Can't Pentax make a good cheap zoom?

**pres589** · 04-12-2019, 08:34 AM

The Pentax 12-24 is APS-C only (I think it doesn't badly vignette from around 16mm out to 24mm on full frame). Sigma 12-24 was a DG aka full frame lens but they're totally different.

When I mentioned barrel/pincushion distortion on the 18-55 it wasn't a complaint so much as a statement of fact. The thing has that aspect to the images it takes. Some lenses are worse, some are better. I replaced it with a Sigma 17-70 which was a bit nicer but not a mind blowing improvement in IQ. I think your comment about getting what you pay for is pretty accurate most of the time with lenses, especially when buying current, new-in-box lenses.

Knowing a lens has a particular "fault" or aspect to its images is important so that the user can work around those aspects to get the image they want at a quality they want. Or they need to know how to process those aspects out in post. I would put my old mk1 18-55 against the lens that took the images in the post that started this thread.

Turbotak · 04-12-2019, 08:41 AM

Good, Cheap, Zoom

Pick 2

Sorry I had to

normhead · 04-12-2019, 08:51 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Turbotak

Good, Cheap, Zoom

Pick 2

Sorry I had to

Fer god's sake he didn't even tell us how cheap "cheap was". We are throwing out multiple suggestions of what he might look at, because we have no idea what he thinks cheap is. I never understand the logic of comments directed at folks just trying to help some one.

Owning a DA*200, DA*60-250 and Tamron 300 2.8, I think of my DA 55-300 as cheap. Does the OP think of it that way? I have no idea. The 16-45 he talks about was when it first came out the same price as the DA 55-300 PLM so if that's the definition we're laughing.

But everyone offers their interpretation, and who knows, any one of those interpretations might be the correct one for the OP. Most people just toss out the possibilities the way they interpret the question. Only the OP can tell us if we are on the right track. Not "some guy" with a smart ass comment.

**c.a.m** · 04-12-2019, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by robert

Can't Pentax make a good cheap zoom?

Yes, I think there are "good cheap" Pentax lenses, for example:

DA 18-55 WR, USD $185

DA 18-50, USD $300

DA 18-135, USD $400

Furthermore, there are a number of good-to-great older Pentax zoom lenses available on the used market at very affordable prices, for example the little Pentax-F 35-70mm.

- Craig

Last edited by c.a.m; 04-12-2019 at 02:58 PM. Reason: clarification

**c.a.m** · 04-12-2019, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by normhead

But everyone offers their interpretation, and who knows, any one of those interpretations might be the correct one for the OP. Most people just toss out the possibilities the way they interpret the question. Only the OP can tell us if we are on the right track.

You're correct -- the OP hasn't given much detail on the bounds of their concerns or needs, so responses reflect the commenters' perspectives. It's a bit of an open-ended topic, for sure.

- Craig

normhead · 04-12-2019, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by c.a.m

You're correct -- the OP hasn't given much detail on the bounds of their concerns or needs, so responses reflect the commenters' perspectives. It's a bit of an open-ended topic, for sure.

- Craig

I'm starting to wonder if it was a promo for the 16-45.

**Merv-O** · 04-12-2019, 01:55 PM

I would add the 50-200mm DA ($190) and the 50-300mm ($320) DA too...Plus the mini 20-40mm Limited DA ($500).--or the SIGMA 18-250mm travel walkabout lens that produces excellent fast sharp photos for about $300.00. It's Bull....could be how he take shis photos...Sometime boosting ISO and maintaining F/4-5.6 aperture will also sharpen the picture.

Regarding FF: the 28-105mm kit lens for $450 average is very good, the SIGMA 24-70mm-classic, 12-24mm is a winner. Tamron 24-70mm f2.8--fast and clear for a cheap lens. I mean Pentax glass is very good quality and SIGMA has just signed a joint venture with Leica--so they're no slouches either.

Sometimes, it's the proverbial "golfer" (photographer) not the "club" (camera)...

stevebrot · 04-12-2019, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by robert

To me you aren't making a good cheap zoom when you have such a variation in different copies.

Is it OK to ask if you are the original owner of your lens, how long you have owned it, and if it has always been such a stinker?

