[ChristianRock]

Let me throw this out there... I know you said you wanted a silent lens, but you can find the DA*16-50mm with broken SDM for as low as 175 dollars (right now on the fee-bay)... and recently I saw one being sold for 225 dollars with a working SDM (it must have gone pretty quickly as I can't find it anymore, I think it was on usedphotopro.com). This is about what I paid for mine, but mine was converted to screw drive, which I honestly don't mind - but agree the silent focus is a nice to have.
I know the Sigma 17-50 is technically supposed to be sharper but when I searched for images from both lenses I always preferred the rendering and colors from the 16-50, always. Especially when it came to pictures of people. The way the 16-50 renders hair and skin might be superior even to all of my prime lenses - I am totally loving the 11x14 prints of my kids I just got back in the mail recently. And on full sun, no comparison - the Pentax coatings make sure the colors remain bright and beautiful even when the light is harsh.
And the AW (all weather) is pretty handy, too. Last night I was shooting at a Christmas lights show here in Brazil with my K-3 and DA*16-50 while it was raining lightly (but enough to get the camera pretty wet), without a care in the world...

[Bertrand3000]

I considered for a while an used DA* 16-50 for a very low price, with broken SDM, repaired many times then converted to screw-drive. But they said that the lens got dismantled so many time that they could not guarantee it was still WR (let alone AW).

Even new, this lens is according to review, DA* 16-50 said to be subpar compared to the Sigma 17-50 and Tamron 17-50. The latter is supposed to be sharper and lighter, but many people reports front/back focus and needing different adjustment for different focal length, and I am mostly an OVF user, depending on quality of PDAF autofocus. So, Sigma was still the best choice, but I know that a true Pentax lens will give me the warmer colors. I can see that when I use my Sigma 10-20 F3.5, then my Pentax lenses.

Besides, the front element of my Sigma is always dirty, while the front element of my Pentax lenses are always clean. Thanks SP coating!

[pres589]

I always like the Tamron 17-50's images the most of those three lenses but I think the Tamron is the least well made (outside of the SDM issues on the Pentax). I could see buying one and planning on having it CLA'd once or twice before moving on to something else; by then who knows what will be available or what system I'd want to own.

[Breakfastographer]

Indeed it's a pretty good lens, shooting above its price. Still not a revolutionary tool, but acceptable, and so small!

Really? The L version? I thought reviews had shown that to be pretty much j*nk, and that the non-L version is very strongly what you'd want to get, if either.

[aslyfox]

Really? The L version? I thought reviews had shown that to be pretty much j*nk, and that the non-L version is very strongly what you'd want to get, if either.

As I understand it, the optics of the DA L series do not differ from the DA zooms

About the SMC Pentax-DA L Lens Series
SMC Pentax-DA L zoom lenses are optimized for use with Pentax Digital SLRs. They cannot be used on film because they only cover the APS-C image circle. The DA L series is a budget series and differs from the DA series in that its lenses do not offer quick-shift focusing and have plastic rather than metal mounts. Pentax DA L lenses are only available in camera kit bundles.
Auto-focus
Auto-aperture (no aperture ring)
Digital-only

Read more at: Pentax DA L Zoom Lenses - Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Breakfastographer]

I considered for a while an used DA* 16-50 for a very low price, with broken SDM, repaired many times then converted to screw-drive. But they said that the lens got dismantled so many time that they could not guarantee it was still WR (let alone AW).

Even new, this lens is according to review, DA* 16-50 said to be subpar compared to the Sigma 17-50 and Tamron 17-50.

Iirc, the finding was that the 16-50 was inferior mostly at the wide end, which means you pick between having the wide end wider or sharper, can't have both (disclaimer: currently, among the available K-mount lenses), and weather sealing vs. none. So there is a range of needs for which it is still the best choice.

---------- Post added 12-01-20 at 10:13 AM ----------

As I understand it, the optics of the DA L series do not differ from the DA zooms

Common misconception. The coatings are different. DA is HD, DA L is SMC.

