What would you buy?

ChristianRock · 08-07-2017, 03:07 PM

If you want wider, I think start by selling two out of your 3 overlapping zooms (keep the one you like best, for me I think it would be the 16-45mm f4). Then get the Pentax DA 12-24mm - a stunning lens for landscapes. If the budget doesn't allow for it, then the Sigma 10-20mm (either version) should be a good, cheaper alternative. The Tamron 10-24mm doesn't have the same reputation as the others mentioned, but I've seen great landscapes taken with it. I think it has more to do with the photographer, frankly... invest in your skills as well, it's the best investment you can make.

Blacknight659 · 08-08-2017, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

If you want wider, I think start by selling two out of your 3 overlapping zooms (keep the one you like best, for me I think it would be the 16-45mm f4). Then get the Pentax DA 12-24mm - a stunning lens for landscapes. If the budget doesn't allow for it, then the Sigma 10-20mm (either version) should be a good, cheaper alternative. The Tamron 10-24mm doesn't have the same reputation as the others mentioned, but I've seen great landscapes taken with it. I think it has more to do with the photographer, frankly... invest in your skills as well, it's the best investment you can make.

The Sigma has bee a solid performer for years now. I think the f3.5 version is the only new lens available. Also, it is quite a deal for what you are getting. If you have some extra cash, I would still consider the DA 12-24 over the 10-20 simply for the Pentax colors. Nothing wrong with Sigma, I just think Pentax has an edge.

ChristianRock · 08-08-2017, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Blacknight659

The Sigma has bee a solid performer for years now. I think the f3.5 version is the only new lens available. Also, it is quite a deal for what you are getting. If you have some extra cash, I would still consider the DA 12-24 over the 10-20 simply for the Pentax colors. Nothing wrong with Sigma, I just think Pentax has an edge.

I haven't had either, but people say the Sigma f/3.5 version doesn't really sharpen up in the corners. However real world results I have seen from it have been stellar, so I think people probably worry too much about these things. I find the colors and the rendering of the Sigma very good as well. The Pentax lens does have some "pixel dust" though, but whether it is worth the difference in price is up to the buyer... and the results are probably going to be more related to the person behind the viewer than the lens itself, at that level.

bm75 · 08-08-2017, 10:01 AM

BAck to the OP original post, he/she's asking for suggestion in expanding his/her gear buying lenses with good cost/performance ratio. There are no simple answers. My experience is that having 3 lenses (10-20; 35 ; 70-200) covers most of the situations . With Pentax I love my old primes (20;28;55;200;300 ) . I had DA17-70 and 50-200 for the K5 but I let the k5 go and save money for the K1. My perspective is having 2 different setups: AF with APSC and almost zooms; FF (in the near future) with primes. I do love primes much more than zooms, but I admit zooms are much more "easy" or versatile. But, as in the old good days , a small bag with a FF and 20/24,50,135 primes is something I miss.

Last edited by bm75; 08-08-2017 at 10:10 AM.

ddharriman · 08-08-2017, 01:22 PM

Hello

Relating to the original question: “What would your strategy be, lens-wise, to improve image quality for the least expenditure?”

My advice is:
1 - compare the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 and decide who is the one with “best image quality” for you;
2 - keep the one you have chosen and sell the other 3 lenses;
3 - pocket the money!

Best regards,

Hokonui · 08-08-2017, 02:23 PM

Realistically, I'm not going to own a K1 in the near future so AF & APS/C it is - I'll keep the Sigma 17-70 and search for a good Sigma 10-20 to go alongside it.
I think this may be the best compromise, unless of course I happen to stumble upon a bargain version of one of the more expensive suggestions in the process.

