3. I love the idea behind this lens. Being a collection of primes in a small, versatile pocket. For the same reason, I love the 50-100. Too bad it's still unavailble for Pentax. Hope it will be soon*
4. just a "inexpensive" (400€... not too much), telephoto zoom. Any alternatives?

*I'll buy Pentax, that's for sure because of its SR, Pixelshift, Astrotracer and general better features compared to same price competitors' models. Hope Pentax or Sigma will realease a lens with same carachteristic. Otherwise, I'll end buying two prime max.

I am right in what I'm doing? Are there better options in a same price range? What are the main problems of this lenses? I already know about Sigma 18-35 AF problem. Probably I'll buy the Sigma 8-16 in a second time just to sweeten a bang on my wallet

Some informations on subject I plan to shot: family, travel, timelapses. Don't know if in future, I'll expand my interest in shooting. I already have a camcorder so, even if I dreamed of having a second camera for videos, this is not an area of my interest. I'm a student, so "less I spend, more is better" but I'm also perfectionist. So if there's a solution that allow me to spend a little bit more, obtaining a lot more, tell me. I might considered it
As I plan to shot travel photo of architecture, weight can be a problem (that is the reason I love Sigma 18-35 and 50-100). I already have a Lowepro Flipside 10L AW which I plan to use and I don't want to exceed space needed allowed by this bag. For this reasons, is a 18-135 useful? Which do you suggest me to buy? Also, I'll never be interested in full frames. Too much big and that 1,5x in range can be interesting (same range, cheaper lenses)

Thank you in advance

P.S.: bonus question: I loved Christopher Frost's videos. Is there something similar for Pentax lenses? I saw LeeHaze1's videos... But they are not on par in quality and characteristics reviewed...

---

Last edited by Sasha; 08-13-2016 at 08:53 AM.

[robgski]

Personally, I love the Pentax 10-17mm, on the K-3 it is Fishy at the 10-13mm end but more like an Ultra-wide at the 14-17mm end. It's a very sharp lens that adds a beautiful finishing touch to every subject, I'd buy this lens before I bought any other in that range. I have a Rokinon 8mm that is great fro the super fishy look.

I'd buy the 18-135 WR as the walk-around all purpose lens. Having a WR lens at hand is great when the weather is less than perfect.

I have a DA 55-300, good telephoto lens for most situations.

[normhead]

If using the Sigma 8-16 for travel its 545 gm, more than a pound.
Sigma 10-20 520 gm
Tamron 10-24 406 gm,

I love my Sigma 8-16 for architecture, but for most travel, I'd save the weight and go with the Tamron 10-24. Apparently the 8-16 8mm, lines up with what any other lens's 10mm. It's great lens and quite sharp, but for me 140 grams is 140 grams, if I'm carrying it.

The Sigma 18-35, I also don't understand from a weight perspective. 810 grams.
Pentax 20-40 283 grams
Unless you want the narrow DoF and wide aperture of the 18-35, why bother with all that weight?

My advice would be Tamron 10-24
Pentax DA 16-85 499 gm
DA 55-300.
Lots of overlap to save lens changes.

Or Tamron 10-24
Pentax DA 20-40
And DA 55-300

Not so much overlap but lighter and easier to carry.

I own an 18-135, and I'll never get rid of it or purchase the 16-85, but buying today, I'd buy the 16-85. faster aperture, comparable or better image quality. IMHO the current best option for a walk around lens. But the 18-135 is quite good if you buy it with the camera body as part of a kit. The savings in price can go towards another lens.

The Tamron 10-24 also opens up the possibility of using the new Pentax (Tamron) 28-105 as a walk around. )440 gms.

MY advice has always been cover your desired range in zooms, fill in with primes where desired. Add a DA 50 1.8 for low light shooting and you're all set.

[aaacb]

I had to make the same choice between the k3ii and the ks2, and the k3ii was so close in price. Fairly overkill camera, but adaptable and a joy to use.

Instead of the kit zoom, I got a 35mm prime ( I prefer primes so there's my bias). If you get a wide angle lens (zoom or otherwise), there's little practical need to cover every focal length, and the 35mm/2.4 is pretty nice and cheap. Or a 35 limited macro if your budget allows. Same goes for the tele, from 35 to 55 you will likely not miss much. But a prime is way smaller and lighter, the sigma 18-35 being particularly hefty...

