[tlwyse]

I just HATE these kind of posts (which lens should I get???) but I'm in a bit of a quandry.

I want to venture into landscape/nature figures/nudes and I've been scouring a bunch of photos, mainly at deviantART: where ART meets application! , and have been noticing a vast majority of them are using relative wide angle to normal focal lengths (20-50mm is very common).

In my first couple attempts with my wife as model, I'm not happy with the results. At the moment I'm stuck with my DA 12-24mm and then all the way to DA* 50-135mm. In fact on the second outing, I forgot the 12-24 altogether so had to settle for the 50-135 that day.

So, to the point, which of these lenses...
DA 16-45mm
DA 17-70mm
DA* 16-50mm
..should I consider?

I'm torn because I like the idea of the DA* 16-50 as the "perfect companion" to my DA* 50-135...but then I've heard good things about the 16-45....and the extra reach of the 17-70 sounds inviting, perhaps maybe the only lens I'd need on a shoot like this? On the other hand, I'm worried that the 16-45 and 17-70 aren't premium glass and would limit my K20D's resolution somewhat. I've vowed to buy only premium glass and just worry about these lenses....and if there's a 3rd party lens (Sigma, whatever) that I should be considering, let me know.

OK, there, now I throughly hate myself for posting another of these silly "which lens should I get?" posts.

Regards,
Terry

[Ash]

Terry,

The only silly question is the one never asked.
You've got a very good pair in the 12-24 and 50-135.
My suggestion, in the case that fund are not too limiting for you, is that the 16-50's the way to go.
It is a solidly built lens with brilliant rendering - and most of the QC issues have been sorted out for a while now.

Having said this, your other suggestions are very decent lenses also - neither I believe are the 'limiting factor' in your quest for sharp high resolution images. The 16-45's been famed as the 16-50 without weather sealing, SDM or the solid build quality, though I do believe the 16-50 still outshines the 16-45 in the difficult to define aspects of image quality, like colour reproduction/contrast.

Other choices could include the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Sigma 18-50/2.8, and there are a few other quality lenses in this range that could also be mentioned.

All the best in your decision!

[Just1MoreDave]

Since you're filling in a gap between two Pentax lenses, a third party lens might not have the right colors. A Pentax lens will match better. I mention this because of your signature, and it quickly narrows your choices back to three lenses.

I like the DA 16-45 for its strengths below 24mm - above that I can use fast primes. But you have the DA 12-24, so you don't really need this range covered at f4. The DA* 16-50 will cover it, give you the option of f2.8 where you'll need it and other cool stuff. If you have the money it's probably worth it.

[GeneV]

I went with the DA17-70, because I don't think, from what I've seen and read, that the differences in resolution between these lenses are all that significant my practical use, and the SDM and extra reach is great. However, if I already had your current stable of lenses (ie the 50-135) , I'd probably spring for the DA* 16-50 and hope the QC issues are really gone.

[EricT]

I have nothing but good things to say about my 16-50mm. I don't think the 16-45 or 17-70 will get you any better IQ. The 16-45 has slightly lower distortion at 16mm, the 17-70 slightly better range, while the 16-50 brings one extra stop (which I use more often than I thought I would) and weather-sealing at a slightly higher price.

[tlwyse]

Lots of good advice (thanx).

I'm sort of leaning towards the 17-70mm at this point because I'm also considering replacing the DA* 50-135mm with the DA* 60-250mm at some point. The 17-70mm would be nice as it would not leave a hole in coverage...although losing those 10mm between 50 and 60mm maybe would not be that big of a deal. Just want to make sure that I'm getting a premium lens.

Thanks again,
Terry