Steve

**pres589** · 04-12-2019, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Merv-O

I would add the 50-200mm DA ($190) and the 50-300mm ($320) DA too...Plus the mini 20-40mm Limited DA ($500).--or the SIGMA 18-250mm travel walkabout lens that produces excellent fast sharp photos for about $300.00. It's Bull....could be how he take shis photos...Sometime boosting ISO and maintaining F/4-5.6 aperture will also sharpen the picture.

The point of the thread was good affordable zooms from Pentax, so ignoring the 3rd party stuff you listed, I can't imaging putting the DA 50-200 in a list of "good lenses from Pentax" at any price. I own one, it's not horrible (I own worse) but it's miles from "great". I've never used any of the 55-300's but they seem like great performers for the money. Almost like two completely separate teams did these two lenses which may actually be the case.

lesmore49 · 04-12-2019, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by normhead

When you have lens like the DA 55-300 PLM which ws rated best in class by at least one site, I think you can argue you get better than you pay for.

A 10 MP camera is significantly less demanding than a 24 MP camera. That 2 pixel chromatic aberration is now going to be 4 pixel.

As I recall that 12-24 is an FF lens, and they've become really hard to find in Pentax mount.

I can't believe people complain about distortion on cheap lenses. The definition of how to make manufacturing lenses cheap. Do very little distortion correction, do very little CA correction, crank out a lot of those cheap easy to produce lenses.

We aren't suggesting here that anyone can make excellent glass for the same price as cheaper lenses. What we are talking about is compromise lenses that while not top shelf, are good enough to get along with based on your personal shooting preferences. Shopping for heavily corrected top shelf glass in the "cheap" section is pointless. Although I'd add, by going MF with a Samyang/Rokinon is the way to go if you want great IQ and low price.

I've had my early copy 55-300 Pentax lens since June 2008. I've been more than pleased with it...it's a good lens...light, compact for it's focal length, very good clarity in images and I find it tracks pretty good. I've used it for a lot of different stuff...everything from taking pics of cars at the drag strip, to Great Grey Owls in the forest...along with a lot of other subjects.

I've used it with my K10D, Km and K5. It's mostly been on my K10D for awhile now, as this is the combo I grab when I'm out and about in the car and want a lens with reach, in case I see something.

My 12-24 is the Pentax version...ASP-C. You might be thinking of the 12-24 Sigma which is Full Frame. I know you have some Sigma lenses which are FF and can be used for both ASP-C and FF. I have sometimes thought that earlier on, I should of done that...given that Pentax eventually did bring out a Full Framer, the K1, which I eventually got.

kh1234567890 · 04-12-2019, 03:13 PM - **1 Like**

My DA16-45 is good enough for me

SMC Pentax DA 16-45mm f4 ED AL Set | Flickr

**BigMackCam** · 04-12-2019, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by lesmore49

I've had my early copy 55-300 Pentax lens since June 2008. I've been more than pleased with it...it's a good lens...light, compact for it's focal length, very good clarity in images and I find it tracks pretty good. I've used it for a lot of different stuff...everything from taking pics of cars at the drag strip, to Great Grey Owls in the forest...along with a lot of other subjects.

My screw-drive HD 55-300 is remarkably good when stopped down a little. Not as good as my DA*60-250 (which is one of my favourite lenses, and cost me three-and-a-half times what I paid for the HD 55-300), but close enough that the size and weight advantage trumps it on occasion. I have a few nights away booked for early June, and it will involve a fair amount of walking. I'll be taking the HD 55-300 as my only long-end lens. It delivers more than enough IQ, and I can carry it all day without a thought for the size and weight... If I remember correctly, I paid GBP £249 for it. Quite the bargain...

**Merv-O** · 04-12-2019, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by pres589

The point of the thread was good affordable zooms from Pentax

My copy of the 50-200 is especially good at infinity and decent throughout the range...I never said it was great....On the other hand, if there are 3rd party companies who pick up the 'slack' for Pentax, why do we care about the branding? Zeiss, Voigtlander and others all provide 3rd party lenses that meet or exceed the OEM of camera manufacturers. Good is Good, and the 18-55mm is better than most kit lenses, especially the newer DA copies that are water resistant.

lesmore49 · 04-12-2019, 03:38 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

My screw-drive HD 55-300 is remarkably good when stopped down a little. Not as good as my DA*60-250 (which is one of my favourite lenses, and cost me three-and-a-half times what I paid for the HD 55-300), but close enough that the size and weight advantage trumps it on occasion. I have a few nights away booked for early June, and it will involve a fair amount of walking. I'll be taking the HD 55-300 as my only long-end lens. It delivers more than enough IQ, and I can carry it all day without a thought for the size and weight... If I remember correctly, I paid GBP £249 for it. Quite the bargain...