[swanlefitte]

I have the sigma 18-35. Its heavy. I wouldn't use it for travel. Its alot of primes but for travel i would prefer the small primes and a bit of cropping. If a zoom then the 16-85.

[robgski]

I prefer primes so there's my bias

I also prefer primes, I work harder to composse the shot, moving closer or further away, when I use a prime. When travelling I don't like to change lenses, so I make the best of the lens I've selevted for that trip. The 35mm is a good start, just over 50mm equivalent on the K-3.

I do have an SMC-A 28-135 zoom that is both heavy and bulky, but the shots it takes are so sharp I will often bear that burden.

[Sasha]

Personally, I love the Pentax 10-17mm, on the K-3 it is Fishy at the 10-13mm end but more like an Ultra-wide at the 14-17mm end. It's a very sharp lens that adds a beautiful finishing touch to every subject, I'd buy this lens before I bought any other in that range. I have a Rokinon 8mm that is great fro the super fishy look.

I don't like the fisheye effect very much... If I will buy this lens, I suppose I will use it just for a few shots... I prefer linear one, as I plan to use these kind of lenses also for night timelapses...
Is it possible to defishing shots? Is it a fast procedure? If so, may I ask you to give me a before/after of one of your shot of your chioice below 14mm?

@normhead: wow! Thank you for taking so much time answering me. So appreciated! Seems anyway that some explanations are needed. Listening to "S health" app and my smartphone, I often walk more than 15 Km each day and being still a student, I often carry with me a 3-4 Kg bag (that Lowepro Flipside 10L) with books, copybooks and a 2-in-1 (ASUS T100HA)... 140g more won't be for now a problem. What I intended with weight was that I hope to find a small set of jack of all trades lenses that I can bring with me and shot anything I want, anywhere I am. This is the reason I love these 18-35 & 50-100. They are compact, and they cover all focal lenght covered by good primes... Plus, it seems they have great charactestics too...

Anyway, as swanlefitte said too, that Pentax 16-85 is very interesting... And because my budget won't cover both,I will probably considered it in favor of a Sigma 18-35... I would love to have shallow DoF and large apertures... But, at this point, it's effectively not that useful... Maybe I'll buy a prime when I'll know what is the focal lenght I prefer to shot with... Thank you ^_^

Instead of the kit zoom, I got a 35mm prime ( I prefer primes so there's my bias). If you get a wide angle lens (zoom or otherwise), there's little practical need to cover every focal length, and the 35mm/2.4 is pretty nice and cheap. Or a 35 limited macro if your budget allows. Same goes for the tele, from 35 to 55 you will likely not miss much. But a prime is way smaller and lighter, the sigma 18-35 being particularly hefty...

I also prefer primes, I work harder to composse the shot, moving closer or further away, when I use a prime. When travelling I don't like to change lenses, so I make the best of the lens I've selevted for that trip. The 35mm is a good start, just over 50mm equivalent on the K-3.

Don't know, being a newbie in photography, I think I will feel pretty limited by buying a prime... But that is just me... Maybe a little more thinking is needed in this area

About that 55-300, is there anybody here which has already bought the new version of this lens? Is that faster compared with the older one, which I prefer for its wider aperture?

EDIT: I checked again for Pentax K-3 II… And 719€ was for the K-3… damn

---

Last edited by Sasha; 08-14-2016 at 01:42 AM.

[Nicolas06]

719€ on amazon.de, K-70 at 699€... so far, it seems a better choice for autofocus and astrotracer - might be worse for autofocus...this is also my price ceiling unfortunatelly, so probably I can't afford a K-3 III soon.
I am losing in low light abilities compared to K-70?

The more I take photos, the more I think that AF is (for me) the most important feature of a modern camera. When the subject is not correctly in focus, the photo go to trash. K3 and K3-II have MUCH better AF using the view finder than K70. That the reason to buy a reflex body and not a mirrorless. On the side K3 and K3-II also are flagship body with higher build quality, much longer expected life span (200K actuation while Pentax Forum found the previous version of K70 to last 30K on average). They also go with more direct access controls. The only real downside is no articulated screen.
If you plan to use RAW files and not JPEG, you'll not find any difference in low light capabilities.

resolution and linear wide lens. Pentax 10-17 is fisheye right? What I am honestly losing if I will "defished" all my future shot made with a Pentax 10-17? Are there some reasons to prefer the Pentax interpretation?

