[WhimsicalV]

Welcome

you have come to the right place for advice ( especially on spending your $ )

are you aware you can go up to " Lenses " above and find reviews of all Pentax lenses ( both by users and " in depth " ) and of many third party lenses ( users )

sorry to hear of your experience with " H D " coatings , I was going to recommend one of my favorites

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

it seems to work for many of us

DA 16-85 WR,show us what it can do. - PentaxForums.com

since I have that one, I don't have experience with the ones you list

if you can be more specific with your problems with the H D coating, perhaps someone here might be able to help you out?

I had the HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR but for whatever reason it was blurry and I could not take a good picture with it, even with a tripod. They all came out worse than my kit lens at the time. I did not try fine focusing, so I am not sure whether that would have solved my problem. Alas, it is very possible that I had no idea how to use it properly. What is the difference when it is HD? Does what I am saying make any logical sense?

---------- Post added 05-25-18 at 02:09 AM ----------

By your criteria, the 18-135 is a no brainer.

Personally though, I think you're dreaming. Your 35mm prime is a nice lens, and adding the zoom is great. BUT....

Then you need an ultra-wide. The DA15 Limited is the obvious choice.
Then you need something *really* long. The HD55-300PLM can't be beaten.

Job done.

Are you saying that I would need three different ones?

---------- Post added 05-25-18 at 02:10 AM ----------

HD; did you check the fine focus adjustment with the HD lens you tried? My 20-40 and 55-300 are both HD and are sharp on my K-3II.

What is that? What was I supposed to do?

---------- Post added 05-25-18 at 02:13 AM ----------

I agree with Sandy. For your stated needs the DA 18-135mm IS a no brainier! Although I have many fine, expensive lenses, including the extra-fine DA 20-40mm Limited, the DA 18-135mm I consider to be my most versatile go-to. It delivers fine quality images, it can keep to f/3.5-4.5 all the way out to 70mm with very good to excellent imaging. Softness beyond is in edge areas. Its central-image performance remains in the excellent range out to 135mm, its AF is exceptionally fast, quiet and accurate, and it is very well built with great handing and WR, yet very compact. I have also noticed a lack of QC issues. Hard to beat!

Check out the thread- DA 18-135mm WR Show us what it can do.

I apologize in advance if these are silly questions, but why is it better? If these other ones have a wider zoom capability, what is it about them that makes them worse? Especially when the aperture is also the same? What an I missing that would make the quality worse?

---------- Post added 05-25-18 at 02:18 AM ----------

I’ve had the Pentax 17-70 for many years and shot many events with it. Knock on wood, I’ve never experienced an SDM issue with mine. On the K3, the lens focus is great compared to the K5 and older, quiet, smooth and definitive. If something ever happened to mine, I would be buying a new one to replace it.

When you say an SDM issue, what does that mean? An autofocus issue?

---------- Post added 05-25-18 at 02:20 AM ----------

You keep mentioning your low light needs. The DFA 24-70 is simply overkill for your K3. In low light situations I simply can not overstate the importance of a fast constant apeture lens. Essentially you have the Pentax DA*16-50, Tamron 17-50, and the Sigma 17-50. These are all f2.8 constant aperture zooms. I own the DA*16-50 and it was my most used lens on my cameras. Unfortunately I dropped my 16-50 which left it badly decentered. This was no fault of the lens. Now I use the Pentax 16-85 which is just a fantastic lens. I also had the Sigma 17-50 as well but preferred the color rendering and contrast of the 16-50. This was merely a personal decision and is nothing against the Sigma. There is a very good review of these three lenses here. DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Personally I feel the winner of the three is the Sigma. The Sigma is well built, has reliable silent focus, is usable wide open, and is extremely affordable even new. I never purchased the 17-70 due to the autofocus issues. As for the Superzooms, 18-300, I do not feel you will get the image quality out of them ypu want. Plus they are extremely slow. A very good setup would be the DA*16-50, or one of the 17-50's and the DA*50-135.