It's a great travel lens, versatile by virtue of it's wide range, light and compact. A couple of years ago my wife and I travelled to Newfoundland and that was quite a journey. Five or six planes there and back from what I recall. We kept our baggage down to a minimum.

Camera wise I took just one smaller bag...with my K5 ...the 55-300 and my 18-135. No flash, used the K5 internal flash, if needed, but did lot of available light for inside shots. Worked very well. Had focal lengths all the way from 18mm to 300 and the image quality from both these lenses, I find to be very satisfactory.

robert · 04-12-2019, 05:12 PM - **1 Like**

I believe my 16-45 has gotten worse over time. It's always had a slight decentering problem with the right side of of image being soft but used to be much better than now. The Da 12-24 and 16-85 are out of my price range. So right now I'm looking at the Sigma 10-20 which is on sale for $399 new or the Da15mm limited which is on sale for $446. The Da 15 would go well with my 21 limited, F28 2.8 and F50 1.7.. When I was at Yellowstone 7 years ago I noticed that the majority of my landscapes were taken at 16mm or 21mm with a fer in the mid 20s mm. I will be going to Glacier National Park this Sept. If I could find a good copy of the DA 16-45 I would get another but buying used how do you know if your getting a good copy?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1 premium WR zoom VS. cheap WR zoom-premium zoom combo	mythguy9	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	11-27-2013 08:51 AM
The K-5 Can Make the DA 18-250 look good	Fl_Gulfer	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	20	11-15-2010 03:04 PM
Is there something that can make my lens into a zoom lens?	CrossStealth	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	02-14-2010 01:26 PM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats.	pasipasi	Post Your Photos!	12	08-28-2008 04:43 PM
How can I test to make sure I have a good copy?	Ed in GA	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	01-13-2008 08:58 PM

04-12-2019, 08:34 AM	#76
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	The Pentax 12-24 is APS-C only (I think it doesn't badly vignette from around 16mm out to 24mm on full frame). Sigma 12-24 was a DG aka full frame lens but they're totally different. When I mentioned barrel/pincushion distortion on the 18-55 it wasn't a complaint so much as a statement of fact. The thing has that aspect to the images it takes. Some lenses are worse, some are better. I replaced it with a Sigma 17-70 which was a bit nicer but not a mind blowing improvement in IQ. I think your comment about getting what you pay for is pretty accurate most of the time with lenses, especially when buying current, new-in-box lenses. Knowing a lens has a particular "fault" or aspect to its images is important so that the user can work around those aspects to get the image they want at a quality they want. Or they need to know how to process those aspects out in post. I would put my old mk1 18-55 against the lens that took the images in the post that started this thread.

04-12-2019, 08:41 AM	#77
Turbotak Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2019 Photos: Gallery Posts: 73	Good, Cheap, Zoom Pick 2 Sorry I had to

04-12-2019, 08:51 AM - 1 Like	#78
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,450	Originally posted by Turbotak Good, Cheap, Zoom Pick 2 Sorry I had to Fer god's sake he didn't even tell us how cheap "cheap was". We are throwing out multiple suggestions of what he might look at, because we have no idea what he thinks cheap is. I never understand the logic of comments directed at folks just trying to help some one. Owning a DA200, DA60-250 and Tamron 300 2.8, I think of my DA 55-300 as cheap. Does the OP think of it that way? I have no idea. The 16-45 he talks about was when it first came out the same price as the DA 55-300 PLM so if that's the definition we're laughing. But everyone offers their interpretation, and who knows, any one of those interpretations might be the correct one for the OP. Most people just toss out the possibilities the way they interpret the question. Only the OP can tell us if we are on the right track. Not "some guy" with a smart ass comment.