The 10-17 is very different than a 8-16. There more into the frame at 17mm on that 10-17 than on the 8-16 at 8mm. The Pentax is required if you need 120-180° angle of view because it is the only lens on the market to offer a fisheyes zoom. That being said defished pictures are washed on the border/corners and there no much reason to buy a fisheye if you goal is rectilinear.

I love the idea behind this lens. Being a collection of primes in a small, versatile pocket. For the same reason, I love the 50-100. Too bad it's still unavailble for Pentax. Hope it will be soon*

Do not hold your breath, it may never happen. We didn't see any new sigma lens to come into Pentax land for some time.

just a "inexpensive" (400€... not too much), telephoto zoom. Any alternatives?

Nothing better exist for that weight/size new. As you don't seems to mind the weight, a 70-200 f/2.8 from tamron, the screw drive version can go as low as 450€ on used market and 550-600€ new. f/2.8 is a whole different world and because that lens is much sharper I don't think you would miss any practical reach with the tamron. It would also reduce the need for that 50-100. The 70-200 is an old but professionnal lens. The 55-300 a consumer grade one.

*I'll buy Pentax, that's for sure because of its SR, Pixelshift, Astrotracer and general better features compared to same price competitors' models. Hope Pentax or Sigma will realease a lens with same carachteristic. Otherwise, I'll end buying two prime max.

This is all relative. Pentax is likely better for landscapes and small light setup (with FA/DA ltds) or with a kit lens as an absolute better proposition (WR...). But for action/sport or video Pentax is behind. A D7200 would be quite similar price and better for action/sport. Pixeshilf and astro tracer are completely irrelevant for action shots, the AF is and pentax lag behind there. SR only matter with lenses that come without optical stabilization. This is less and less common.

Some informations on subject I plan to shot: family, travel, timelapses. Don't know if in future, I'll expand my interest in shooting. I already have a camcorder so, even if I dreamed of having a second camera for videos, this is not an area of my interest. I'm a student, so "less I spend, more is better" but I'm also perfectionist. So if there's a solution that allow me to spend a little bit more, obtaining a lot more, tell me. I might considered it
As I plan to shot travel photo of architecture, weight can be a problem (that is the reason I love Sigma 18-35 and 50-100). I already have a Lowepro Flipside 10L AW which I plan to use and I don't want to exceed space needed allowed by this bag. For this reasons, is a 18-135 useful? Which do you suggest me to buy? Also, I'll never be interested in full frames. Too much big and that 1,5x in range can be interesting (same range, cheaper lenses)

Pixelshift feature only worth it on tripod. This isn't especially light or travel friendly. While pixelshift can bring a lot when you take your time to shot on tripod, in particular if you plan to print in 30x40" or more. For day to day use, I think it is more a gimmick for most than a real useful feature. It would not apply for familly shots or travel except if you also plan to bring in the tripod and have lot of time to nail the perfect shot, setup the tripod etc. Astrotracer also require a tripod and to really plan you shots. If you are not an astro photography fan you may end up use it 2-3 time over the whole life span of your camera.

You look after 18-35 f/1.8 and 50-100 f/2. The lenses are huge and expensive and one of theses don't exist in K-mount. Apparently very fast lenses have quite high value for you. But if you look enough in your own local market, you'll be able to find an FF for something like 1000€/$ so only 300€ more. You'd be able to put sigma/tamron f/2.8 lenses on it for a very low price. For example the tamron 28-75 and tamron 70-200. In term of deph of field, low light gathering or even size/weight that is quite similar. In term of price, that is also similar. K3-II + 18-35 + 55-300 + 8-16 = 2400€. Here D610 + tamron 28-75 + tamron 70-200 + sigma 12-24 = 2600€. But the latter proposition would bring more quality overall.

The 1.5 crop factor is not that real thing because an FF still allows to crop to APSC size and you have more margin to put in TCs and alike. There no a single case where the D610 + 70-200 would not outperform the K3-II + 55-300 and if you add a 1.4 TC, there no single case where K3-II + 70-200 would beat D610 + 70-200.

For me you are really in the case where FF does make lot of sense. The size argument doesn't hold when you plan to buy the huge behemoh that are the 18-35 and 50-100.

[Nicolas06]

Is it possible to defishing shots? Is it a fast procedure? If so, may I ask you to give me a before/after of one of your shot of your chioice below 14mm?

Yes and very easy. For example DxO does it by default so that just a click on the raw processor. Depending of the software that may be different.

