[fiish]

Having just bought a K20D and only having my K100D's 18-55 as a standard zoom I am thinking of buying a better standard zoom lens to use with the new body. Since the price of new glass has gone up so much I am shopping the secondhand market.

I have found:
a DA 16-45 selling for £190, and
a DA 17-70 selling for £300, and
a Tamron 17-50 selling for £230

at my local camera shop's used kit section (the only one of many which stocks anything for Pentax).

Am looking for thoughts from more experienced shooters.

Or is the DA 18-55 (not the II version) actually good enough for the K20D?

[Ash]

The 18-55 will not bring out the sharpness that the K20D can capture (other than at the sweet spot of f/8). The 16-45 is excellent right from f/4 (other than at 16mm, which does very well at f/5.6 and above), and the Tamron 17-50 has been famed to rival the DA* 16-50 in rendition. Don't know enough about the DA 17-70, but I gather it too is a very decent lens.

You'll have to make your selection based on your needs - I'd choose the 17-50 from those that you've listed, simply because it's a sharp lens with f/2.8 ability...

[fiish]

Yes, I have held the Tamron in my hands and put it on the camera and I think it's quite nice. Very stiff zoom ring action.

However, for budget reasons I am drawn to the 16-45 because it is the cheapest of the 3, and from reviews it looks like if I do go for it I would not regret my decision... though that can possibly be said for any of those choices.

[GLXLR]

Yes, I have held the Tamron in my hands and put it on the camera and I think it's quite nice. Very stiff zoom ring action.

However, for budget reasons I am drawn to the 16-45 because it is the cheapest of the 3, and from reviews it looks like if I do go for it I would not regret my decision... though that can possibly be said for any of those choices.

IMO, the 16-45mm would make the most sense for you considering your current set up. You already have a 35mm LTD macro f/2.8, an A 50mm f/1.7, and a 28mm f/2.8, so why get another zoom with f/2.8, although for a starter lens I would probably get the 17-50mm, although the 16-45mm will probably be only used at 16mm. considering your set up. There isn't a whole lot difference from a 35mm and 45mm.

[nostatic]

I just sold my 16-45 and I regret it. Frankly that lens performs way better than it should given the cost.

[Alfisti]

Yes, I have held the Tamron in my hands and put it on the camera and I think it's quite nice. Very stiff zoom ring action.

However, for budget reasons I am drawn to the 16-45 because it is the cheapest of the 3, and from reviews it looks like if I do go for it I would not regret my decision... though that can possibly be said for any of those choices.

Jesus for 40 pounds get the f/2.8 lens. No brainer IMHO.

[Jewelltrail]

The Tammy and the K20d make a great pair--I have shot with the 2 of them now for 18 months.

[fiish]

Thanks for all your input. The Tamron seems to have vanished from the used kit shop so it's no longer an option - that leaves the 16-45 or 17-70.

Quite torn between the two, really; one gives me the reach and no 'holes' in my focal length coverage from wideangle to telephoto (though I do have primes to 'fill' the holes), and the other is compatible with both my K20D and K100D. (I wouldn't want to MF the 17-70 really)