Does exist a really good everyday zoom lens?

Kozlok · 03-23-2017, 06:06 AM

I have the 18-135 and the first-generation Sigma 17-70, along with a collection of great primes. When I'm traveling light, if it's dry out, I prefer the Sigma to the 18-135. The 18-135 is my WR lens option, though, when the rain comes.

The Sigma isn't as good as the primes, but it's really quite acceptable. I usually pop a fast prime in a pocket for indoors, and the DA 15 because it controls my mind.

**lsimpkins** · 03-23-2017, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Exhale

Hi, along my K3 i currently own a 50mm f1.8 (Love it!) and a Sigma 10-20 for landscapes. Obviously i own also the kit 18-55 but i think it's horrible even stopped down so i won't consider it.

Now, i was looking for a good everyday lens, and i bought the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.
I immediately found it very slow and not accurate in focusing, heavy front focus that i couldn't fix with micro adjustment, a setting of -6 works at 17mm but it does not at 35, a -4 adjustment works at 35 but blurs everything at 50. Apparently with Live view it worked fine every time without adjustments, and that bothers me even more.

So, the tamron is going back to amazon and in the meanwhile i'm wondering if really exist a fully trusted normal zoom for pentax, i read that the 17-70 has AF problems too, the DA 16-50 has reliable AF but is soft, and the Sigma 16-50 f2.8 suffers of F/B focus depending to models.

Should i only use primes?

I am very pleased with my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. It is my most used lens and a BIG upgrade from the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens. I have had no focus issues. It is quiet and fast. But as with any lens, unit to unit variation may yield slightly different results.

DeadJohn · 03-23-2017, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Exhale

Yes i know this lens is good on sharpness, but if i have to spend consistent money on a lens i want it to be at least f2.8

Here are your f2.8 general purpose zooms for k-mount:

Pentax 16-50
Pentax 24-70
Tamron 17-50
Tamron 28-75
Sigma 17-50. You already ruled this one out.

Why do you need f2.8? If it's for occasional handheld low light use or shallow depth of field, use your 50/1.8 for that, and reconsider the 16-85 and 18-135 as your general purpose zoom.

Exhale · 03-23-2017, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by DeadJohn

Here are your f2.8 general purpose zooms for k-mount:

Pentax 16-50
Pentax 24-70
Tamron 17-50
Tamron 28-75
Sigma 17-50. You already ruled this one out.

Why do you need f2.8? If it's for occasional handheld low light use or shallow depth of field, use your 50/1.8 for that, and reconsider the 16-85 and 18-135 as your general purpose zoom.

I'm a graphic designer in a graphic/communication agency and from time to time i have to shoot evening and indoor events (car presentations, company celebrations, etc), so a zoom with 2.8 aperture would be very useful for those occasions

**Jim P** · 03-23-2017, 08:35 AM

I am about to purchase a zoom as a walk around lens for travel for a K-3ii. I've been looking at all these same options and determined that the max aperture is not a big issue. I also have the Sigma 10-20 and fast primes. What are the opinions of the HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR or the Pentax D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6ED DC WR HD Lens.

C_Jones · 03-23-2017, 08:47 AM

Pentax 16-85.

**TwoUptons** · 03-23-2017, 09:47 AM

I really like my 16-50 Pentax.

It's sharp, quiet, and focuses well on all of my cameras.

It is heavy, though, and it has a bad reliability reputation, but I'm a fan...

-Eric

VoiceOfReason · 03-23-2017, 10:12 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Jim P

I am about to purchase a zoom as a walk around lens for travel for a K-3ii. I've been looking at all these same options and determined that the max aperture is not a big issue. I also have the Sigma 10-20 and fast primes. What are the opinions of the HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR or the Pentax D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6ED DC WR HD Lens.

The 18-135 would serve you better with APSC. It has more range and since you're not FF you will miss the wider end. The difference in 18 and 28mm on APSC in FoV is huge. The 18-135 will give reasonably sharp lenses, a step above normal consumer grade stuff, and is silent and fast to focus. WR too, so shooting in light rain or blowing dust is not a problem. For my K3 is was used more than the other lenses I have and had.

MrB1 · 03-23-2017, 10:14 AM

I'm surprised that you would ditch the Tamron so easily - surely, if it is under warranty and not functioning correctly, you could get it properly calibrated for your camera?

Philip

Nicolas06 · 03-23-2017, 12:18 PM

All lenses are good within their capacity, including the kit lens 18-55. My father has it on top of its limited and it does a fine job. He has also the 18-135 that works just fine with fine AF and WR... And I had the 17-70 that is fine too. I found it a bit soft at time but now I learned that I was simply not very good at PP and even using my gear at that time.