As for how it look, I provided some samples here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/316001-da-1...ml#post3563697

Don't know, being a newbie in photography, I think I will feel pretty limited by buying a prime... But that is just me... Maybe a little more thinking is needed in this area

I started with zoom and the good thing is with a single zoom (for me was 17-70 f/4) you can do most of your photography. No lens swap, no much to buy. it is practical.

But now I am mostly a prime guy. The Pentax primes are the exact opposite of the 18-35, 50-100 or other huge/heavy lenses. They also come with unique rendering characteristics that overall make the photo look better. The subject almost seems to pop from the screen, the out of focus area render better, they have more contrast, require less post processing to get the desired result.

I have no issue myself to stick to a single prime for a long time (1 hour or 2), it challenge me to find more interresting compositions. Also people don't seem to notice me as much with a small prime even with a big DSLR like a K3 than if I had a zoom lens. It seem that a small lens is overlooked by most people. For video, this is different, you may not have the opportunity to swap lenses as easily without loosing precious second of movie.

Examples of some shots with my primes:













If you don't know really if you'll like photography, if you want primes or zooms etc, you could simply start with an all in one kit lens. Perfectly fine for travel or anything outdoor and not that expensive like the 18-135 or the 16-85. At worst add a cheap prime for low light (DA35 f/2.4, DA50 f/1.8) and that let you discover both world (primes vs zooms) and discover what are the focal length you really want as a still shooter.

About that 55-300, is there anybody here which has already bought the new version of this lens? Is that faster compared with the older one, which I prefer for its wider aperture?

The new one work only on K3-II, K1, KS2, K70 something like that. But not K3. It is smaller, snapier in video / live view... And also a bit slower overall in term of appertures. The key benefit for still if you have the matching body is the size/weight. I think nobody really had the time to check its real performance. I'd not be surprised if it would be a bit less sharp at 300mm wide open counting the additionnal constraints on size but this would require an actual formal test to check that.

EDIT: I checked again for Pentax K-3 II… And 719€ was for the K-3… damn

There no real difference in features between the 2.

[anu l]

Hi guys,

a very few of you may know me. For the others, I'm a student who, for 4 years, shots mainly videos with a camcorder. Then I saw timelapses, I wanted to make my own and I developed my own interpretation of a motorized slider + head (pan/tilt) controlled with Arduino. I've already read Langford's Advanced Photography and saw a lot of videos. So I may know things, but I don't have direct experiences at all with photography and camera gear. For this, I seek your help

I made up my mind and, short after the next Photokina I plan to buy this stuff:

1. -Pentax K-3 II
2. -Sigma 8-16
3. -Sigma 18-35
4. -Pentax 55-300 (newer or older version?)

for these reasons:

1. 719€ on amazon.de, K-70 at 699€... so far, it seems a better choice for autofocus and astrotracer - might be worse for autofocus...this is also my price ceiling unfortunatelly, so probably I can't afford a K-3 III soon.
   I am losing in low light abilities compared to K-70?
2. resolution and linear wide lens. Pentax 10-17 is fisheye right? What I am honestly losing if I will "defished" all my future shot made with a Pentax 10-17? Are there some reasons to prefer the Pentax interpretation?
3. I love the idea behind this lens. Being a collection of primes in a small, versatile pocket. For the same reason, I love the 50-100. Too bad it's still unavailble for Pentax. Hope it will be soon*
4. just a "inexpensive" (400€... not too much), telephoto zoom. Any alternatives?

*I'll buy Pentax, that's for sure because of its SR, Pixelshift, Astrotracer and general better features compared to same price competitors' models. Hope Pentax or Sigma will realease a lens with same carachteristic. Otherwise, I'll end buying two prime max.

I am right in what I'm doing? Are there better options in a same price range? What are the main problems of this lenses? I already know about Sigma 18-35 AF problem. Probably I'll buy the Sigma 8-16 in a second time just to sweeten a bang on my wallet

Some informations on subject I plan to shot: family, travel, timelapses. Don't know if in future, I'll expand my interest in shooting. I already have a camcorder so, even if I dreamed of having a second camera for videos, this is not an area of my interest. I'm a student, so "less I spend, more is better" but I'm also perfectionist. So if there's a solution that allow me to spend a little bit more, obtaining a lot more, tell me. I might considered it
As I plan to shot travel photo of architecture, weight can be a problem (that is the reason I love Sigma 18-35 and 50-100). I already have a Lowepro Flipside 10L AW which I plan to use and I don't want to exceed space needed allowed by this bag. For this reasons, is a 18-135 useful? Which do you suggest me to buy? Also, I'll never be interested in full frames. Too much big and that 1,5x in range can be interesting (same range, cheaper lenses)

