[pasipasi]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I'm waiting to have enough cash for the Tamron 17-50/2.8. I'd like to have the extra millimeters in the tele end from the 28-75/2.8, but I don't want to lose the wide end.

[Lowell Goudge]

It's interesting to see that all 3 lenses I considered, before buying are the most rated here.

Sigma 24-70 F2.8, Sigma 24-60 F2.8 and Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

What is also interesting is they are all full frame lenses, not specifically ASP-C sensor sized lenses.

What made mine the deciding choice, was filter selections. I had a lot of filters for 67MM which I used on my FA-J 18-35 and on my Vivitar Series 1 70-210 F3.5. As a result, to get new graduated ND and a polarizer for the 77 mm front end of the sigma 24-60 would have cost much more in total.

They are all fine lenses, the Tamron is lighter by far, but a little limited at the wide end, but I have that covered.

[Marc Sabatella]

Slightly off topic, but can you elaborate on this a little?

Look up "Katz Eye". Many people find this type of screen easier for manual focus. A few find it distracting.

I picked up a pentax SMC_A 50mm f/1.7 2nd hand, as i was advised that it's an excellent large aperture lens, but it's manual focus, and I'm getting extremely inconsistent results. Often the images are very soft and out of focus, even though they look clear and sharp in the viewfinder.

I've posted about this before, but basically, the standard focus screen lies to yu about depth of field. It is incapable of showing as narrow a DOF as that lens will actually capture at f/2.8 or wider. So the viewfinder will always show *more* in focus than actually will eb in the picture. Try taking a picture of a newspaper at an angle and you'll see this for yourself - the viewfinder might show 20 lines of text in focus, the picture will show only 10 in focus (for example). So it takes practice to learn how to focus in such a way that your intended subject is in the part of the picture that really will be in focus. For my camera, that means placing it at the *front* of the in focus area, making sure there are also in-focus areas behind the subject but none in front.

BTW, in your sample picture, I can't really be sure you weren't simply too close to the subject to achieve focus, nor can I be sure camera shake didn't play a role.

[Marc Sabatella]

I think if you want a zoom, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 makes a lot of sense. Personally, I'm happier with the very much smaller DA40/2.8. If you've only used zooms before it can take minute to get used to not being able to, but choose a good focal length and you might be surprised how quickly you grow to like shooting that way.

Of cours,e I also have a 28, and a 50, and sometimes use one of those. But the 40 gets the call most of the time, for several reasons. Firs,t the focal length just seems best for me most often. Second, it's smallest. Third, it's the only one with AF (not that there aren't AF versions of the 28 or 50, of course - I'm just too cheap to spring for them).

[bkc]

I don't think you can beat the value of the Sigma 24-60mm from Cameta Camera at AU $$268.54 plus shipping.

Popphoto has this conclusion: "This lens is about 22 percent lighter and more compact than Sigma's slightly longer 24–70mm f/2.8; its SQF performance is significantly better, too. Overall, a fine optic choice."

Thank you
Russell

i second the sigma 24-60. i got mine for $210 usd. i was personally willing to sacrifice the 10mm for the price and IQ since i have a tammy 70-300 as well. i just came back from a weekend at disney and it never came off the cam, even though i had a 50 1.4 on standby.

[Michaelina2]

1. DA 40 Limited (about U$275), or...

2. DA 35 Limited MACRO (about U$400-550)

Both are winners and will serve you well for now and into the future.

[shadow-wolf]

BTW, in your sample picture, I can't really be sure you weren't simply too close to the subject to achieve focus, nor can I be sure camera shake didn't play a role.

Both images were taken from about the same distance and both done using tripod and remote release, so I think that should have eliminated camera shake from the equation. Sounds like it's the issue with the focus screen to me that you're describing, I may have to look into resolving that if i want to get better results from that lens.

[ve2vfd]

I'm waiting to have enough cash for the Tamron 17-50/2.8. I'd like to have the extra millimeters in the tele end from the 28-75/2.8, but I don't want to lose the wide end.

Well, I've only had my 17-50 2.8 less than a week so I can't really give an in depth evaluation on it, but I can tell you that my first impressions on this lens are very very positive!

Pat