[January]

First, let me thank you all again for the great advice on budget telephoto lenses. I am really happy with the lens I bought!

I would now like to find a drop-in replacement for my 18-55 DAL lens. I know that many find this lens to be quite sharp, but that is not my experience. Maybe my copy is flawed; I don't know. But there are a few others I have seen.

My first priority is budget, second - sharpness, third - speed. I do not care much about the additional 1 or 2 mm at the short end or quiet/fast autofocus, but ability to take macro or macro-ish photographs would be nice. I will buy a second-hand lens. Here are some lenses below 200 EUR I have seen in local ads or on ebay and their respective prices; what would be your advice?

Sigma DC 18-50 f/2.8 macro: 200 EUR
Pentax DA 16-45 f/4: ca. 150 EUR
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8: ca 150-200 EUR
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8: ca 150 EUR
Pentax 18-50: ca 120 EUR

From the specs alone, I tend towards the sigma f2.8, because it has a macro button and is quite fast throughout the zoom range. I haven't seen many examples of photographs from this lens, though, and the crowd wisdom says is not very sharp, despite some contrary opinions. The other sigma, 17-50 f/2.8 seem also quite nice.

The runner up is the Pentax 16-45; parameter wise, I would prefer 18-50 and f/2.8, however I have seen several nice pictures made with this lens. Also, the average rating is higher than for the Sigma.

Too much choice!

[gatorguy]

The simple answer from me would be the Sigma 17-50 2.8

It's a very good all-around lens, working nicely for anything from landscape to portrait. Colors render well, good sharpness, pretty solid AF that rarely hunts.

[gylfimag]

The Sigma 17-50 2.8 is excellent. Image quality stellar, rapid focus and good build quality. Not WR and no macro capabilities though if that is important to you.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

The other simple answer is Pentax 18-50 HD version. But you have to get used to fiddling with the retraction mechanism. This lens takes advantage over any third party option because you can use the in camera corrections. The one I have gives nice sharp results. The 16-45 is also a good option. I own a 17-50 f2.8 as well and I think it is a disappointing lens for the money, so it sits in my cupboard. Moreover, it is a quite heavy lens.

[gump]

sigma 17-50 on K70

[gatorguy]

The other simple answer is Pentax 18-50 HD version...
I own a 17-50 f2.8 as well and I think it is a disappointing lens for the money, so it sits in my cupboard. Moreover, it is a quite heavy lens.

The Pentax 18-50 WR is another fine choice, especially for anyone shooting in inclement weather. It's the cheapest of the bunch and can probably be found for even less, always another plus.

But the Sigma being "Quite heavy" may be giving potential buyers a wrong impression IMO. The Pentax DFA*50 might be considered "heavy". The Pentax DFA*85 is heavy. The *70-200 is heavier still. The Sigma 17-50 is relatively lightweight IMO, but grant that it's heav-ier than the plastic shell and slower variable aperture Pentax 18-50. Nothing unwieldy about the Sigma in my own experience. Personally I try to reserve phrases like "very/extremely heavy" and words like "huge" and "massive" for those lenses that truly are.

Regarding quality, that Sigma was my portrait lens of choice early on and performed very well. As usual with many prosumer-grade, there most certainly has been some variance across different lenses. You'll find a few that perform less than they were intended to and your particular one may be one of those.

As a rule the Sigma 17-50 2.8 has been well regarded by Pentaxians.

[Kozlok]

One of my favorite budget lens is the Sigma 17-70. You get near-macro close focus, the images are sharp and contrasty. The original screw drive version is usually less than $100, and the newer versions are a little better and include silent focus. The original one is the budget winner, though. The one that has the reviews here:

Sigma DC Macro 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Edit: It looks like KEH has 2 of those for sale for $127.72. I imagine you can find one on your side of the ocean.

---

Last edited by Kozlok; 04-05-2023 at 05:47 AM.

[Jonathan Mac]

First, let me thank you all again for the great advice on budget telephoto lenses. I am really happy with the lens I bought!

I would now like to find a drop-in replacement for my 18-55 DAL lens. I know that many find this lens to be quite sharp, but that is not my experience. Maybe my copy is flawed; I don't know. But there are a few others I have seen.

My first priority is budget, second - sharpness, third - speed. I do not care much about the additional 1 or 2 mm at the short end or quiet/fast autofocus, but ability to take macro or macro-ish photographs would be nice. I will buy a second-hand lens. Here are some lenses below 200 EUR I have seen in local ads or on ebay and their respective prices; what would be your advice?

Sigma DC 18-50 f/2.8 macro: 200 EUR
Pentax DA 16-45 f/4: ca. 150 EUR
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8: ca 150-200 EUR
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8: ca 150 EUR
Pentax 18-50: ca 120 EUR

From the specs alone, I tend towards the sigma f2.8, because it has a macro button and is quite fast throughout the zoom range. I haven't seen many examples of photographs from this lens, though, and the crowd wisdom says is not very sharp, despite some contrary opinions. The other sigma, 17-50 f/2.8 seem also quite nice.