Thank you in advance

P.S.: bonus question: I loved Christopher Frost's videos. Is there something similar for Pentax lenses? I saw LeeHaze1's videos... But they are not on par in quality and characteristics reviewed...

have you considered fast primes, also have you considered fast constant aperture zooms,

the fast 16-50 or 17-50 f/2.8 zooms although isnt as versatile zoom, is very good for Out of focus backgrounds, plus work better in low light & night photography. In my opinion they have a higher artistic value.
the tamron goes as cheap as 200-250$, the sigma is better built, slightly expensive, the Pentax is most expensive but comes with WR.

for more telephoto the 55-300 is the best lens (probably the best among all Canon, Nikon & Pentax thanks to it's great performance at the telephoto end)

[Nicolas06]

for more telephoto the 55-300 is the best lens (probably the best among all Canon, Nikon & Pentax thanks to it's great performance at the telephoto end)

Let's not exagerate,already the non L version of Canon look a bit better and the L version look to be charper at 300mm than the 60-250 is at 250mm...

The latest tamron USD also look pretty good, and has similar price but is not available in K-mount.

The Pentax is the best in K-mount as price/performance compromize and a great lens overall. It is sharp for that focal lens and price... But not that sharp in absolute at 300mm. There other choice in Pentax, Canon or Nikon if you want something that has a better performance.

[anu l]

Let's not exagerate,already the non L version of Canon look a bit better and the L version look to be charper at 300mm than the 60-250 is at 250mm...

The latest tamron USD also look pretty good, and has similar price but is not available in K-mount.

The Pentax is the best in K-mount as price/performance compromize and a great lens overall. It is sharp for that focal lens and price... But not that sharp in absolute at 300mm. There other choice in Pentax, Canon or Nikon if you want something that has a better performance.

Actually I was referring to this comparison....

have a look at the sharpness scores at 300mm and the chromatic aberration scores....

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM on Canon EOS 760D vs Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED on Nikon D5300 vs Pentax smc PENTAX DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED on Pentax K-3

[Nicolas06]

Actually I was referring to this comparison....

have a look at the sharpness scores at 300mm and the chromatic aberration scores....

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM on Canon EOS 760D vs Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED on Nikon D5300 vs Pentax smc PENTAX DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED on Pentax K-3

That only 3 lenses and only some models. The only real difference come from the Canon that a bit less sharp but measure on a sensor with a low pass filter so that display less details. Thete no canon L apparently tested on Dxo, neither the latest tamron/sigma that look very good and cheap... On photozone, the Canon even non L perform better than the 55-300 and the tamron USD too. The Canon L is also significantly better.

And that only for the 70-300 / 55-300 range... In quality, even limited to Pentax, the 60-250, 70-200, 150-450, DA200, DA300 are all going to provide more reach in practice, even if you have to crop and use a TC than the 55-300 so why should it be the best ?

I could go along for best price/performance/weight in K-mount but surely not best absolute quality by far...

I own one and that for the best compromize price/performance/weight. The lens very great, but one has to know the limitations of the tool he use.

[krazykat]

Apparently the 8-16 8mm, lines up with what any other lens's 10mm.

Sigma 8-16 Horizontal Angle of View @ 8mm = 114.5 degrees
Tamron 10-24 AoV @ 10mm = 98.28 degrees
Sigma 10-20 AoV @ 10mm = 102.4 degrees

If anything, Tamrons 10mm lines up with other lens's 11mm.

I've taken the Sigma 8-16 travelling many times and never had a problem with the heft. The added bonus is it's sharper in the corners wide open than other comparable ultra wide zooms are stopped down.

[TER-OR]

I have the 10-17, I don't use it that often but there is no substitute for a fisheye. At 10mm it's truely fishy. At 17, it's an UWA lens.

I have used the 8-16 and its perspective is much different. It tends to isolate subjects in its foreframe, and "push" everything else away. Really, it's amazing to see. For landscape, if you have a horizontal anchor like a river, the horizon, a road, the eye understands this lens. If you lack that anchor, the image looks very distorted - I think the brain is focusing on the center and the image looks like what we see in our mind. The lens is big, though, and has a reputation for fragility. The 10-17 is tiny in comparison.

You will find both lenses used in the Marketplace occasionally. Set your keywords and keep an eye open.