Two Lenses for walking around

jk333 · 11-09-2008, 09:15 AM

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
and
Pentax 24-105 f/3.2

The pentax is ~ 90 dollars less from what I've found. (305 vs. 215) The Tamron is their SP line of lenses. I have a k200d and a 50mm/1.7 FA for indoor photography. I still like to shoot some things during late evening so of course, the faster a lens the better.

I would assume the Tamron has better image quality, is this correct? Is this image quality worth the shorter focal length? Speed is also slightly faster on the tamron.

I also have a 70-300mm tamron lens which is fine... but to me, a lot less sharp then the 50mm.

keith.s · 11-09-2008, 09:44 AM

I have neither of the above, but I love my new Sigma 18-50 /2.8 as a great walkaround lens. You can pick one up for $280 on Amazon. The newer one with macro and with SLD glass goes for approx USD 400.

Cheers,
Keith

Stratario · 11-09-2008, 09:47 AM

I have the Tamron 28-75 and it's an excellent lens. If you shoot more portraits than landscapes I'd get this lens and maybe later the DA 21mm Ltd for a superior kit.

If you shoot more landscapes than portraits, you may consider the Tamron 17-50 for now and maybe later the DA 70mm for a superior kit.

**Lowell Goudge** · 11-09-2008, 05:14 PM

I have the tamron, and it is a great lens.

Having said that, I am not sure how to weigh the extra 4 mm in width. You might want it if you don't have another lens to cover that range.

My kit of travel zooms is 4 lenses,

Sigma 10-20, Pentax FA-J 18-35F3.5-F4.5, Tamron 28-75F2.8, SIgma 70-200 F2.8

I often leave the 18-35 home, but it can fill some gaps. 28 is not wide enough on its own (but then again neither is 24)

11-09-2008, 09:15 AM	#1
jk333 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: bev Posts: 181	Two Lenses for walking around Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and Pentax 24-105 f/3.2 The pentax is ~ 90 dollars less from what I've found. (305 vs. 215) The Tamron is their SP line of lenses. I have a k200d and a 50mm/1.7 FA for indoor photography. I still like to shoot some things during late evening so of course, the faster a lens the better. I would assume the Tamron has better image quality, is this correct? Is this image quality worth the shorter focal length? Speed is also slightly faster on the tamron. I also have a 70-300mm tamron lens which is fine... but to me, a lot less sharp then the 50mm.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People walking a lady	tigershiok	Post Your Photos!	2	09-07-2010 03:06 PM
Walking on Air	Workingdog	Post Your Photos!	6	07-18-2009 06:09 AM
Walking around	cupic	Post Your Photos!	17	01-07-2009 05:15 AM
Better than walking...	dave kitson	Post Your Photos!	10	10-15-2008 12:42 AM
Walking away.	Chilious	Post Your Photos!	1	09-16-2006 04:17 AM

11-09-2008, 09:44 AM	#2
keith.s Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Doha, Qatar Posts: 50	I have neither of the above, but I love my new Sigma 18-50 /2.8 as a great walkaround lens. You can pick one up for $280 on Amazon. The newer one with macro and with SLD glass goes for approx USD 400. Cheers, Keith

11-09-2008, 09:47 AM	#3
Stratario Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 366	I have the Tamron 28-75 and it's an excellent lens. If you shoot more portraits than landscapes I'd get this lens and maybe later the DA 21mm Ltd for a superior kit. If you shoot more landscapes than portraits, you may consider the Tamron 17-50 for now and maybe later the DA 70mm for a superior kit.

11-09-2008, 05:14 PM	#4
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	I have the tamron, and it is a great lens. Having said that, I am not sure how to weigh the extra 4 mm in width. You might want it if you don't have another lens to cover that range. My kit of travel zooms is 4 lenses, Sigma 10-20, Pentax FA-J 18-35F3.5-F4.5, Tamron 28-75F2.8, SIgma 70-200 F2.8 I often leave the 18-35 home, but it can fill some gaps. 28 is not wide enough on its own (but then again neither is 24)