[Cerebum]

it is fun to show folks the camera with the DA 40mm F2.8 XS and then bring out the D FA 150-450mm zoom


Read more at: SMC Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 XS Reviews - DA XS Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database



Read more at: HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Reviews - D FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database it and then show the D FA 150-450 zoom

I liked it when people thought I hadn't brought a lens at all lol

[aslyfox]

. . . Common misconception. The coatings are different. DA is HD, DA L is SMC.

coatings are not optics in my book reasonable minds might differ

Lens Coating

The lens name prefix smc or HD indicates the type of coating. SMC stands for Super Multi Coating and was introduced back in the 1960'es. Naturally this coating has evolved and been improved over time. HD stands for High Definition and is a new coating introduced in 2012. The purpose of a lens coating is to reduce light loss as light rays travel through the lens elements and also to reduce stray light reflecting off the lens element surfaces. The net effect is less flare, less ghosting and better contrast.

https://mosphotos.com/PentaxLensesExplained.html

not all DA zoom lenses are HD either

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-Zoom-Lenses-c43.html

[aslyfox]

I liked it when people thought I hadn't brought a lens at all lol

the original pancake works for that as well

Description:
Also known as the "pancake," this is the smallest SLR lens that Pentax ever produced. It includes all the features of any other M lens.

In 2006, it was superseded by an even smaller DA version, but that version did not feature an aperture ring.

Diam x Length 63 x 18 mm
Weight 110 g

Read more at: SMC Pentax-M 40mm F2.8 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[pres589]

The 55-300 DA-L's are performance bargains on the used market. I think most of the coatings are the same between the SMC and HD versions as well. Certainly not enough for most user to notice any difference at all between the two.

A crop Pentax shooter looking to build a kit on the cheap could get something pretty convincing together with a used copy of the Tamron 17-50 and a used DA-L 55-300. Add a couple of primes (DA 15 SMC, DA 50 1.8) and go crazy.

[bdery]

Initially I had passed this lens off as just an inferior piece of junk not worthy of mounting on a KP! However when I had to sell my 20 to 40 Limited , I had nothing else to stick on the snoot of my KP and this started out as a substitution that I fell in love with because of it's compact size and light-weight footprint.
I consider it a highly underrated and maligned lens that flies unnoticed under the Radar of most.
Unfortunately I had to sell it with my KP and all my other camera bodies shortly after the Bat virus hit.
Slowly I'm recovering from this and once again this lens is on my radar because it's affordable and more than capable.

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.

Really? The L version? I thought reviews had shown that to be pretty much j*nk, and that the non-L version is very strongly what you'd want to get, if either.

Not junk, no (see above). Nothing unique, but not all lenses must reach up to the level of the DFA* 85. And not all cost that price, and carry that bulk, etc.

I've acquired a Sony A7C compact FF camera, and its "kit lens" (which sells, alone, for 600 bucks) is retractable, slow aperture, and optically superb.

[LensBeginner]

I second/third/fourth whatever the suggestion to sell the 70-300.
I'd sell the 1.8-2500mm f/35-63 as well, and buy a proper 70-200 f/2.8... the jump in optical quality is huge, and you get a lot of versatility for low light/events/portraits etc.
An oldish Sigma can go for as low as 300€, and you can go up to the latest Pentax for 6, 7 times as much.

[ChristianRock]

I considered for a while an used DA* 16-50 for a very low price, with broken SDM, repaired many times then converted to screw-drive. But they said that the lens got dismantled so many time that they could not guarantee it was still WR (let alone AW).

Even new, this lens is according to review, DA* 16-50 said to be subpar compared to the Sigma 17-50 and Tamron 17-50. The latter is supposed to be sharper and lighter, but many people reports front/back focus and needing different adjustment for different focal length, and I am mostly an OVF user, depending on quality of PDAF autofocus. So, Sigma was still the best choice, but I know that a true Pentax lens will give me the warmer colors. I can see that when I use my Sigma 10-20 F3.5, then my Pentax lenses.

Besides, the front element of my Sigma is always dirty, while the front element of my Pentax lenses are always clean. Thanks SP coating!

Indeed, as I was saying, if the most important thing is test results in a lab, the Sigma (and the Tamron) 17-50 wins. But for real world pictures, I know I'm very pleased with the Pentax lens. They're pretty easy to find for a good price right now.
But if you have a 24MP camera and you're a pixel peeper you should probably get the Sigma...

I've acquired a Sony A7C compact FF camera, and its "kit lens" (which sells, alone, for 600 bucks) is retractable, slow aperture, and optically superb.

Indeed, one of the things that keeps me away from Sony, is the price of the lenses and what you get for it... Their 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 sells for $1,173 at the moment. And it's not even a new lens...

[stevebrot]

I am almost decided for one : the Sigma 17-50 F2.8, since I lack a fast and silent normal zoom.

You also lack a high quality normal zoom. The 18-50 is OK, but you will see an improvement in performance equal to your sensor, moving up. Do get the Sigma.

Now that is done, I don't see the need for a second lens. Buy the Sigma new and spend the rest on a vintage prime.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Not junk, no (see above).

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


Steve