[clipsed]

Hey guys! I've had my K-x + 18-55 and 55-300mm for a while now and i am looking to upgrade my 18-55mm kit (very happy with the 55-300mm).

I'm going to the great barrier reef so i will be taking quite a few nice shots of the forest, sunsets, beaches, waterfalls etc etc, i figure my 55-300mm is good enough for tele (Birds etc) but i want a walk around lens that's better than the 18-55 (not too happy with that lens).

I can't really decide, are there any other options as well?

[dgaies]

You can't really go too wrong with either as they are both great lenses for the money. I've owned both at one point and which one is better for you is tough to say as I've seen great shots from both. I personally kept the 16-45 and sold the 17-70 because I found that when I was at the upper end of the Sigma's focal length range, I wanted something a little faster than f/4.5. On the other hand, when I was at the lower end of the focal range, the advantage of being one-stop faster wasn't as important to me as I wasn't typically shooting wide open down there. So in the end I kept the 16-45 for wider stuff and picked up a Tamron 28-75/2.8 to use as my "walk-around" lens.

[clipsed]

You can't really go too wrong with either as they are both great lenses for the money. I've owned both at one point and which one is better for you is tough to say as I've seen great shots from both. I personally kept the 16-45 and sold the 17-70 because I found that when I was at the upper end of the Sigma's focal length range, I wanted something a little faster than f/4.5. On the other hand, when I was at the lower end of the focal range, the advantage of being one-stop faster wasn't as important to me as I wasn't typically shooting wide open down there. So in the end I kept the 16-45 for wider stuff and picked up a Tamron 28-75/2.8 to use as my "walk-around" lens.

Ah ok, thanks for that. I wonder if 10-20mm is too wide to be a walk around lens . i would love to take some landscape shots, especially in the great barrier reef! hmm decisions!! ah!!

[Ash]

I'd say 10-20 isn't suited as a walk-around lens but is suited for those wide-angle landscapes with prominent foreground features. So it's a 16-45 vote from me, or better still a 16-50 (my second favourite zoom to Tamron's 70-200/2.8) - but if you're keen on an ultra-wide lens, a DA 12-24 would get my vote over the 10-20.

[clipsed]

How is the 16-45 @ 16mm? It's very important that my landscape shots are good quality, then 2nd would be the versatility of the zoom.

[Rondec]

The 16-45 is pretty good at 16mm. Definitely less distortion than either the 16-50 or the kit lens at the wide end. With landscapes, you would probably want to stop down a little anyway, so you should find it quite sharp as well.

[bdery]

The 17-70 Sigma is hard to beat regarding features, such as close focusing, and performances. The 16-45 has one mm wider range, but that's it. Less reach, great but not better performances, no macro. The Pentax 17-70 is a good contestant, with SDM, but again no macro. And here in Canada it's more expensive. It's your call between those two, but between the two you listed the Sigma wins.

[ozzi-paul]

I have the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5, its a good little lens but the new version should be better I would think, and has the better aperture range of f2.8-4, has OS and HSM as well which should be good.

[Jasvox]

Other = Tamron 17-50/2.8


Jason