which combo of lenses?

jmdeegan · 07-25-2008, 07:51 PM

so I am thinking of buying one new lens in the near future, and I have it down to two choices.

1-pentax 18-250...I've used this briefly, and liked it. its hard to say anything bad about the convenience of the lens, and it's longer by 50mm than anything I currently have.

2-pentax 55-300...havent touched it, but between its rave reviews and the extra 100mm, it's something to think about.

either lens would be a move toward lightening my travel pack. for example, an upcoming family trip to aruba, i am thinking of running with either
a-18-250, 10-20 and 10-17
b-16-45, 55-300, 10-20 and 10-17

the idea being, i can bring fewer lenses and less weight with me. the 18-250 i like because except for those special shots, that lens probably never comes off the camera. i know it wont be as good as my 50-135, but it weighs a lot less, and stores in a smaller footprint. also covers more ground.

right now, im leaning toward the 18-250, but just curious what the general consensus is....who would do what and why.

SpecialK · 07-25-2008, 10:02 PM

I think you could get by with the 18-250 and the 10-17.

The 55-300 has nice IQ and is cheaper than the 18-250 by about $100 or so. The 16-45 would complement it pretty well.

I would not do a big travel without the 10-17.

DJey · 07-25-2008, 11:59 PM

Which do you prefer? IQ or Comfort?
Comfort! = 18-250 + UWA/Fisheye
IQ! = 16-45 + 55-300 + UWA/Fisheye

Venturi · 07-26-2008, 04:48 PM

I would personally take your 50-135 and the 18-250. 18-250 gives you versatility in a single lens, and the 50-135 gives you fast glass for the night life. The 16-45/55-300 combo gives you better IQ possibly but leaves you with no fast glass at all on the trip and multiple lenses required to cover the same basic range.

Confused · 07-26-2008, 06:05 PM

Hi jmdeegan

Re your present dilemma:

Quote:

a-18-250, 10-20 and 10-17

I hope you don't mind me asking, but unless you're possibly worried about encountering problematic low-light situations, I'm slightly puzzled WHY you feel the need to take BOTH the 10-20 and 10-17 along with you ?

As for DJey's comment:

Quote:

Which do you prefer? IQ or Comfort?

Well actually both if possible ! Quite frankly, I have come to the point where I am getting thoroughly sick to the back teeth hearing from ill-informed individuals that often don't even own an item, who subsequently decide to start denigrating it by expressing critical remarks with precious little justification.

FWIW I have been fortunate to work my way up from 35mm film SLR's through MF up to 5" x 4" technical cameras and if I believed for one moment that the Tamron 18-250mm was not up to scratch, I'd be the first to admit it !

There IS slight barrel distortion at the wide-end which is totally subject dependent and slight pin-cushion at the other. So what....BIG DEAL ! Have you never heard of PP images before? If you think it's possible to design such an amazing lens as this one without encountering a certain degree of compromise, then you're sadly mistaken !!

Despite this however, IMHO for the most part the 18-250mm remains an incredibly flexible and optically sharp lens and I'd have no hesitation WHATSOEVER recommending it to anyone on the lookout for a decent walk-around zoom. If you prefer to cart tons of gear around with you all the time, then naturally that's your prerogative, but when I travel nowadays I prefer to do so as lightly as possible and with the Sigma 10-20mm permanently attached to my other K10D body, I couldn't be happier !

Best regards
Richard

jmdeegan · 07-26-2008, 09:04 PM

Venturi-the idea was to leave the 50-135 at home to save weight. Not too concerned about "night shots". This is a family trip, mostly will be shots of my kids on the beach or in the water.

Confused-the reasons why I will bring both the 10-17FE and 10-20 are easy enough...first, I love both lenses. 2nd, they are both very different, in terms of what their purpose is. They are not interchangeable, and I dislike using software to de-fisheye a shot. I bought the FE for a purpose

I am leaning toward the 55-300 at this point. Should be noted that because of their size, odds are the 40 limited and 50/1.7 will make the trip too. I've been using the 40 a fair bit, not so much the 50. But again, they take up hardly any space

