K10D accessory lenses

Clem Nichols · 03-15-2007, 07:09 AM

I want to upgrade from the kit lens on my K10D, and had been strongly considering the Tamron 18-250 Di-II which should soon be available with the Pentax mount, and which has gotten at least a couple of decent reviews. I prefer a "one-lens-does-it-all" in order to avoid frequent lens changing and excess baggage when traveling. (I never seem to have the right lens on at the right time, and zooming beats walking when you're 66 years old and have a bad hip). The consensus on this and other groups, however, is that superzooms leave something to be desired, and this has me thinking about the following: purchasing the Sigma 17-70 mm 2.8-4.5 DC Macro to use for the majority of my picture taking (outdoor scenics and the obligatory snapshots of pets and grandkids) and the Sigma 70-300 APO DG for a reasonably priced telephoto for wildlife. I have read several favorable reviews of each of these lenses, and believe this would probably give me the most "bang-for-the-buck" with less baggage and fewer lens changes. Am I correct in thinking that the 70-300 lens would give me the same magnification on the K10 as a 135-450 lens on a 35 mm camera? Any obvious flaws in my thinking? I realize a half-dozen primes would be preferable, but I'm not that serious an amateur.

alinla · 03-15-2007, 09:29 AM

Clem,

Most shorter length zoom lenses will surpass the quality that an ultrazoom lens like the 18-250 can provide. So generally speaking 2 zooms will provide better quality and wider apertures than an ultrazoom.

I think your idea is a better option regarding lens quality.

Another idea to make lens changes less frequently is to have some overlap between your lenses. If you are not real attached to the 70-300 lens, the Pentax DA 50-200 would give you some overlap between 50-70, so you wouldn't have as many changes.

The Sigma 70-300mm is the FOV equiv. to a 105-450mm lens on a 35 film camera.

BTW, I recommend you keep the 18-55 zoom. Its a nice small lens to have if you want to travel light.

kbrabble · 03-15-2007, 10:34 AM

I think the 17-70 and the 70-300 make an excellent two lens combo, and both are built well, and have excellent IQ. I have seen quite a few people say the 70-300 is not sharp at 300mm, but I have owned two copy of this lens, and both have been great. You also get the 1:2 macro at 300mm which is great for pictures of flowers, butterflies, etc...

Clem Nichols · 03-15-2007, 10:41 AM

Thanks for your response. My main reason for considering the 70-300 lens is a mission trip to Kenya coming up in late May which will include a trip to one of the game parks. It'll be a once- in-a-lifetime chance to take some big game pictures in a natural setting rather than at a zoo, and I want to take an affordable lens with adequate magnification to bring the subjects up close and a zoom to help with composition. I realize I'll have a gap between 70 and 105 mm, but I'm guessing that really won't be much of a problem assuming, of course that I can get decent pictures with the 17-70 at 70mm and the 70-300 at 70(105) mm.

slip · 03-15-2007, 11:07 AM

Hi

I own the sigma 17-70 for my main lens and it is very good. very sharp with good colors.
I don't think you would be sorry if you chose this lens.

cheers

randy

SpecialK · 03-15-2007, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Clem Nichols

... purchasing the Sigma 17-70 mm 2.8-4.5 DC Macro to use for the majority of my picture taking (outdoor scenics and the obligatory snapshots of pets and grandkids) and the Sigma 70-300 APO DG for a reasonably priced telephoto for wildlife. I have read several favorable reviews of each of these lenses

Hi Clem:

I have the Pentax 50-200 and Sigma 70-300. While the Sigma has the extra reach and "macro" facility, I think the Pentax has the slight edge in sharpness, at least out to 200mm. The Sigma contrast and sharpness drops off slightly from there. Others think the Sigma is very sharp, so it may be true that the Sigma QC is hit and miss. The Sigma 18-50 I have is very sharp, so they are capable of making good lenses (though the 18-50 was almost 2X the cost of the 70-300 no doubt due to being f2.8).

Even though I'm a bit lukewarm about the 70-300 I would recommend it for the budget zoom it is. Also, I "think" I'm getting better sharpness by upping the ISO to 400 even in daylight to get a smaller aperture. It is a bit bulky, though not really heavy, and over 10" long at 300mm.

The 17-70 and 70-300 seem like a good combo.

carpents · 03-16-2007, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Clem Nichols

I realize I'll have a gap between 70 and 105 mm, but I'm guessing that really won't be much of a problem assuming, of course that I can get decent pictures with the 17-70 at 70mm and the 70-300 at 70(105) mm.

There isn't a gap between the 17-70 and 70-300.

Just because the 17-70 is "optimized for digital" doesn't mean the focal length changes. 70mm is still 70mm, on film or digital.

Clem Nichols · 03-16-2007, 07:51 PM

Yes, but it's my understanding that the 70-300 which is for use on either a digital or a 35 mm camera has an effective field of view of 105 mm when used on a digital camera. Am I wrong here?

carpents · 03-16-2007, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Clem Nichols

Yes, but it's my understanding that the 70-300 which is for use on either a digital or a 35 mm camera has an effective field of view of 105 mm when used on a digital camera. Am I wrong here?

