[grainbelt]

I would think a 16-45 or 18-55 AND the 50 1.4 would be more useful, together, than a more expensive zoom.

I have the kit lens and 50 1.4 on my K200D and find they each have their uses - being tied down to one zoom, especially an F4, would be limiting.

[Alfisti]

Those prices ar einsane, look at the marketplace here and large US stores like B+H or even prodigital2000 in Canada before buying from rip off aus retailers.

[jesalonen]

Since you asked... I have some experience with Canon 400D and Sigma 17-70 - Ok, it has a good reach but I don't think that IQ is any better than the Pentax kit lens that you already have. On the other hand, Pentax has good reviews and if it is even cheaper... Go for it!

[audiobomber]

These debates go on and on here, in support of one or the other kit-type lenses. I chose the DA16-45 since it has the best IQ, especially edge to edge, which is important for some landscapes. But for others the extra reach of a lens that goes to 70mm is more important. I find that when I do want something in the range 40-80mm I want it to be much faster than f/4, so I have the FA43 and FA77 for that. For those who want an all-in one and need that extra range the Sigma seems to be the choice.

Also, I think the DA16-45 is available cheaper than you indicate, though maybe not in Australia. It comes up here on the forums regularly.

What he said (except that I don't have the FA43 and FA77, I have the FA50 and DFA100 ;~).
Plus the 16-45 has lower distortion at 16mm than the 17-70 at 17mm.

[tjmckay]

Sigh.....decisions, decisions.... thanks for all you input.

I have narrowed the decision down further though. The Pentax 16-45 is too long for my liking and too expensive compared to other options. Revised options:

1. Buy the Pentax kit lens 18-55mm MKII, to use on my existing K100d, for roughly about $230 and then upgrade the whole setup later; like 12 months and sell K100d and sigma 18-50mm on ebay.

2. Buy the Sigma 17-70mm, to use on my existing K100d, as per point 1.

3. Buy a Pentax K200d with the 18-55mm MKII kit lens and flog the K100d on ebay, now rather than later so that I can get some decent value for it.

4. Buy a Pentax K200d with the Sigma 17-70mm and flog the K100d on ebay, now rather than later so that I can get some decent value for it. This option could be only $130 extra than option 2, assuming I could get $250 for my existing kit on ebay.

What does everyone think ? Sorry for the posts....in a real quandry...

[MrApollinax]

I have the K100D Super and currently have no plans to upgrade my system in the near term future. The K100D is plenty camera for my needs right now. That being said I do not think getting the MKII Kit lens for your camera will gain you much if anything. That lens was designed for use on the K20D. If I were looking to upgrade now I would go with option 4.

[rparmar]

Hey Troy, you are in a quandary aren't you? That's a lot of questions (again). Maybe you need to think more clearly about your needs.

Why are you thinking of upgrading the body? Is there really any reason to do that? Bodies are always a bad investment since they depreciate quickly. Your K100D is already worth next to nothing -- which makes it a great deal for a buyer! But it still takes great pictures, and unless there is something distinctly better about a K200D for your needs (do you need weather-sealing?) then I would stick with it.

You want a better lens and maybe more zoom. But better how? Better IQ? Then really the DA16-45 is your ticket. Better range? Then maybe just add the DA55-300 to what you already have. Faster and more control over DOF? Then get the FA50. All are inexpensive for what they give you.

Upgrading from one version of the kit lens to another is not going to change your world.

[tjmckay]

You're right Rparmar about the debates with the decision on lenses.....

I have been reading lots of forum threads on this site and on dpreview, the pentax 16-45 and sigma 17-70 each have great IQ but do have their faults. I am now leaning towards the 16-45 as I only shoot 10% of my images at 45-50mm on existing lens and because it's a pentax. Couple of questions...again..

1. Is there a noticeable shadowing effect from the 16-45 when using the flash, as the lens extends on the wide end ?
2. Is the CA problem, on the 16-45, I've read and from the photozone review really that bad ? Is it noticeable ?

Again, many thanks in advance.

Cheers

Troy

[heatherslightbox]

Troy,
I can't give you a good answer to the first question because I don't use the flash that much, but I will say that with my copy of the 16-45, I've never noticed a problem with CA. Even if you do get some CA, most decent photo software programs have a way to correct it.

HTH,
Heather

[rparmar]

I do not see CA with the lens due to how I use it. But I am sure it is there, as it is with other lenses. As Heather said, it is so easy to deal with in PP that I don't rate it as a big deal.

As to flash, I try to avoid ever using flash, especially with wider angles. You're always going to do better with bounced flash or off-camera anyway. Trying to get the buil-in flash to do anything decent is an exercise in frustration (as it is for any camera).

[tjmckay]

G'day All

Well I bit the bullet and bought a new Pentax 16-45mm and I must say I'm impressed so far.

Great pics so far, fast and smooth zooming (the Sigma's zoom barrel was quite rigid), although I had to buy an extra bag to fit the camera and lens (the 16-45 is quite physically long).

Thanks for all your help and advice !!

Troy

[rparmar]

Great pics so far, fast and smooth zooming (the Sigma's zoom barrel was quite rigid), although I had to buy an extra bag to fit the camera and lens (the 16-45 is quite physically long).

Glad you found something that works for you. The DA16-45 is indeed long when extended, and oddly this is when it is at its widest. I have found this useful: you can take pictures of people close to you who think they are out of the frame, the lens looking like a telephoto.

[audiobomber]

G'day All

Well I bit the bullet and bought a new Pentax 16-45mm and I must say I'm impressed so far.

Good choice! Are you noticing any CA? I have to agree with the others, I don't see it. Maybe I don't know what to look for. In which case, don't show me, I love my 16-45mm.

[FHPhotographer]

I agree, the 16-45mm is a great choice. Better IQ than the 18-55 or 18-250, available for around $400AU. The 16-45 and a Tamron 70-300 (or better yet the Pentax 55-300mm) will give you significantly more range on both ends and better IQ in general than the 18-250, for a similar price.

I keep reading this, but that's not what the MTF numbers say; the kit 18-55 outperforms the 16-45 at virtually every comparable length and speed. Not by much, but testing is testing and it's what we have short of hands-on comparison (particularly if the lenses aren't available locally and you have to order both online to compare and then pay the shipping to send back one of the two).

When you factor in the price difference, the 18-55 seems a better choice. But I'd like to be educated, so aside from the extra 2mm at the bottom end, can somebody nail down the 16-45 subjective superiority that makes it the better choice?
Brian

[audiobomber]

I keep reading this, but that's not what the MTF numbers say; the kit 18-55 outperforms the 16-45 at virtually every comparable length and speed.

I don't know where you got those MTF tests, but if you read the Photozone tests you'll see that you have it backwards. The 16-45 is significantly sharper all around except at F11.

I have both lenses and subjectively there's a big difference. My 18-55 photos look quite dull compared to the 16-45's punchier colours and contrast.