[bdery]

I chuckled...you being the reviewer and all...

Why chuckled?

Indeed, one of the things that keeps me away from Sony, is the price of the lenses and what you get for it...

The Sony lens sells for 300$ when packaged with the camera. And I would say that at that price, it's pretty good. I'll be testing it thoroughly, but I can already say that it's a limited range, slow aperture, high-resolution retractable zoom. It's certainly not junk.

[Breakfastographer]

coatings are not optics in my book reasonable minds might differ

I think "optical formula" is the term you're looking for.

And since you seem to like links, here's one more:
HD vs. SMC Pentax-DA 18-50mm F4-5.6 Review - Sharpness | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[ChristianRock]

Why chuckled?



The Sony lens sells for 300$ when packaged with the camera. And I would say that at that price, it's pretty good. I'll be testing it thoroughly, but I can already say that it's a limited range, slow aperture, high-resolution retractable zoom. It's certainly not junk.

Yes, they always get you with a kit lens deal, but the big draw of a camera system like that is to get a lens set...

Thankfully Tamron and Samyang, among others, are making some affordable good lenses for the FE mount.

[Breakfastographer]

I tested and reviewed the kit lenses a while back:

HD vs. SMC Pentax-DA 18-50mm F4-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The DA-L version was decent, and the HD version was actually pretty impressive.

Your review showed enough of a difference for me to conclude the DA might be worth getting, if any, and the DA L to be avoided. As it stands, I have other lenses that cover that range, and while the collapsibility is technically impressive, I don't particularly require it.

I think Bertrand would be making a good choice with the 17-50.

[stevebrot]

Why chuckled?

He specifically mentioned reviews.


Steve

[Bertrand3000]

Okay... Thank you all for your replies.

It looks like I really need one lens, the Sigma 17-50 F2.8, which check all the boxes of my current needs : fast, quiet, sharp, versatile.

I can get one new in my country for less money than any other option (Sigma 17-70, Pentax DA 18-135, Pentax DA 16-85, any Limited). Only the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is significantly cheaper than the Sigma, but it's a noisy lens and has front/back focus issue which depends on focal length, it's not acceptable for me since I only shoot with the OVF, which is sensitive to that kind of problem.

I also understand that I definitely don't need any Samyang. Thank you all for curing a part of LBA about that!

If I need a WR lens, the 18-50 is here. Bad weather do not happen often indoors, so a fast lens isn't needed! I know I don't like the 18-50 much, but I took quite a lot of good shot with it, I should not forget that and give the little lens some love! Thank you for saving that lens for the trashcan!

The Tamron 70-300 will go, one day or another. It is a fun lens, which taught me to deal with higher focal lenghts... something a superzoom like the 18-250 won't, since you can always zoom out. But when I got the PLM, the 70-300 had to retire, ashamed.


About the Tamron 18-250, I'm not ready yet to get rid of my only superzoom. I can see use of it still.. for now.


Finally, I understand that what I will need later is the Pentax DA 18-135, for outdoor shots and hiking. For that usage, it will be better than the 18-50 (faster focusing) and Sigma 17-50 (WR, and lighter to carry), and more versatile than both of them. And when I will get that jewel... Tamron 18-250 and little 18-50 will likely be doomed.

I wish I could have added a Limited to the Kit though. They look fantastic... pixie dust and such. But so costly! And there is not much room for any of them because my kit is already almost complete!

[aslyfox]

Okay... Thank you all for your replies.

It looks like I really need one lens, the Sigma 17-50 F2.8, which check all the boxes of my current needs : fast, quiet, sharp, versatile.. . . (

you made the right choice for what you need

good luck and have fun with your photography

[Breakfastographer]

He specifically mentioned reviews.


