[subsea]

I use the 16-85mm on my K-3II. Since I got the lens, it's turned into my walkaround lens due to its versatility. That being said, I also like the 55-300mm PLM on my K-3II for those occasions when I need some longer reach. The pair makes for a relatively light weight kit that provides excellent IQ.

[UncleVanya]

As Sandy said the 12-24 f4 is a great lens as is the 11-18. I have the 12-24 and find it more appealing than the 11-18 f2.8 for several reasons:

1) cost, not only is it cheaper; I already own it.
2) lighter
3) 24mm on the long end which offers a good modest wide angle.

I've nothing but respect for the 11-18.

[ZombieArmy]

I think the Tamron can have some substantial copy to copy variation. I've seen some people have real duds. My copy would be considered by most to be completely junk physically but I think the optics are pretty good.

Colors are real tame on the lens, can almost seemed washed out. I think this is pretty typical of tamron so maybe look into processing your photos a bit and see if you like them more.

[Cerebum]

It all comes down to budget. I have had some stellar shots inside churches with both the 10-17mm fish eye and the 21mm limited. The 10-17mm comes in at half the price or less than many of the listed alternatives. One pentaxian got one for $110. And don't worry about the distortion, that's an easy fix in post

I recently acquired the DA* 11-18mm and think it is a wonderful, but weighty, lens. It is in perfect balance with the K3 II. The other one I have is the DA 16-85. I think this couple is well suited to each other. Both deliver very lovely colours. I just took the 16-85 out on a walk through the woods and had some wonderful pictures of tiny mushrooms with all kinds of coloured leaves and other debris you come across in a wood. The 11-18 is very useful in the woods to get close to a tree and be able to get most of the tree in the picture. As my country is "flat" I do not make many landscapes. The DA* is expensive and the 16-85 is cheaper, and both are on offer at the Ricoh webshop in Europe until monday. It is that Black Friday Cyber Monday thing that is going on at the moment.

[MaineNative]

I use the 16-85 on my K-5. It is an extremely sharp lens and a good zoom range for general photography. I also have the 18-135, which is also good and a little less bulky but not quite as wide for landscapes. The DA 10-17 is fun for indoor pictures but it is very “fishy” so I only use it when I need 180-degree field of view. I also like the DA 21 for landscapes or as a small street photography lens. (I don’t have any of the other lenses on your list.)

[RobSpain]

I use a Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 fixed version on my K-70. Found it to be very good for landscapes and interior photography. Although no longer manufactured by Sigma there might still be some new ones out there, as well as plenty of second hand ones.

[jddwoods]

Hello,

I have just recently re-joined this forum after being absent for a while. i used to own a Pentax K10 and then the K7. I know own a K5 and a K3ii.

My main hobbies and interests are Nature and Wildlife plus Landscapes/Buildings and Architecture.

I currently own the following lenses:

> Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR LD
> Pentax 100mm f2.8 D-FA Macro Lens
>Tamron 70-300mm f4/5.6 Di LD
>Sigma 50-500mm f4.5-6.3 APO DG IS

I am getting great results on the K3ii using my Pentax 100mm f2.8 D-FA lens and decent results using the Sigma 50-500mm lens 75-80% of the time.

However, whilst out using the Tamron lenses I don't get decent images on the Pentax K3ii. Is this because the lenses are legacy zooms and best suited to older Pentax cameras?

So I have been looking to update my lens collection and would like your thoughts and suggestions on which of the following Pentax lenses would be best suited for use on the Pentax K3ii:

> Pentax 11-18mm DA* f2.8
> Pentax 12-24mm DA f4
> Pentax 16-85mm DA f3.5-5.6
> Pentax 17-70mm DA f4
> Pentax 24-70mm D-FA f2.8

I am open to Pentax users other suggestions for a wide-angle lens for use on the K3ii

Best Regards,

Paul

Between the DA 17-70 and the DA 16-85 I would steer clear of the 17-70 and head straight to the 16-85 which is wider and a much better lens without potential for SDM autofocus issues. Going for wider than that there are DA 14 and DA 15 Limited prime and the 12-24 and DA* 11-18 zooms. Also the fisheye. I have the 15 Limited and for my purposes I think I have my wide angle needs covered with the 15 Limited and the 16-85. Too bad the 12-24 is discontinued, if I wanted a wider option in the future this is the lens I would want. Right now the DA* 11-18 is too far above my budget to consider.

[gatorguy]

I think the Tamron can have some substantial copy to copy variation. I've seen some people have real duds. My copy would be considered by most to be completely junk physically but I think the optics are pretty good.