I have to know, why are you so confident that the DFA would be overkill? Because it would be for almost anyone?

---------- Post added 05-25-18 at 02:22 AM ----------

I agree.

The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 isn't a perfect lens, but it's good, and the IQ is excellent. I've never regretted buying mine.

I also have the Sigma 18-300. I knew what I was getting when I bought it, and I've been happy with it, but it is *not* a low light lens. It's slow, and it has to be stopped down further still to get decent frame-wide sharpness. That means you either need *very* good light, or very high ISO. Even stopped down, it can't begin to compare to the IQ of the 17-50, and you wouldn't expect it to. The 18-300 has its uses, but low light ain't one of them

Please explain The IQ? Again, apologies for any stupid questions, but when you say slow area you referring to the shutter speed and blur?

---------- Post added 05-25-18 at 02:25 AM ----------

You keep mentioning your low light needs. The DFA 24-70 is simply overkill for your K3. In low light situations I simply can not overstate the importance of a fast constant apeture lens. Essentially you have the Pentax DA*16-50, Tamron 17-50, and the Sigma 17-50. These are all f2.8 constant aperture zooms. I own the DA*16-50 and it was my most used lens on my cameras. Unfortunately I dropped my 16-50 which left it badly decentered. This was no fault of the lens. Now I use the Pentax 16-85 which is just a fantastic lens. I also had the Sigma 17-50 as well but preferred the color rendering and contrast of the 16-50. This was merely a personal decision and is nothing against the Sigma. There is a very good review of these three lenses here. DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Personally I feel the winner of the three is the Sigma. The Sigma is well built, has reliable silent focus, is usable wide open, and is extremely affordable even new. I never purchased the 17-70 due to the autofocus issues. As for the Superzooms, 18-300, I do not feel you will get the image quality out of them ypu want. Plus they are extremely slow. A very good setup would be the DA*16-50, or one of the 17-50's and the DA*50-135.

Would you mind telling me why it is important to have the aperture constant?

[i_trax]

I was wondering whether I could have some advice & opinions on which of the following lenses would be best as my secondary on my K3-II. I currently have the Pentax 35mm 2.4. I need one that will go relatively wide (at least 18mm) and zoom in relatively far (at least 100 preferable). I am willing to sacrifice the zoom in the case of the ones that have the f/4 because low light shooting is common for me. What will I be using this for? Sometimes outdoor, museums, attractions, etcetera, but more often food photography, where they like to make it pretty dark and using flash would not be ideal. I freelance for the food section of a local magazine, and also do some photography for events. I will not always have both lenses with me, so this one needs to be optimal in lower light settings as well.

- Pentax
18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL (IF) DC WR
18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 ED AL (IF)
18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 ED SDM
17-70mm f/4 DA SMC AL IF SDM

- Sigma
17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM
18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM
18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM

my choice,
low light / indoors
Sigma 17-70 , still have an old non HSM and also now new HSM, love them.

outdoors
1/ sigma 18-300 but heavy and big
2/ sigma 18-250 / Pentax 18-250
3/ Pentax 18-270 very overpriced, look for used ones

[WhimsicalV]

Every lens involves a compromise. You have to choose how much priority you give to low cost, light weight, bulk, fast aperture, range of focal lengths, general image quality, sharpness in the corners, weather-resistance, flare resistance, autofocus, and a host of other things.


As I understand it, you are saying that you would like something covering 18mm or wider to 100mm or longer, but you would be willing to compromise on the telephoto reach in favour of a faster aperture. Seems to me that if low light photography without flash is a priority, it probably means one of the f2.8 zooms, like the DA*16-50, Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-50, because f4 won't be fast enough (at least without raising the ISO too much). You might also want the f2.8 for subject separation. If you need more reach, you might also need to get a longer f2.8 zoom, like the DA*50-135, or one of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses, as a companion to the xx-50.