04-12-2019, 08:59 AM	#79
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,188	Originally posted by robert Can't Pentax make a good cheap zoom? Yes, I think there are "good cheap" Pentax lenses, for example: DA 18-55 WR, USD $185 DA 18-50, USD $300 DA 18-135, USD $400 Furthermore, there are a number of good-to-great older Pentax zoom lenses available on the used market at very affordable prices, for example the little Pentax-F 35-70mm. - Craig Last edited by c.a.m; 04-12-2019 at 02:58 PM. Reason: clarification

04-12-2019, 09:02 AM	#80
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,188	Originally posted by normhead But everyone offers their interpretation, and who knows, any one of those interpretations might be the correct one for the OP. Most people just toss out the possibilities the way they interpret the question. Only the OP can tell us if we are on the right track. You're correct -- the OP hasn't given much detail on the bounds of their concerns or needs, so responses reflect the commenters' perspectives. It's a bit of an open-ended topic, for sure. - Craig

04-12-2019, 09:05 AM	#81
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,450	Originally posted by c.a.m You're correct -- the OP hasn't given much detail on the bounds of their concerns or needs, so responses reflect the commenters' perspectives. It's a bit of an open-ended topic, for sure. - Craig I'm starting to wonder if it was a promo for the 16-45.

04-12-2019, 01:55 PM	#82
Merv-O Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: Philadelphia Photos: Albums Posts: 2,098	I would add the 50-200mm DA ($190) and the 50-300mm ($320) DA too...Plus the mini 20-40mm Limited DA ($500).--or the SIGMA 18-250mm travel walkabout lens that produces excellent fast sharp photos for about $300.00. It's Bull....could be how he take shis photos...Sometime boosting ISO and maintaining F/4-5.6 aperture will also sharpen the picture. Regarding FF: the 28-105mm kit lens for $450 average is very good, the SIGMA 24-70mm-classic, 12-24mm is a winner. Tamron 24-70mm f2.8--fast and clear for a cheap lens. I mean Pentax glass is very good quality and SIGMA has just signed a joint venture with Leica--so they're no slouches either. Sometimes, it's the proverbial "golfer" (photographer) not the "club" (camera)...

04-12-2019, 01:59 PM	#83
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by robert To me you aren't making a good cheap zoom when you have such a variation in different copies. Is it OK to ask if you are the original owner of your lens, how long you have owned it, and if it has always been such a stinker? Steve

04-12-2019, 02:01 PM	#84
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	Originally posted by Merv-O I would add the 50-200mm DA ($190) and the 50-300mm ($320) DA too...Plus the mini 20-40mm Limited DA ($500).--or the SIGMA 18-250mm travel walkabout lens that produces excellent fast sharp photos for about $300.00. It's Bull....could be how he take shis photos...Sometime boosting ISO and maintaining F/4-5.6 aperture will also sharpen the picture. The point of the thread was good affordable zooms from Pentax, so ignoring the 3rd party stuff you listed, I can't imaging putting the DA 50-200 in a list of "good lenses from Pentax" at any price. I own one, it's not horrible (I own worse) but it's miles from "great". I've never used any of the 55-300's but they seem like great performers for the money. Almost like two completely separate teams did these two lenses which may actually be the case.

04-12-2019, 02:50 PM	#85
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,331	Originally posted by normhead When you have lens like the DA 55-300 PLM which ws rated best in class by at least one site, I think you can argue you get better than you pay for. A 10 MP camera is significantly less demanding than a 24 MP camera. That 2 pixel chromatic aberration is now going to be 4 pixel. As I recall that 12-24 is an FF lens, and they've become really hard to find in Pentax mount. I can't believe people complain about distortion on cheap lenses. The definition of how to make manufacturing lenses cheap. Do very little distortion correction, do very little CA correction, crank out a lot of those cheap easy to produce lenses. We aren't suggesting here that anyone can make excellent glass for the same price as cheaper lenses. What we are talking about is compromise lenses that while not top shelf, are good enough to get along with based on your personal shooting preferences. Shopping for heavily corrected top shelf glass in the "cheap" section is pointless. Although I'd add, by going MF with a Samyang/Rokinon is the way to go if you want great IQ and low price. I've had my early copy 55-300 Pentax lens since June 2008. I've been more than pleased with it...it's a good lens...light, compact for it's focal length, very good clarity in images and I find it tracks pretty good. I've used it for a lot of different stuff...everything from taking pics of cars at the drag strip, to Great Grey Owls in the forest...along with a lot of other subjects. I've used it with my K10D, Km and K5. It's mostly been on my K10D for awhile now, as this is the combo I grab when I'm out and about in the car and want a lens with reach, in case I see something. My 12-24 is the Pentax version...ASP-C. You might be thinking of the 12-24 Sigma which is Full Frame. I know you have some Sigma lenses which are FF and can be used for both ASP-C and FF. I have sometimes thought that earlier on, I should of done that...given that Pentax eventually did bring out a Full Framer, the K1, which I eventually got.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-12-2019, 03:13 PM - 1 Like	#86
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	My DA16-45 is good enough for me SMC Pentax DA 16-45mm f4 ED AL Set \| Flickr