Steve

Yes, and I know who bdery is and that he wrote the comparative review, and I remembered that he leaned against the SMC DA L in the review, hence my asking for clarification. I'm aslo aware the user reviews currently lean towards the DA L variant, but (a) I don't hear anybody saying the DA L is actually the better lens of the two, and (b) the HD DA was only rated by nine users (one was a non-rating review), and the difference is too small to call on a sample of nine users imo. The XS was rated higher than the Limited for a while (maybe still is), and I never heard anyone say it was definitely the better lens.

There's also the problem that having "felt" what a lens costs, users may be less impartial than they think they are, even though there is a separate "value" field to indicate whether a lens is felt to be good value for the price (but it's a non-linear effect).

[mikesbike]

t looks like I really need one lens, the Sigma 17-50 F2.8, which check all the boxes of my current needs : fast, quiet, sharp, versatile

I also agree- a good choice for your needs. Kids will move around, so you need a zoom lens for constant reframing, and you need a fast, constant-aperture one for low light use without flash, and you need a quiet one- not screw driven. I have found the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM to be a very fine lens providing excellent imaging, one that can fill all of these needs.

It is also very well-made and well-designed, with the AF/MF switch conveniently located. The focussing collar does rotate during AF, so you have to remember to keep your fingers away from the frontal area, but there is plenty of room anyway. I do a fair amount of low light work, so I often have this lens in use for indoors without flash, and for general-purpose when not needing a lot of FL range, and knowing the sun will be setting soon.

[stevebrot]

Yes, and I know who bdery is and that he wrote the comparative review, and I remembered that he leaned against the SMC DA L in the review, hence my asking for clarification. I'm aslo aware the user reviews currently lean towards the DA L variant, but (a) I don't hear anybody saying the DA L is actually the better lens of the two, and (b) the HD DA was only rated by nine users (one was a non-rating review), and the difference is too small to call on a sample of nine users imo. The XS was rated higher than the Limited for a while (maybe still is), and I never heard anyone say it was definitely the better lens.

There's also the problem that having "felt" what a lens costs, users may be less impartial than they think they are, even though there is a separate "value" field to indicate whether a lens is felt to be good value for the price (but it's a non-linear effect).

Tempting as it might be, I try not to overthink the user reviews. I am also starting to have second thoughts about taking part in these open-ended "help me spend my money" threads.


Steve

[Des]

I am also starting to have second thoughts about taking part in these open-ended "help me spend my money" threads.

The problem is often that the person asking the question doesn't spell out their parameters, or only does so after 20-30 speculative posts. The OP here did list their existing lenses and camera and did specify a budget in the first post, and specified the proposed use case in post 17. The OP clearly had quite a few lenses, zoom and prime, under consideration and two different objectives: landscapes and indoor baby photos without flash. That's what caused the rabbits to start running in different directions. If it was simply a choice between wide-normal constant f2.8 zooms, it would have been more focused. But I guess kicking the can around sometimes helps people to clarify their thinking, challenges their assumptions (e.g. lens X isn't sharp or lens Y has too much CA) and opens up alternatives they had not considered.

Sometimes the best approach is to wait until the preferences and parameters have been clarified before weighing in. But I only tend to realise that afterwards. ;-)

[UncleVanya]

Yes, and I know who bdery is and that he wrote the comparative review, and I remembered that he leaned against the SMC DA L in the review, hence my asking for clarification. I'm aslo aware the user reviews currently lean towards the DA L variant, but (a) I don't hear anybody saying the DA L is actually the better lens of the two, and (b) the HD DA was only rated by nine users (one was a non-rating review), and the difference is too small to call on a sample of nine users imo. The XS was rated higher than the Limited for a while (maybe still is), and I never heard anyone say it was definitely the better lens.

There's also the problem that having "felt" what a lens costs, users may be less impartial than they think they are, even though there is a separate "value" field to indicate whether a lens is felt to be good value for the price (but it's a non-linear effect).

I would agree that in the case of the 18-50 there were enough differences to matter. But the 18-50 has multiple differences that not all da-l lenses do. The 18-50 pits smc vs hd as well as other differences. In most earlier examples the da-l and da had zero differences other than hood, mount and quick shift. That includes the da-l 55-300 vs the da 55-300. Later the the version came out and some might prefer it.