You are correct on the willingness to compromise, but I do already have the very good 35mm 2.4, though the fixed is too limited in many situations. My secondary one, therefore, I feel needs to at least zoom a substantial amount for it really to be worth switching lenses however frequently. Make sense?

[aslyfox]

I had the HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR but for whatever reason it was blurry and I could not take a good picture with it, even with a tripod. They all came out worse than my kit lens at the time. I did not try fine focusing, so I am not sure whether that would have solved my problem. Alas, it is very possible that I had no idea how to use it properly. What is the difference when it is HD? Does what I am saying make any logical sense?. . .

I apologize in advance if these are silly questions, but why is it better? . . .

Would you mind telling me why it is important to have the aperture constant?

. . ..

I hold the international copy rights to all stupid and/or silly questions but I allow others to use them without charge

it is possible that you had a badly made lens, it happens

as far as doing anything special with an HD lens, I use mine just like my other lenses.

I currently have:

HD Pentax DA 3.5-5.6 16 - 85 mm wr 72 f

HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW 77 f

HD Pentax-D FA 4.5 - 5.6 150-450mm ED DC AW 86 f

HD Pentax -DA af rear converter 1.4 AW

____________________________________________


HD is just the coating placed onto the lens

" Lens Coating

The lens name prefix smc or HD indicates the type of coating. SMC stands for Super Multi Coating and was introduced back in the 1960'es. Naturally this coating has evolved and been improved over time. HD stands for High Definition and is a new coating introduced in 2012. The purpose of a lens coating is to reduce light loss as light rays travel through the lens elements and also to reduce stray light reflecting off the lens element surfaces. The net effect is less flare, less ghosting and better contrast.
Certain budget lenses from the film era lack SMC or HD coating and have no smc or HD prefix in their name. "

here are a couple of articles discussing the difference between lenses made with the SMC coating ( the older style ) and the new HD coating

Pentax Launches New HD Limited Lenses - Pentax Announcements | PentaxForums.com

Farewell to flare? Pentax’s HD Limited lens lineup gets a real-world test

______

" Lens Name Suffixes
The following abbreviations are used in lens names:

AL: Aspheric Lens. Special lens elements that improves the optical quality. Particularly valuable in wide angle lenses.
AW: All Weather. The highest degree of sealing against dust and rain.
DC, PLM or SDM: The lens has a built-in motor for autofocus (K10D, K100D and newer cameras can take advantage of this).
ED: Extra-low Dispersion. Special glass material which helps reduce chromatic aberration. Particularly valuable in tele photo lenses.
IF: Internal focusing. Focusing is achieved by moving lens elements within the lens. The lens barrel doesn't move. IF lenses generally focus faster than ordinary lenses.
RE: Retractable lens. The lens collapses in length when not in use.
XS: Lenses with an exterior design by Mark Newson matching the Pentax K-01. Works like an ordinary DA lens.
WR: Weather Resistant. The lens is sealed against dust and light rain.

http://www.mosphotos.com/PentaxLensesExplained.html

________________

pn most zooms, the aperture changes as you change focal length

a constant aperture zoom lens allows you to use the same aperture, should you choose to do so, at any focal length

the F2.8 70 - 200mm zoom allows me to use F2.8 at 70mm all the way to 200mm.

What is a Constant Aperture Lens

__________________________________________________

I will let the folks with better knowledge reply to your other questions

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 05-25-2018 at 02:48 AM.

[WhimsicalV]

my choice,
low light / indoors
Sigma 17-70 , still have an old non HSM and also now new HSM, love them.

outdoors
1/ sigma 18-300 but heavy and big
2/ sigma 18-250 / Pentax 18-250
3/ Pentax 18-270 very overpriced, look for used ones

Do you know how much heavier the 300 is than the 250 options? Quality wise, are they similar?

[BigMackCam]

Please explain The IQ? Again, apologies for any stupid questions, but when you say slow area you referring to the shutter speed and blur?