The runner up is the Pentax 16-45; parameter wise, I would prefer 18-50 and f/2.8, however I have seen several nice pictures made with this lens. Also, the average rating is higher than for the Sigma.

Too much choice!

Of those options I've tried 1, 3 and 4 and the best one is undoubtedly the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. The Tamron is probably as good optically as the Sigma but it lacks a certain something in the rendering (though sharpness, colour and contrast are good), lacks the quiet in-lens focus motor and build quality is not as good. The Sigma 17-50mm is sharp with great colour and contrast and a subtlety to it's rendering that's very rare. I always think that it often renders like the very best film emulsions.

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 was the first fast standard zoom I tried and I took it back the day after buying it because it was so soft. I remember it was on the market for only a very short time before being replaced with the far superior 17-50mm.

If you're interested, my copy has just gone up for sale in order to fund some other goodies but don't let that put you off - together with the Pentax 16-85mm it's one of the two very best zooms I've used and they've served me well for a few years, one for range and WR and the other for speed.

My album of photos from it can be found here: Sigma DC EX HSM 17-50mm f/2.8 | Flickr

[ramseybuckeye]

I had a Sigma 17-50 2.8 and used it a lot a few years ago. It was a good lens, as long as you didn’t shoot wide open. However I needed a weather resistant lens and got the Pentax 20-40 which ended up replacing it. Again, the Sigma is good, but it’s quite a chunky lens for not really being a usable 2.8, but then maybe that was just my copy. I know nothing about the Pentax 16-45 but I would certainly check the reviews, with my experiences Pentax lenses are usually better than the Sigmas and Tamrons.

[AstroDave]

Another vote for the Sigma 17-50.

Mine is as sharp as the older model Pentax 16-50 2.8 (I've done LOTS of resolution testing and basically can't see any difference), and the autofocus is a lot snappier.

No macro or WR, though. You can get macro with some extension tubes.

[luftfluss]

DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[ehrwien]

Another vote for the Sigma 17-50/2.8, I've got one myself and like the pictures I made with it:


Coal lorries


Fire performer


Busy scene



The Pentax 16-45 would be a great choice as well, if you can find a good copy (there are reports about "wiggling" which can happen after some time and which makes the lens produce much softer images; there's something about the construction of the lens that benefits this development it seems). I wouldn't pay 150€ for a used copy though, especially if for the same money you can get a Sigma 17-50/2.8


Ruhrgebiet Squares


Lightning Strike

[AfterPentax Mark II]

I know you are right with the variance between the 17-50 lenses. Also there different issues of that lens. One with OS (the oldest version) and one without OS. The 17-50 also balances quite good on the flagship models because of its weight, on lighter camera's you might feel it will topple over, in comparison to the K-30 it is "quite heavy". K-30 650gr K-3 800gr. With the K-30 I think the Pentax 18-50 is more in the same league than with the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. But that is a matter of taste / personal opinion.

[UncleVanya]

Sigma DC 18-50 f/2.8 macro: 200 EUR
Pentax DA 16-45 f/4: ca. 150 EUR
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8: ca 150-200 EUR
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8: ca 150 EUR
Pentax 18-50: ca 120 EUR

I echo the comment that the 18-50 f2.8 sigma has a rough history. It was rapidly replaced by the 17-50.

My personal experience with this list is only with the 18-50 Pentax. I’ve had both the SMC and HD. It’s a fine but fiddly lens and has a slow aperture. It works well if weight and size are important more than other factors. It’s also weather resistant which can be useful.

The 17-50 Tamron I’ve shot on Nikon. Good lens. The DA* 16-50 Pentax is in my stable and I might have looked at the Tamron or the Sigma 17-50 options if I didn’t own the 16-50.

The 16-45 is a nice lens but suffers from a weak physical design where the barrel can sag. This isn’t a good thing to have happen as it drastically impacts image plane alignment. Also a good friend upgraded to the 16-50 and said it was sharper - could just be his copy.

Other lenses worth a look:
Pentax 17-70/4 - although sdm can fail in early copies. I’ve used that lens it was surprisingly sharp.
Sigma 17-70 - read reviews. Pentax 18-135 and 16-85 - slower apertures but great size vs range.
Pentax 20-40/2.8-4 great lens but probably out of the price range.

[ChristianRock]

If you like close up photography I would like to note that the DA 16-45mm f4 focuses quite a bit closer than the .26x that is stated in the specs. I have a couple of .25x magnification and the 16-45 magnifies a lot more. I would say at least .30x. The Sigma17-50 2.8 is only .20x.
I find the image quality of the DA 16-45mm really good, and the 16mm end is really useful. The only issue as stated before is the build quality of the barrel.