04-12-2019, 03:18 PM	#87
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,647	Originally posted by lesmore49 I've had my early copy 55-300 Pentax lens since June 2008. I've been more than pleased with it...it's a good lens...light, compact for it's focal length, very good clarity in images and I find it tracks pretty good. I've used it for a lot of different stuff...everything from taking pics of cars at the drag strip, to Great Grey Owls in the forest...along with a lot of other subjects. My screw-drive HD 55-300 is remarkably good when stopped down a little. Not as good as my DA*60-250 (which is one of my favourite lenses, and cost me three-and-a-half times what I paid for the HD 55-300), but close enough that the size and weight advantage trumps it on occasion. I have a few nights away booked for early June, and it will involve a fair amount of walking. I'll be taking the HD 55-300 as my only long-end lens. It delivers more than enough IQ, and I can carry it all day without a thought for the size and weight... If I remember correctly, I paid GBP £249 for it. Quite the bargain...

04-12-2019, 03:32 PM	#88
Merv-O Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: Philadelphia Photos: Albums Posts: 2,098	Originally posted by pres589 The point of the thread was good affordable zooms from Pentax My copy of the 50-200 is especially good at infinity and decent throughout the range...I never said it was great....On the other hand, if there are 3rd party companies who pick up the 'slack' for Pentax, why do we care about the branding? Zeiss, Voigtlander and others all provide 3rd party lenses that meet or exceed the OEM of camera manufacturers. Good is Good, and the 18-55mm is better than most kit lenses, especially the newer DA copies that are water resistant.

04-12-2019, 03:38 PM - 1 Like	#89
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,331	Originally posted by BigMackCam My screw-drive HD 55-300 is remarkably good when stopped down a little. Not as good as my DA*60-250 (which is one of my favourite lenses, and cost me three-and-a-half times what I paid for the HD 55-300), but close enough that the size and weight advantage trumps it on occasion. I have a few nights away booked for early June, and it will involve a fair amount of walking. I'll be taking the HD 55-300 as my only long-end lens. It delivers more than enough IQ, and I can carry it all day without a thought for the size and weight... If I remember correctly, I paid GBP £249 for it. Quite the bargain... It's a great travel lens, versatile by virtue of it's wide range, light and compact. A couple of years ago my wife and I travelled to Newfoundland and that was quite a journey. Five or six planes there and back from what I recall. We kept our baggage down to a minimum. Camera wise I took just one smaller bag...with my K5 ...the 55-300 and my 18-135. No flash, used the K5 internal flash, if needed, but did lot of available light for inside shots. Worked very well. Had focal lengths all the way from 18mm to 300 and the image quality from both these lenses, I find to be very satisfactory.

04-12-2019, 05:12 PM - 1 Like	#90
robert Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: ohio Posts: 336 Original Poster	I believe my 16-45 has gotten worse over time. It's always had a slight decentering problem with the right side of of image being soft but used to be much better than now. The Da 12-24 and 16-85 are out of my price range. So right now I'm looking at the Sigma 10-20 which is on sale for $399 new or the Da15mm limited which is on sale for $446. The Da 15 would go well with my 21 limited, F28 2.8 and F50 1.7.. When I was at Yellowstone 7 years ago I noticed that the majority of my landscapes were taken at 16mm or 21mm with a fer in the mid 20s mm. I will be going to Glacier National Park this Sept. If I could find a good copy of the DA 16-45 I would get another but buying used how do you know if your getting a good copy?