No need to apologise - questions are good

With the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, the widest aperture setting of f/2.8 is available at all focal lengths from 17 to 50mm inclusive (it's therefore described as a "constant aperture" lens). Furthermore, the sharpness of the lens - even wide open at f/2.8 - is good right across the frame. As such, you can actually use the lens at f/2.8 and get decent photos, and by f/5.6 the image quality is really very good indeed.

The Sigma 18-300 has a variable aperture. At 18mm, the maximum available aperture is f/3.5, but as you zoom in to longer focal lengths, this quickly reduces to f/6.3. Worse still, if you use the lens wide open at those maximum apertures, image sharpness - generally, but especially in the borders and corners of the frame - isn't good. In all honesty, you need to shoot it at f/8 - f/11 to get decent frame-wide image quality. However, at these apertures the lens is letting far less light than the Sigma 17-50 at f/2.8 or f/5.6, which means you'll need to use higher ISO settings on the camera, resulting in photos with a lot of noise.

Does that make sense?

[aslyfox]

Do you know how much heavier the 300 is than the 250 options? Quality wise, are they similar?

have you looked at the user reviews for the third party lens yet?

Pentax Lenses by Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, and more - Reviews and Specification Database - Pentax Lens Review Database

here is the link for the reviews for the Pentax lenses

Pentax Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Scorpio71GR]

I have to know, why are you so confident that the DFA would be overkill? Because it would be for almost anyone?

Read more at: Need Advice For Secondary Zoom Lens - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

The DFA24-70 is a full frame lens. You are paying a lot more money for a lens that covers a 24X36mm sensor. A crop sensor lens is much more affordable and more compact. Right a Sigma 17-50 is about $369 and the DFA24-70 is over a $1000. Also 24mm on a crop sensor camera is way too narrow for a lot of shots. SDM is the Pentax trademark name for their Supersonic Drive Motors that in their high end lens. All DA* lenses feature these in lens motors rather traditional screwdrive. Some feature both. In lens motors are virtually silent making them very appealing for indoor work.

I own both the DA18-135 and the HD16-85. One thing everyone needs to do with all UWA (Ultra Wide Angle) lenses is test for decentering and for if any focus adjustment is needed. It sounds like your 16-85 may have been decentered. I have seen a few of them. This can happen with any lens. Keep in mind all the new DFA lenses use the HD coatings. I went through 3 Sigma 8-16's and 2 Tamron 70-200's before I had a good one of each. The 18-135 is still my goto lens if I can only take one lens. For all of its weaknesses it is still one of the best all around lenses for Pentax. The DFA28-105 is sharper overall but does cover the equivalent focal range of 28-200mm on full frame. I however would want to rely on the 18-135 for indoor photography unless I was using a flash.

[mikesbike]

Several points-

There is no such thing as a fast, f/2.8 zoom lens with a range of 18-100mm- not even close. The DFA 24-70mm does not come close because 24mm is only modestly WA on APS-C, and not comparable to 18mm, while 70mm is a ways behind 100mm. However, there is much importance as to which camera body you will be using. I refer to the fact that a KP or a K-70 body, which are capable of outstanding performance at higher ISO settings, can effectively achieve results at f/4 or higher comparable to what can be had with f/2.8 on other bodies, lens quality level otherwise being similar.

It is also important, in view of the above facts, to zero in on the FLs where low-light work is mostly done. If you need that over the entire 18-100mm range, you'll need two fast zoom lenses. For that, I use the excellent DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, which is a great lens having top-flight construction and WR, and more recently combined with a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC, which I also highly recommend. They are great on my K-5 IIs, my K-S2, or even better on my KP! But the KP can do very well with f/4 or greater settings, which is very good, since then these lenses are not wide open, so their high quality level is elevated even more, and with the KP detail and quality are well-preserved at a greater ISO while noise is reduced.

You might also, for a budget compromise, consider a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, if 70mm is enough and you can get by with f/4 max in the tele range.

[i_trax]

Do you know how much heavier the 300 is than the 250 options? Quality wise, are they similar?

