[jawats]

All,

Due to a gift card blessing, I am now in the position of being able to purchase a new (read: new new, not from eBay, KEH, Robert's, etc) lens.

The following are some considerations of mine. There are a few others on the site (42nd Street Photo), but they don't seem as well rated as these.

Sigma 20mm 1.8 EX DG - 7.23;

Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX-DC HSM - 8.50;

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM - 8.75;

Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro - 9.70;

I have good macro lenses in my Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300 and 70-210 (19AH) lenses, but I am leaning toward the Sigma 70mm 2.8 because I do not have a prime that length, I do not have an AF macro, and it seems extremely well-liked on the reviews.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Here are some other options (I am looking $600 or below, roughly) - 42nd Street Photo - New York Camera Store, Digital Cameras, Audio and Video Electronics

[aslyfox]

what are your photographic interests?

Macro

telephoto

portrait

land scape

your choice of lens, and the opinions of other members might depend on that

[jawats]

what are your photographic interests?

Macro

telephoto

portrait

land scape

your choice of lens, and the opinions of other members might depend on that

I enjoy parts of all of them - I'm currently interested in astro, but I love macro when woods hiking, and landscape when you can find it in Indiana.

I have a boatload of lenses now that will do most of them, namely:

1. Tamron Adaptall-2 SPs 60-300 and 70-210; both good MF macro lenses, as well as great TP zooms;
2. SMC Pentax-DA L 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED;
3. SMC Pentax-DA 50mm F1.8;
4. SMC Pentax-DA L 18-50mm F4-5.6 DC WR RE
5. Vivitar 28mm wide-angle, f/2.8
6. 28mm f/2.8 Promaster Spectrum 7
7. Sigma Super-Wide II 24mm f/2.8
8. Tamron 55BB 500mm mirror
9. Takumar 55mm f/1.8
10. Soligor 450mm f/8
11. Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8
12. SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR
13. SMC Pentax-DA L 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR

The places where I seem to be lacking are a good ultra-wide angle prime or zoom and an AF macro;

I plan to sell # 4, 5, 9, 12, and 13, soon, to free up some home space.

[aslyfox]

I enjoy parts of all of them - I'm currently interested in astro, but I love macro when woods hiking, and landscape when you can find it in Indiana.
. . . an AF macro;. . .

I have tried dabbling with macro

and most comments I have seen regarding macro talk about how manual focus is the best way to go rather than auto focus

I have an older SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro ( non WR ) and when I attempt macro with it I switch to manual focus

[pres589]

The Sigma 17-50 is said to be pretty good, and I know it reviewed well against the DA 16-50.

You don't list it as an option, but if you like 28mm glass, the Sigma 28mm EX DG is quite nice, if they have one for sale.

[rogerstg]

The places where I seem to be lacking are a good ultra-wide angle prime or zoom and an AF macro;

It looks like the Sigma 10-20mm covers a hole in your focal kit, especially considering that AF is not much of an asset for macro.

[pepperberry farm]

I have the 20mm and the 70mm macro

the 20mm is good, but can be an acquired taste

the 70mm macro, however, is supremely sharp and is simply awesome to use....


my flickr album for the Sigma 20: Sigma 20mm f1.8 EX DG Aspherical RF | Flickr

and for the 70 macro: Sigma 70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro | Flickr

[Ash]

The 10-20 and 70 macro are very different lenses to photograph very different subjects, so it is a good idea to decide on what subject matter interests you the most and tailor your lens choice to that.
As you might gather, the ultra-wide lenses are appropriate for vast landscape scenes, not great for close-up work or portraiture.
And the macros are generally not great for landscapes.
Neither would be good for bird photography (for example).
Hope that's not sounding condescending but honing in on the majority of your intended subject matter would help determine which is the next lens you should purchase.

[Nunavut]

I enjoy parts of all of them - I'm currently interested in astro, but I love macro when woods hiking, and landscape when you can find it in Indiana.

I have a boatload of lenses now that will do most of them, namely:

1. Tamron Adaptall-2 SPs 60-300 and 70-210; both good MF macro lenses, as well as great TP zooms;
2. SMC Pentax-DA L 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED;
3. SMC Pentax-DA 50mm F1.8;
4. SMC Pentax-DA L 18-50mm F4-5.6 DC WR RE
5. Vivitar 28mm wide-angle, f/2.8
6. 28mm f/2.8 Promaster Spectrum 7
7. Sigma Super-Wide II 24mm f/2.8
8. Tamron 55BB 500mm mirror
9. Takumar 55mm f/1.8
10. Soligor 450mm f/8
11. Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8
12. SMC Pentax-DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR
13. SMC Pentax-DA L 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR

The places where I seem to be lacking are a good ultra-wide angle prime or zoom and an AF macro;

I plan to sell # 4, 5, 9, 12, and 13, soon, to free up some home space.

Honestly I enjoyed my sigma 10-20 for many years👌 provides a totally new set of images and perspectives that makes the other focal lengths (except macro) look very pedestrian

[swanlefitte]

I have the 10-20 and the 70. Ultra wide you don't have vs an excellent quality in short telephoto you don't have. Apple's to oranges.

[bassek]

Seeing your current setup, I'd skip the 17-50 for now.

And yet another question: Are you a prime shooter or a zoom shooter?
The 70 is really sharp and could be used for portraits too.

Seb

[jawats]

Seeing your current setup, I'd skip the 17-50 for now.

And yet another question: Are you a prime shooter or a zoom shooter?
The 70 is really sharp and could be used for portraits too.

Seb

I have about a year of experience under my belt. I'm neither, at this point, as I am still learning. I'm experimenting with 450mm primes (moon) and 135mm primes (portrait), at the moment, as well as some shorter. However, on rambles, I enjoy my zooms that have macro (esp. my 60-300) for their versatility.[COLOR="Silver"]

Also, why skip the 17-50?

[rogerstg]

Also, why skip the 17-50?

While bassek can answer for himself, based on your lenses and written wishes (ultra wide angle), 17-50 is mostly covered. You seem to have nothing wider than 18mm. The Sigma 10-20 is an excellent lens and is reasonably fast.

[jawats]

While bassek can answer for himself, based on your lenses and written wishes (ultra wide angle), 17-50 is mostly covered. You seem to have nothing wider than 18mm. The Sigma 10-20 is an excellent lens and is reasonably fast.

I'm planning on selling the 18-55, as it's too slow. I want a zoom for indoor use, and the 18-50 doesn't really get me there in darker fluorescent, etc. The 10-20 is 3.5, but the 17-50 is 2.8 across, and that seems like it would give me much better indoor / low light performance.

[rogerstg]

I'm planning on selling the 18-55, as it's too slow. I want a zoom for indoor use, and the 18-50 doesn't really get me there in darker fluorescent, etc. The 10-20 is 3.5, but the 17-50 is 2.8 across, and that seems like it would give me much better indoor / low light performance.

You probably should have led with that.