If you really want quality, often primes deliver more than zooms. Even if they are not always (but often) sharper, they tend to render better and that's much more important.

If your pictures don't look stuning with the 18-55, outside of occasions where you really need a wide apperture, or a different focal range, this is really you the photographer that is to blame, not the lens. What a new lens can offer you is mostly wider apperture or different focal range. But that's about it. True the best lens will make a stuning shoot a bit more stuning and is far easier to buy gear than to become better if you have the money. But if your photo is so-so it will still look so-so whatever the lens.

Look at what some pro are doing with their kit lens:
Equipment and Where The Money Comes From | Zhang Jingna - Fashion, Fine Art, Beauty, Commercial Photography Blog

Now, what can appen is that you really think you need the best out there and can't be satisfied otherwise. Well the best is very expensive. That isn't the tamron 17-50. I mean it was easy to guess reading 5 second that is was smaller lighter, more conveniant then, but that it is screw drive and that it has field curvature. If you read a bit the reviews.

The next level obviously is the sigma 17-50. Bigger heavier with silent AF motor. But still we are still in "value" lenses that are truely great for their great price/performance compromize. But there NO WAY if you are picky you'll accept them as a substitute to the Pentax 24-70 + K1 for example.

At some point you can't be picky, looking for small issues, ask for wide appertures, the best AF and perfect sharpness and target entry level prices...

Yes maybe you should stick with primes, (I do, and not the worst by far), that a pleasure to use. But that just the cherry on the cake. I know that most of quality of my photos, or the lack of it, come from me. Not the gear.

DeadJohn · 03-23-2017, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Jim P

...What are the opinions of the HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR or the Pentax D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6ED DC WR HD Lens

You mentioned the same lens twice. Anyway, the 28-105 is a very good lens if you don't need a wide aperture. Very good image quality in a compact, inexpensive lens.

28mm is good for the full frame K-1, but I prefer wider for APS-C sensors.

STEEWPHOTOGRAPHY · 03-23-2017, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Exhale

Hi, along my K3 i currently own a 50mm f1.8 (Love it!) and a Sigma 10-20 for landscapes. Obviously i own also the kit 18-55 but i think it's horrible even stopped down so i won't consider it.

Now, i was looking for a good everyday lens, and i bought the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.
I immediately found it very slow and not accurate in focusing, heavy front focus that i couldn't fix with micro adjustment, a setting of -6 works at 17mm but it does not at 35, a -4 adjustment works at 35 but blurs everything at 50. Apparently with Live view it worked fine every time without adjustments, and that bothers me even more.

So, the tamron is going back to amazon and in the meanwhile i'm wondering if really exist a fully trusted normal zoom for pentax, i read that the 17-70 has AF problems too, the DA 16-50 has reliable AF but is soft, and the Sigma 16-50 f2.8 suffers of F/B focus depending to models.

Should i only use primes?

I'm using the Tamron 18-200mm and I have to say I'm very happy with it maybe look for it on Amazon or Ebay

Steew

**dms** · 03-23-2017, 03:01 PM

The FA 28-70mm f/4?
It is not f/2.8, but it likely fits with your wider zoom, is (IMO) excellent, and is inexpensive (just picked up a second one from KEH--EXC for $56 as I recall). It is one of my most used lens for theatre photography. I would have no difficulty using for evening, etc. OK at f/4, quite good at f/5.6.

**caliscouser** · 03-23-2017, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Exhale

I'm a graphic designer in a graphic/communication agency and from time to time i have to shoot evening and indoor events (car presentations, company celebrations, etc), so a zoom with 2.8 aperture would be very useful for those occasions

I don't think anyone mentioned the Sigma 18-35 1.8, seems tailor made for that sort of work if the focal range is long enough.

ZombieArmy · 03-23-2017, 06:16 PM

I love my Tammy 17-50 personally. Focusing doesn't seem too slow for me. Maybe your copy is bad?

03-23-2017, 08:14 AM	#18
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,834	Originally posted by Exhale Yes i know this lens is good on sharpness, but if i have to spend consistent money on a lens i want it to be at least f2.8 Here are your f2.8 general purpose zooms for k-mount: Pentax 16-50 Pentax 24-70 Tamron 17-50 Tamron 28-75 Sigma 17-50. You already ruled this one out. Why do you need f2.8? If it's for occasional handheld low light use or shallow depth of field, use your 50/1.8 for that, and reconsider the 16-85 and 18-135 as your general purpose zoom.