07-25-2008, 07:51 PM	#1
jmdeegan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: nyc Photos: Gallery Posts: 564	which combo of lenses? so I am thinking of buying one new lens in the near future, and I have it down to two choices. 1-pentax 18-250...I've used this briefly, and liked it. its hard to say anything bad about the convenience of the lens, and it's longer by 50mm than anything I currently have. 2-pentax 55-300...havent touched it, but between its rave reviews and the extra 100mm, it's something to think about. either lens would be a move toward lightening my travel pack. for example, an upcoming family trip to aruba, i am thinking of running with either a-18-250, 10-20 and 10-17 b-16-45, 55-300, 10-20 and 10-17 the idea being, i can bring fewer lenses and less weight with me. the 18-250 i like because except for those special shots, that lens probably never comes off the camera. i know it wont be as good as my 50-135, but it weighs a lot less, and stores in a smaller footprint. also covers more ground. right now, im leaning toward the 18-250, but just curious what the general consensus is....who would do what and why.

07-26-2008, 06:05 PM	#5
Confused Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: London Posts: 1,067	Hi jmdeegan Re your present dilemma: Quote: a-18-250, 10-20 and 10-17 I hope you don't mind me asking, but unless you're possibly worried about encountering problematic low-light situations, I'm slightly puzzled WHY you feel the need to take BOTH the 10-20 and 10-17 along with you ? As for DJey's comment: Quote: Which do you prefer? IQ or Comfort? Well actually both if possible ! Quite frankly, I have come to the point where I am getting thoroughly sick to the back teeth hearing from ill-informed individuals that often don't even own an item, who subsequently decide to start denigrating it by expressing critical remarks with precious little justification. FWIW I have been fortunate to work my way up from 35mm film SLR's through MF up to 5" x 4" technical cameras and if I believed for one moment that the Tamron 18-250mm was not up to scratch, I'd be the first to admit it ! There IS slight barrel distortion at the wide-end which is totally subject dependent and slight pin-cushion at the other. So what....BIG DEAL ! Have you never heard of PP images before? If you think it's possible to design such an amazing lens as this one without encountering a certain degree of compromise, then you're sadly mistaken !! Despite this however, IMHO for the most part the 18-250mm remains an incredibly flexible and optically sharp lens and I'd have no hesitation WHATSOEVER recommending it to anyone on the lookout for a decent walk-around zoom. If you prefer to cart tons of gear around with you all the time, then naturally that's your prerogative, but when I travel nowadays I prefer to do so as lightly as possible and with the Sigma 10-20mm permanently attached to my other K10D body, I couldn't be happier ! Best regards Richard Last edited by Confused; 07-26-2008 at 06:28 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K7 and 70 combo?	nostatic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	08-26-2009 03:59 AM
Best lens combo for birds?	swhang	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	06-23-2009 02:30 PM
Which DA* Combo to save up for?	leadbelly	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	04-16-2008 09:07 PM
What about the Tokina 16-50/50-135 combo?	MJB DIGITAL	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	03-12-2008 02:41 AM
2 lens combo? (New to Pentax)	badlydrawnboy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	08-18-2007 06:47 AM

07-25-2008, 10:02 PM	#2
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	I think you could get by with the 18-250 and the 10-17. The 55-300 has nice IQ and is cheaper than the 18-250 by about $100 or so. The 16-45 would complement it pretty well. I would not do a big travel without the 10-17.

07-25-2008, 11:59 PM	#3
DJey Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 284	Which do you prefer? IQ or Comfort? Comfort! = 18-250 + UWA/Fisheye IQ! = 16-45 + 55-300 + UWA/Fisheye

07-26-2008, 04:48 PM	#4
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	I would personally take your 50-135 and the 18-250. 18-250 gives you versatility in a single lens, and the 50-135 gives you fast glass for the night life. The 16-45/55-300 combo gives you better IQ possibly but leaves you with no fast glass at all on the trip and multiple lenses required to cover the same basic range.

07-26-2008, 09:04 PM	#6
jmdeegan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: nyc Photos: Gallery Posts: 564 Original Poster	Venturi-the idea was to leave the 50-135 at home to save weight. Not too concerned about "night shots". This is a family trip, mostly will be shots of my kids on the beach or in the water. Confused-the reasons why I will bring both the 10-17FE and 10-20 are easy enough...first, I love both lenses. 2nd, they are both very different, in terms of what their purpose is. They are not interchangeable, and I dislike using software to de-fisheye a shot. I bought the FE for a purpose I am leaning toward the 55-300 at this point. Should be noted that because of their size, odds are the 40 limited and 50/1.7 will make the trip too. I've been using the 40 a fair bit, not so much the 50. But again, they take up hardly any space