70mm is 70mm, it is the exact same on both lenses. There is no gap.

clm · 03-16-2007, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Clem Nichols

Yes, but it's my understanding that the 70-300 which is for use on either a digital or a 35 mm camera has an effective field of view of 105 mm when used on a digital camera. Am I wrong here?

No, but the 17-70 has a FOV equivalent to 27.5-105mm. The crop factor applies to digital lenses, too.

Bramela · 03-17-2007, 01:54 AM

I have purchased the 17-70 in the last 3 weeks and I am extremely pleased with it. Is a great 'walk-about' lens and I find the sharpness extremly up to expectations. Then again, maybe I am easier to please than some.
You say the 70-300 DG APO is your lens of choice to compliment the 17-70. My thoughts exactly.
I have at the moment Non APO 70-300, which leaves me a little disappointed.
I am having trouble tracking down the APO model in Pentax fit. Seems that nearly all on sale ar Nikon/Canon.
However, I feel you could do a lot worse than the 17-70.

Clem Nichols · 03-17-2007, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by clm

No, but the 17-70 has a FOV equivalent to 27.5-105mm. The crop factor applies to digital lenses, too.

Thanks all. As the old song goes, "I'm beginning to see the light". (Unless you're near my age you probably don't remember that one.) As a new DSLR owner I was obviously having trouble putting it all together focal-length wise. Incidentally, BH Photo now has the 70-300 with Pentax mount.

Arpe · 03-17-2007, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Clem Nichols

"I'm beginning to see the light"

Velvet Underground.

Dana G · 03-17-2007, 07:21 PM

If you really want to upgrade from the kit lens, get the 16-45mm f/4. It covers approximately the same range and it's a true pro-grade lens.

Thus said, if you never print larger than 5x7 or 8x10, you won't really need that fancy a lens.

Rolly · 03-18-2007, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Arpe

Velvet Underground.

"Cover "job.

Originally published in 1944; written by 'Duke' Ellington, Don George, Johnny Hodges and Harry James. (Wikipedia)

03-15-2007, 07:09 AM	#1
Clem Nichols Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Munfordville, Ky. Photos: Gallery Posts: 370	K10D accessory lenses I want to upgrade from the kit lens on my K10D, and had been strongly considering the Tamron 18-250 Di-II which should soon be available with the Pentax mount, and which has gotten at least a couple of decent reviews. I prefer a "one-lens-does-it-all" in order to avoid frequent lens changing and excess baggage when traveling. (I never seem to have the right lens on at the right time, and zooming beats walking when you're 66 years old and have a bad hip). The consensus on this and other groups, however, is that superzooms leave something to be desired, and this has me thinking about the following: purchasing the Sigma 17-70 mm 2.8-4.5 DC Macro to use for the majority of my picture taking (outdoor scenics and the obligatory snapshots of pets and grandkids) and the Sigma 70-300 APO DG for a reasonably priced telephoto for wildlife. I have read several favorable reviews of each of these lenses, and believe this would probably give me the most "bang-for-the-buck" with less baggage and fewer lens changes. Am I correct in thinking that the 70-300 lens would give me the same magnification on the K10 as a 135-450 lens on a 35 mm camera? Any obvious flaws in my thinking? I realize a half-dozen primes would be preferable, but I'm not that serious an amateur.

03-17-2007, 01:54 AM	#11
Bramela Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Newcastle Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,284	Sigma 17-70 I have purchased the 17-70 in the last 3 weeks and I am extremely pleased with it. Is a great 'walk-about' lens and I find the sharpness extremly up to expectations. Then again, maybe I am easier to please than some. You say the 70-300 DG APO is your lens of choice to compliment the 17-70. My thoughts exactly. I have at the moment Non APO 70-300, which leaves me a little disappointed. I am having trouble tracking down the APO model in Pentax fit. Seems that nearly all on sale ar Nikon/Canon. However, I feel you could do a lot worse than the 17-70.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Your most useful Accessory	8540tomg	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	54	05-10-2009 01:33 AM
What VF accessory should I be using?	MrEspie	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	2	04-08-2009 07:33 PM
Accessory Database?	8540tomg	Site Suggestions and Help	1	07-01-2008 08:17 AM
New accessory for my K300/4???	wjwncpro	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	04-19-2007 06:51 PM

03-15-2007, 09:29 AM	#2
alinla Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 193	Clem, Most shorter length zoom lenses will surpass the quality that an ultrazoom lens like the 18-250 can provide. So generally speaking 2 zooms will provide better quality and wider apertures than an ultrazoom. I think your idea is a better option regarding lens quality. Another idea to make lens changes less frequently is to have some overlap between your lenses. If you are not real attached to the 70-300 lens, the Pentax DA 50-200 would give you some overlap between 50-70, so you wouldn't have as many changes. The Sigma 70-300mm is the FOV equiv. to a 105-450mm lens on a 35 film camera. BTW, I recommend you keep the 18-55 zoom. Its a nice small lens to have if you want to travel light.