If anything I’d not generalize about da-l vs da unless you have tested the combo. The original designs were identical optically to the da ones. Only recently has there been any optical difference.

[Bertrand3000]

I am also starting to have second thoughts about taking part in these open-ended "help me spend my money" threads.

I know that my question was really open, but it has been weeks now that I am thinking about all of this, and I could not really make up my mind, since every choice has drawbacks.

In my first post I said I was almost decided for the Sigma 17-50 F2.8, but it was only very recently that I came to that conclusion. Thanks to you all, it confirmed that it was indeed the best choice and now I feel confident about it.

I needed ideas and different points of view to better make my mind about this and perhaps consider other options I haven't thought of (or foolishly discarded).

Thanks to you all, I realized that the Pentax DA 18-135 will probably be my next lens after the Sigma, something I did not even consider in all of my thinking. So, thank you all for opening my mind. This was the goal, after all.

[Breakfastographer]

I would agree that in the case of the 18-50 there were enough differences to matter. But the 18-50 has multiple differences that not all da-l lenses do. The 18-50 pits smc vs hd as well as other differences. In most earlier examples the da-l and da had zero differences other than hood, mount and quick shift. That includes the da-l 55-300 vs the da 55-300. Later the the version came out and some might prefer it.

If anything I’d not generalize about da-l vs da unless you have tested the combo. The original designs were identical optically to the da ones. Only recently has there been any optical difference.

While that may be correct, it's also true that I do have direct experience of an 18-55 DA/DA L pair that makes a very strong case for the DA. It's my guess that the plastic setting process is less predictable and therefore if you set lens elements in a plastic barrel, you have a greater chance of "in spec" misalignment, as Roger Cicala might call it.

It would be interesting to study this on a larger sample, as the reviews do sway a little bit towards the DA L versions, but I just saw one that gave a sharpness rating of 10 while stating, "It is not that sharpest lens ever, but for that money is amazing." I take that as a hint that the bias is real.

But as you rightly suggest, the ratings through time could also be taken as an indication that Pentax/Ricoh's quality checks have improved over time, meaning later-release versions could be better... or have suffered less through (ab)use so far.

[bdery]

Yes, they always get you with a kit lens deal, but the big draw of a camera system like that is to get a lens set...

That is true. I smugly believe I've used enough lenses to have a good understanding on how each would fit in a lineup I'd use.

Thankfully Tamron and Samyang, among others, are making some affordable good lenses for the FE mount.

That is true. Some of the most interesting follow the design lines of the Limited (small, moderate aperture, fine IQ).

I remembered that he leaned against the SMC DA L in the review, hence my asking for clarification.

Well I did when comparing both. I didn't mean to convey that the DAL was bad. All lenses must be compared and weighted vs their price. For instance, if the Sony FE28-60 lens I've mentioned was comparable to the DAL 18-50, I'd feel I had been robbed.

I'm aslo aware the user reviews currently lean towards the DA L variant

That's probably a bias vs the number of users and the weight they give to its low price.

I don't hear anybody saying the DA L is actually the better lens of the two

It isn't. I would venture to say that I'm probably one of the very few who has used both

the HD DA was only rated by nine users

Supporting my comment about the number of users. Plus, purchasing the HD is a deliberate choice, while getting the DAL can be seen as a freebie.

There's also the problem that having "felt" what a lens costs, users may be less impartial than they think they are, even though there is a separate "value" field to indicate whether a lens is felt to be good value for the price (but it's a non-linear effect).

Absolutely true.

Tempting as it might be, I try not to overthink the user reviews.

I am wary of the numbers, but put a lot of weight on the comments.

I am also starting to have second thoughts about taking part in these open-ended "help me spend my money" threads.

Hey, isn't that what this forum is for?

The problem is often that the person asking the question doesn't spell out their parameters

I often reply to such threads by asking for clarifications, use cases, etc. Then it's easier to comment.