03-23-2017, 08:23 AM	#19
Exhale New Member Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 18 Original Poster	Originally posted by DeadJohn Here are your f2.8 general purpose zooms for k-mount: Pentax 16-50 Pentax 24-70 Tamron 17-50 Tamron 28-75 Sigma 17-50. You already ruled this one out. Why do you need f2.8? If it's for occasional handheld low light use or shallow depth of field, use your 50/1.8 for that, and reconsider the 16-85 and 18-135 as your general purpose zoom. I'm a graphic designer in a graphic/communication agency and from time to time i have to shoot evening and indoor events (car presentations, company celebrations, etc), so a zoom with 2.8 aperture would be very useful for those occasions

03-23-2017, 12:18 PM	#25
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	All lenses are good within their capacity, including the kit lens 18-55. My father has it on top of its limited and it does a fine job. He has also the 18-135 that works just fine with fine AF and WR... And I had the 17-70 that is fine too. I found it a bit soft at time but now I learned that I was simply not very good at PP and even using my gear at that time. If you really want quality, often primes deliver more than zooms. Even if they are not always (but often) sharper, they tend to render better and that's much more important. If your pictures don't look stuning with the 18-55, outside of occasions where you really need a wide apperture, or a different focal range, this is really you the photographer that is to blame, not the lens. What a new lens can offer you is mostly wider apperture or different focal range. But that's about it. True the best lens will make a stuning shoot a bit more stuning and is far easier to buy gear than to become better if you have the money. But if your photo is so-so it will still look so-so whatever the lens. Look at what some pro are doing with their kit lens: Equipment and Where The Money Comes From \| Zhang Jingna - Fashion, Fine Art, Beauty, Commercial Photography Blog Now, what can appen is that you really think you need the best out there and can't be satisfied otherwise. Well the best is very expensive. That isn't the tamron 17-50. I mean it was easy to guess reading 5 second that is was smaller lighter, more conveniant then, but that it is screw drive and that it has field curvature. If you read a bit the reviews. The next level obviously is the sigma 17-50. Bigger heavier with silent AF motor. But still we are still in "value" lenses that are truely great for their great price/performance compromize. But there NO WAY if you are picky you'll accept them as a substitute to the Pentax 24-70 + K1 for example. At some point you can't be picky, looking for small issues, ask for wide appertures, the best AF and perfect sharpness and target entry level prices... Yes maybe you should stick with primes, (I do, and not the worst by far), that a pleasure to use. But that just the cherry on the cake. I know that most of quality of my photos, or the lack of it, come from me. Not the gear. Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-23-2017 at 12:28 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Does Mamiya/Sekor 50mm f1.2 really exist?	ducdao	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	04-24-2018 01:33 AM
I really would love a DFA 24-135 f/4 WR. Too bad it doesn't exist.	VoiceOfReason	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	11-29-2016 02:57 PM
portrait zoom, limited range - does it exist?	dagaetch	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	06-06-2015 04:24 PM
What is a really awesome walkaround or everyday lens?	shaX 07	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	10-30-2013 09:02 AM
Question: Super Takumar zoom 135-200, does it exist?	Rense	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	05-04-2009 02:02 PM

03-23-2017, 06:06 AM	#16
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	I have the 18-135 and the first-generation Sigma 17-70, along with a collection of great primes. When I'm traveling light, if it's dry out, I prefer the Sigma to the 18-135. The 18-135 is my WR lens option, though, when the rain comes. The Sigma isn't as good as the primes, but it's really quite acceptable. I usually pop a fast prime in a pocket for indoors, and the DA 15 because it controls my mind.

03-23-2017, 06:56 AM	#17
lsimpkins Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: SE Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 537	Originally posted by Exhale Hi, along my K3 i currently own a 50mm f1.8 (Love it!) and a Sigma 10-20 for landscapes. Obviously i own also the kit 18-55 but i think it's horrible even stopped down so i won't consider it. Now, i was looking for a good everyday lens, and i bought the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I immediately found it very slow and not accurate in focusing, heavy front focus that i couldn't fix with micro adjustment, a setting of -6 works at 17mm but it does not at 35, a -4 adjustment works at 35 but blurs everything at 50. Apparently with Live view it worked fine every time without adjustments, and that bothers me even more. So, the tamron is going back to amazon and in the meanwhile i'm wondering if really exist a fully trusted normal zoom for pentax, i read that the 17-70 has AF problems too, the DA 16-50 has reliable AF but is soft, and the Sigma 16-50 f2.8 suffers of F/B focus depending to models. Should i only use primes? I am very pleased with my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. It is my most used lens and a BIG upgrade from the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens. I have had no focus issues. It is quiet and fast. But as with any lens, unit to unit variation may yield slightly different results.