Thank you all for the suggestions.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature What would a wood rat do if a wood rat would rat on you?	sealonsf	Post Your Photos!	6	08-28-2018 01:40 PM
FA* 43mm Ltd - would you buy new or used?	seanix	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	05-20-2016 09:13 AM
If you could have only 2 lenses in the 400mm+ range, which two would you buy?	Clinton	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	55	10-05-2010 09:18 PM
Last question before I buy... Kx or K7, which would you buy?	DavoMrMac	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	02-01-2010 02:42 AM
K10D at Best Buy Outlet..would you buy?	twobra7	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	01-11-2010 10:05 AM

08-07-2017, 03:07 PM	#16
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	If you want wider, I think start by selling two out of your 3 overlapping zooms (keep the one you like best, for me I think it would be the 16-45mm f4). Then get the Pentax DA 12-24mm - a stunning lens for landscapes. If the budget doesn't allow for it, then the Sigma 10-20mm (either version) should be a good, cheaper alternative. The Tamron 10-24mm doesn't have the same reputation as the others mentioned, but I've seen great landscapes taken with it. I think it has more to do with the photographer, frankly... invest in your skills as well, it's the best investment you can make.

08-08-2017, 06:39 AM	#17
Blacknight659 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 731	Originally posted by ChristianRock If you want wider, I think start by selling two out of your 3 overlapping zooms (keep the one you like best, for me I think it would be the 16-45mm f4). Then get the Pentax DA 12-24mm - a stunning lens for landscapes. If the budget doesn't allow for it, then the Sigma 10-20mm (either version) should be a good, cheaper alternative. The Tamron 10-24mm doesn't have the same reputation as the others mentioned, but I've seen great landscapes taken with it. I think it has more to do with the photographer, frankly... invest in your skills as well, it's the best investment you can make. The Sigma has bee a solid performer for years now. I think the f3.5 version is the only new lens available. Also, it is quite a deal for what you are getting. If you have some extra cash, I would still consider the DA 12-24 over the 10-20 simply for the Pentax colors. Nothing wrong with Sigma, I just think Pentax has an edge.

08-08-2017, 07:39 AM	#18
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by Blacknight659 The Sigma has bee a solid performer for years now. I think the f3.5 version is the only new lens available. Also, it is quite a deal for what you are getting. If you have some extra cash, I would still consider the DA 12-24 over the 10-20 simply for the Pentax colors. Nothing wrong with Sigma, I just think Pentax has an edge. I haven't had either, but people say the Sigma f/3.5 version doesn't really sharpen up in the corners. However real world results I have seen from it have been stellar, so I think people probably worry too much about these things. I find the colors and the rendering of the Sigma very good as well. The Pentax lens does have some "pixel dust" though, but whether it is worth the difference in price is up to the buyer... and the results are probably going to be more related to the person behind the viewer than the lens itself, at that level.

08-08-2017, 10:01 AM	#19
bm75 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Italia Photos: Albums Posts: 354	BAck to the OP original post, he/she's asking for suggestion in expanding his/her gear buying lenses with good cost/performance ratio. There are no simple answers. My experience is that having 3 lenses (10-20; 35 ; 70-200) covers most of the situations . With Pentax I love my old primes (20;28;55;200;300 ) . I had DA17-70 and 50-200 for the K5 but I let the k5 go and save money for the K1. My perspective is having 2 different setups: AF with APSC and almost zooms; FF (in the near future) with primes. I do love primes much more than zooms, but I admit zooms are much more "easy" or versatile. But, as in the old good days , a small bag with a FF and 20/24,50,135 primes is something I miss. Last edited by bm75; 08-08-2017 at 10:10 AM.

08-08-2017, 01:22 PM	#20
ddharriman Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 345	Hello Relating to the original question: “What would your strategy be, lens-wise, to improve image quality for the least expenditure?” My advice is: 1 - compare the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 and decide who is the one with “best image quality” for you; 2 - keep the one you have chosen and sell the other 3 lenses; 3 - pocket the money! Best regards,

08-08-2017, 02:23 PM	#21
Hokonui Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Gore, NZ Posts: 83 Original Poster	Realistically, I'm not going to own a K1 in the near future so AF & APS/C it is - I'll keep the Sigma 17-70 and search for a good Sigma 10-20 to go alongside it. I think this may be the best compromise, unless of course I happen to stumble upon a bargain version of one of the more expensive suggestions in the process. Thank you all for the suggestions.