03-15-2007, 10:34 AM	#3
kbrabble Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 181	I think the 17-70 and the 70-300 make an excellent two lens combo, and both are built well, and have excellent IQ. I have seen quite a few people say the 70-300 is not sharp at 300mm, but I have owned two copy of this lens, and both have been great. You also get the 1:2 macro at 300mm which is great for pictures of flowers, butterflies, etc...

03-15-2007, 10:41 AM	#4
Clem Nichols Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Munfordville, Ky. Photos: Gallery Posts: 370 Original Poster	Thanks for your response. My main reason for considering the 70-300 lens is a mission trip to Kenya coming up in late May which will include a trip to one of the game parks. It'll be a once- in-a-lifetime chance to take some big game pictures in a natural setting rather than at a zoo, and I want to take an affordable lens with adequate magnification to bring the subjects up close and a zoom to help with composition. I realize I'll have a gap between 70 and 105 mm, but I'm guessing that really won't be much of a problem assuming, of course that I can get decent pictures with the 17-70 at 70mm and the 70-300 at 70(105) mm.

03-15-2007, 11:07 AM	#5
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,537	Hi I own the sigma 17-70 for my main lens and it is very good. very sharp with good colors. I don't think you would be sorry if you chose this lens. cheers randy

03-15-2007, 08:31 PM	#6
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,452	Originally posted by Clem Nichols ... purchasing the Sigma 17-70 mm 2.8-4.5 DC Macro to use for the majority of my picture taking (outdoor scenics and the obligatory snapshots of pets and grandkids) and the Sigma 70-300 APO DG for a reasonably priced telephoto for wildlife. I have read several favorable reviews of each of these lenses Hi Clem: I have the Pentax 50-200 and Sigma 70-300. While the Sigma has the extra reach and "macro" facility, I think the Pentax has the slight edge in sharpness, at least out to 200mm. The Sigma contrast and sharpness drops off slightly from there. Others think the Sigma is very sharp, so it may be true that the Sigma QC is hit and miss. The Sigma 18-50 I have is very sharp, so they are capable of making good lenses (though the 18-50 was almost 2X the cost of the 70-300 no doubt due to being f2.8). Even though I'm a bit lukewarm about the 70-300 I would recommend it for the budget zoom it is. Also, I "think" I'm getting better sharpness by upping the ISO to 400 even in daylight to get a smaller aperture. It is a bit bulky, though not really heavy, and over 10" long at 300mm. The 17-70 and 70-300 seem like a good combo.

03-16-2007, 04:12 PM	#7
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	Originally posted by Clem Nichols I realize I'll have a gap between 70 and 105 mm, but I'm guessing that really won't be much of a problem assuming, of course that I can get decent pictures with the 17-70 at 70mm and the 70-300 at 70(105) mm. There isn't a gap between the 17-70 and 70-300. Just because the 17-70 is "optimized for digital" doesn't mean the focal length changes. 70mm is still 70mm, on film or digital.

03-16-2007, 07:51 PM	#8
Clem Nichols Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Munfordville, Ky. Photos: Gallery Posts: 370 Original Poster	Yes, but it's my understanding that the 70-300 which is for use on either a digital or a 35 mm camera has an effective field of view of 105 mm when used on a digital camera. Am I wrong here?

03-16-2007, 08:42 PM	#9
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	Originally posted by Clem Nichols Yes, but it's my understanding that the 70-300 which is for use on either a digital or a 35 mm camera has an effective field of view of 105 mm when used on a digital camera. Am I wrong here? 70mm is 70mm, it is the exact same on both lenses. There is no gap.

03-16-2007, 09:20 PM	#10
clm Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 220	Originally posted by Clem Nichols Yes, but it's my understanding that the 70-300 which is for use on either a digital or a 35 mm camera has an effective field of view of 105 mm when used on a digital camera. Am I wrong here? No, but the 17-70 has a FOV equivalent to 27.5-105mm. The crop factor applies to digital lenses, too.

03-17-2007, 04:51 PM	#12
Clem Nichols Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Munfordville, Ky. Photos: Gallery Posts: 370 Original Poster	Originally posted by clm No, but the 17-70 has a FOV equivalent to 27.5-105mm. The crop factor applies to digital lenses, too. Thanks all. As the old song goes, "I'm beginning to see the light". (Unless you're near my age you probably don't remember that one.) As a new DSLR owner I was obviously having trouble putting it all together focal-length wise. Incidentally, BH Photo now has the 70-300 with Pentax mount.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2007, 05:48 PM	#13
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,427	Originally posted by Clem Nichols "I'm beginning to see the light" Velvet Underground.

03-17-2007, 07:21 PM	#14
Dana G Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Masachusetts Posts: 245	If you really want to upgrade from the kit lens, get the 16-45mm f/4. It covers approximately the same range and it's a true pro-grade lens. Thus said, if you never print larger than 5x7 or 8x10, you won't really need that fancy a lens.

03-18-2007, 01:06 AM	#15
Rolly Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 295	Originally posted by Arpe Velvet Underground. "Cover "job. Originally published in 1944; written by 'Duke' Ellington, Don George, Johnny Hodges and Harry James. (Wikipedia)