03-23-2017, 08:35 AM	#20
Jim P Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: California, 93004 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 196	I am about to purchase a zoom as a walk around lens for travel for a K-3ii. I've been looking at all these same options and determined that the max aperture is not a big issue. I also have the Sigma 10-20 and fast primes. What are the opinions of the HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR or the Pentax D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6ED DC WR HD Lens.

03-23-2017, 08:47 AM	#21
C_Jones Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,074	Pentax 16-85.

03-23-2017, 09:47 AM	#22
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,223	I really like my 16-50 Pentax. It's sharp, quiet, and focuses well on all of my cameras. It is heavy, though, and it has a bad reliability reputation, but I'm a fan... -Eric

03-23-2017, 10:12 AM - 1 Like	#23
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Originally posted by Jim P I am about to purchase a zoom as a walk around lens for travel for a K-3ii. I've been looking at all these same options and determined that the max aperture is not a big issue. I also have the Sigma 10-20 and fast primes. What are the opinions of the HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR or the Pentax D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6ED DC WR HD Lens. The 18-135 would serve you better with APSC. It has more range and since you're not FF you will miss the wider end. The difference in 18 and 28mm on APSC in FoV is huge. The 18-135 will give reasonably sharp lenses, a step above normal consumer grade stuff, and is silent and fast to focus. WR too, so shooting in light rain or blowing dust is not a problem. For my K3 is was used more than the other lenses I have and had.

03-23-2017, 10:14 AM	#24
MrB1 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2013 Location: Hertfordshire, England Posts: 845	I'm surprised that you would ditch the Tamron so easily - surely, if it is under warranty and not functioning correctly, you could get it properly calibrated for your camera? Philip

03-23-2017, 01:57 PM	#26
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,834	Originally posted by Jim P ...What are the opinions of the HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR or the Pentax D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6ED DC WR HD Lens You mentioned the same lens twice. Anyway, the 28-105 is a very good lens if you don't need a wide aperture. Very good image quality in a compact, inexpensive lens. 28mm is good for the full frame K-1, but I prefer wider for APS-C sensors.

03-23-2017, 01:58 PM	#27
STEEWPHOTOGRAPHY Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Bad Doberan Posts: 61	Originally posted by Exhale Hi, along my K3 i currently own a 50mm f1.8 (Love it!) and a Sigma 10-20 for landscapes. Obviously i own also the kit 18-55 but i think it's horrible even stopped down so i won't consider it. Now, i was looking for a good everyday lens, and i bought the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I immediately found it very slow and not accurate in focusing, heavy front focus that i couldn't fix with micro adjustment, a setting of -6 works at 17mm but it does not at 35, a -4 adjustment works at 35 but blurs everything at 50. Apparently with Live view it worked fine every time without adjustments, and that bothers me even more. So, the tamron is going back to amazon and in the meanwhile i'm wondering if really exist a fully trusted normal zoom for pentax, i read that the 17-70 has AF problems too, the DA 16-50 has reliable AF but is soft, and the Sigma 16-50 f2.8 suffers of F/B focus depending to models. Should i only use primes? I'm using the Tamron 18-200mm and I have to say I'm very happy with it maybe look for it on Amazon or Ebay Steew

03-23-2017, 03:01 PM	#28
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	The FA 28-70mm f/4? It is not f/2.8, but it likely fits with your wider zoom, is (IMO) excellent, and is inexpensive (just picked up a second one from KEH--EXC for $56 as I recall). It is one of my most used lens for theatre photography. I would have no difficulty using for evening, etc. OK at f/4, quite good at f/5.6.

03-23-2017, 05:32 PM	#29
caliscouser Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: SF Bay Area, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,037	Originally posted by Exhale I'm a graphic designer in a graphic/communication agency and from time to time i have to shoot evening and indoor events (car presentations, company celebrations, etc), so a zoom with 2.8 aperture would be very useful for those occasions I don't think anyone mentioned the Sigma 18-35 1.8, seems tailor made for that sort of work if the focal range is long enough.

03-23-2017, 06:16 PM	#30
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	I love my Tammy 17-50 personally. Focusing doesn't seem too slow for me. Maybe your copy is bad?