Colors are real tame on the lens, can almost seemed washed out. I think this is pretty typical of tamron so maybe look into processing your photos a bit and see if you like them more.

Circle B Bar Reserve?

[ZombieArmy]

Circle B Bar Reserve?

One of the coolest nature places in central florida. Haven't been there since the covid thing though.

[UncleVanya]

Between the DA 17-70 and the DA 16-85 I would steer clear of the 17-70 and head straight to the 16-85 which is wider and a much better lens without potential for SDM autofocus issues. Going for wider than that there are DA 14 and DA 15 Limited prime and the 12-24 and DA* 11-18 zooms. Also the fisheye. I have the 15 Limited and for my purposes I think I have my wide angle needs covered with the 15 Limited and the 16-85. Too bad the 12-24 is discontinued, if I wanted a wider option in the future this is the lens I would want. Right now the DA* 11-18 is too far above my budget to consider.

The da 17-70 f4 is a fine much maligned lens in my experience. There's no denying that sdm failures did plague people in the past. My copy I purchased refurbished and sdm never gave me trouble. My niece has the lens still and uses it without problems. The color and contrast and sharpness really shine on that lens. I can't directly compare it to the 16-85 but I have compared it to my DA15 (smc) and my DA 70(hd) and found it to be very close.

[Bertrand3000]

You will need shorter focal lengths.


I would recommend the Sigma 10-20 F3.5. The older version Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 is also a good quality lens, if you don't mind the screw drive autofocus and smaller apertyre?


I also recommend the Pentax DA 10-17 FishEye (either SMC or HD version, it does not matter). 180° angle of view is awesome, in cost of the Fisheye effect. But the Fisheye effect should not stop you : you can minor its effect by changing the composition, tilting the camera, or zooming in to 17. And you can defish an image on a computer, even if I never felt the need to do that.

Rules of thumb :

Sigma 10-20 F3.5 is mostly free of distortion at 14mm and forward. When it comes to sharpness, it is best at 20mm but 10mm is perfectly usable!
Pentax DA 10-17 is at best at 10mm but beware of lateral chromatic aberrations (unavoidable with a fisheye).

[gatorguy]

One of the coolest nature places in central florida. Haven't been there since the covid thing though.

I'm within 15 minutes of it. When I restarted my photography 5 years ago (or was it 6, I forget) that's the first place I visited with my K50. Pretty much lived there every weekend for months. The place has changed a bit over the years, but I still make sure to visit at least every few weeks.

[ZombieArmy]

I'm within 15 minutes of it. When I restarted my photography 5 years ago (or was it 6, I forget) that's the first place I visited with my K50. Pretty much lived there every weekend for months. The place has changed a bit over the years, but I still make sure to visit at least every few weeks.

Yah it was my haunt for a while. Never got bored unless they close a bunch of trails

[Paul72]

Hello,

Thanks for all your responses. I am very gratefully for your comments suggestions and what to try and steer clear of.

I will try and do some comparison shots both on the K5 and K3ii with the lenses I have and when I get some done I will post them on here.

If some people are saying that they are surprised that the Tamron doesn't give good/great results could it be a potential issue with my camera body?

I have noticed a few instances when I have focused using a few lenses I got rid of and nothing was really in focus in the image but when you viewed the scene via the view-finder everything looked clear and the red AF indicator illuminated but the resultant shot was no clear point of focus.

I knew a friend who had a Pentax so at the time I asked to meet up with them and I took a shot on my camera and one on his using the 'suspect' lens. I took both shots at the same camera and lens setting and the image on his camera was sharp and in-focus but on mine was lack lustre!

I did other tests at home with the SpyderCal lens calibration kit and even though my camera's AF indicator illuminated red at the target point the 0 or zero make wasn't in-focus the point of focus was always behind where I focused on!

I was able to set my 100mm Macro (prime) lens up to focus correctly using the AF micro-adjustment setting. But on zoom lenses it's much more difficult making adjustment settings as it will adjust the whole zoom range will it not?

I have had a few lenses now that I have tried on someone else's camera and get sharp images even hand-held. So I am beginning to wonder if it is my DSLR that has an issue?

I will do some more static camera and subject tests and will dig out the SpyderCal kit and will report back over the next few days.

Getting back to the best wide-angle I am thinking regards the 12-24, 16-85 or the 24-70mm at present. The latter I would miss-out on the wide-angle shots though, but maybe get better image quality?

Best Regards,

Paul