Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Which lens
Sigma 17-70mm 1140.74%
pentax 16-45mm 1140.74%
Other 518.52%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-21-2010, 05:31 AM   #1
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 32
Sigma 17-70mm vs pentax 16-45mm or OTHER!

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?

02-21-2010, 07:42 AM   #2
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
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.
02-22-2010, 01:54 AM   #3
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 32
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
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!!
02-22-2010, 02:24 AM   #4
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
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.

02-22-2010, 04:17 AM   #5
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 32
Original Poster
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.
02-22-2010, 05:25 AM   #6
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,213
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.
02-22-2010, 06:00 AM   #7
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,826
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.
02-22-2010, 07:45 AM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/E Victoria, Australia, on the mighty Murray River.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 142
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.

02-22-2010, 07:50 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,110
Other = Tamron 17-50/2.8


Jason
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
55-300mm, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax SMCPDA 16-45mm f/4 vs Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 iamweasel Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 06-30-2008 04:40 AM
Any one can give me a suggestion: sigma 17-70mm or pentax 16-45mm f4 dreamnet Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 08-22-2007 02:33 PM
sigma DC 17-70mm vs. Pentax DA 16-45mm Edvinas Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 11-19-2006 10:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top