584 g vs 478 , users rating is higher for 18-300, check it out:
Sigma 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM (Contemporary) Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[aslyfox]

The DFA24-70 is a full frame lens. You are paying a lot more money for a lens that covers a 24X36mm sensor. A crop sensor lens is much more affordable and more compact. . . .

I own the K 3 and K 3 II with their ASP-C " crop " sensors and the following lenses:

SMC Pentax-D FA 2.8 100 mm macro [ not WR ]

HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW

HD Pentax-D FA 4.5 - 5.6 150-450mm ED DC AW

I have never thought of or worried that the light allowed to the sensor by the lens is larger than the sensor itself

I don't see the harm of it

I bought the lenses for their quality

but then I am a newbie eager to learn

having said all that on the crop sensor a 24mm gives a field of view which is not a wide angle field of view

[normhead]

Just reading over the thread.....

the 18-135 is the best cheaper alternative. Especially with it's pseudo macro capability.
The Sigma 17-50 is your best indoor, low light choice. I've crunched the numbers on this a million times and basically I don't really like Sigma, so this is hard for me to say.
I'd pair it with a 55-300 of some kind.

17-50, 55 300 and you 35 2.4 are a great team although I'd probably ad the 50 1.8 as well for really low light. That would be all the kit you'd need until you decide to get into real specialty items. It should all fit into one relatively small easy to carry shoulder bag.

[Scorpio71GR]

I own the K 3 and K 3 II with their ASP-C " crop " sensors and the following lenses:

SMC Pentax-D FA 2.8 100 mm macro [ not WR ]

HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW

HD Pentax-D FA 4.5 - 5.6 150-450mm ED DC AW

I have never thought of or worried that the light allowed to the sensor by the lens is larger than the sensor itself

I don't see the harm of it

I bought the lenses for their quality

but then I am a newbie eager to learn

having said all that on the crop sensor a 24mm gives a field of view which is not a wide angle field of view

There is no ASP-C equivalent of the DFA100 macro or the DFA 150-450. There are many ASP-C alternatives for the DFA 24-70. I do not personally feel the DFA24-70 is that much optically better. There is also a big difference in size and weight between a 82mm and a 77mm lens. That was my point on the DFA 24-70 being overkill in both price and size. The equivalent 36mm to 105mm field of view may prove to be quite frustrating indoors. Back when I was shooting my Super Program I had a 35mm to 70mm zoom. I was always backing into walls trying to get more coverage. Then I managed to get an A 24-50 and my world changed. That extra field of view makes a huge difference. I too use my full frame lenses on my K3. For macro and wildlife, the crop sensor camera is still the best choice in my opinion. It simply gives you the best bang for your dollar. Personally I have never mounted my Sigma 50-500 on my K-1. Even on the K3 I am always needing more reach it seems.

[aslyfox]

There is no ASP-C equivalent of the DFA100 macro or the DFA 150-450. There are many ASP-C alternatives for the DFA 24-70. I do not personally feel the DFA24-70 is that much optically better. There is also a big difference in size and weight between a 82mm and a 77mm lens. That was my point on the DFA 24-70 being overkill in both price and size. The equivalent 36mm to 105mm field of view may prove to be quite frustrating indoors. Back when I was shooting my Super Program I had a 35mm to 70mm zoom. I was always backing into walls trying to get more coverage. Then I managed to get an A 24-50 and my world changed. That extra field of view makes a huge difference. I too use my full frame lenses on my K3. For macro and wildlife, the crop sensor camera is still the best choice in my opinion. It simply gives you the best bang for your dollar. Personally I have never mounted my Sigma 50-500 on my K-1. Even on the K3 I am always needing more reach it seems.

Thanks for helping me understand your valid points

[Scorpio71GR]

Thanks for helping me understand your valid points

No problem. The biggest benefit to Pentax is being to able to use whatever lens on whatever camera you want. It gives you the freedom no other system can offer. I have always maintained that the right lens and camera are the ones that work for you. That is the whole beauty behind the SLR system. That and LBA and my empty wallet.