[Al_in_the_Shire]

Application - Nature Photography and Landscapes.

I currently have a Pentax 16 45. I like it, but I have a gap in focal lengths from the 45 end up to where my Macro starts at 105. Looking to fill that a bit if possible. Right now, the DA 55-300 fills that but I am going to upgrade that lens to a Sigma 100 300.

I'm not that concerned about low light capabilities for this lens, so something slow would be OK.

The Pentax SDM 50 135 would be perfect but I dont want to deal with potential SDM problems unfortunately.

Cost is not a concern.

I have a Sigma 10 20 to cover the wide end.

No primes as I am trying to keep this to a 4 lens set up for hiking. 10-20 something in the middle, 105 macro and 100 to 300. One on the camera in a chest pack and three in the bag.

Any suggestions? Or just don't worry about it?

Thanks

[rustynail925]

Are you looking for a zoom or a prime?
Either the DA 70 or FA 77 for a prime
Tamron 28-75mm for zoom

If you are planning to replace your DA 16-45
try the DA 17-70 or the Sigma 17-70

[kjao]

How about either Pentax 28-105/3.2-4.5 or Pentex 24-90/3.5-4.5? Both are very decent lenses, with 24-90 being the better one

Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a very nice lens but heavier than the two mentioned above.

cheers
Kenny

[Andrew Lang]

i've got the sigma 2.8 24-70 and that rocks for lots of different applications, you have the wide covered so i would give it a shot if you can get it for a good deal. it's a good fast lens,and it's sharpest at f11 so you can use it in most applications hand held for landscapes.

[pacerr]

I find the DA 28-105/4-5.6 IF (Tamron version) to complement the DA 16-45 quite nicely for the same purposes you mention. The results are very comparable, and it's about the same weight and size as a DA 18-55. This DA and its Tamron cousin are found at bargain prices today IMO.

I also have the Tam 24-135/3.5-5.6 (which I acquired expecting it to replace the 28-105 but it hasn't - it's a big sucker) and the 28-75/2.8, all of which provide a lot of redundancy in the mid-zone but I can't commit to let one go. I suspect the 28-75 would ultimately survive because it does live up to its reputation for IQ. If the 28-75 was a 24-105/2.8 with equal IQ it'd definitely be no contest for my choice for that use.

H2

[jjdgti]

I second the Sigma 17-70mm. It is a nice lens and relatively fast in the wide end.

[Al_in_the_Shire]

I'm glad I asked. A few things to check out now. I dont want to carry an extra lens, which is why I want to replace the 16 45, but I am concerned a bit about losing the 20 to 28 wide end if I swap it out with something that starts at 28. I seem to use my 16 45 a lot around the 25 to 30 range and I would be losing that if I went that way. I just may have to buy a bigger bag and suck it up like a man and carry an extra lens to compliment the 16-45

Thanks for the ideas.

[audiobomber]

Application - Nature Photography and Landscapes.
I have a Sigma 10 20 to cover the wide end.

No primes as I am trying to keep this to a 4 lens set up for hiking. 10-20 something in the middle, 105 macro and 100 to 300. One on the camera in a chest pack and three in the bag.

Any suggestions? Or just don't worry about it?

Thanks

My suggestion is don't worry about it. You have two lenses that cover portrait range already, and I don't see much in nature/landscape that is too wide for 100mm and too narrow for 45. A landscape that needs some in-between focal length can be cropped from a 45mm photo. At least try the three-lens setup for a while after you get the 100-300. (But that's not how our minds work is it? We want more lenses.)

[telfish]

I have the Sigma 17-70 and it's a great walkround lens. I sold the 16-45 because I just could not see the reason to keep it with the Sigma. Plus it shoots macro.

[jsherman999]

.


Consider Sigma 50-150 2.8


.

[Marc Sabatella]

My suggestion is don't worry about it. You have two lenses that cover portrait range already, and I don't see much in nature/landscape that is too wide for 100mm and too narrow for 45. A landscape that needs some in-between focal length can be cropped from a 45mm photo. At least try the three-lens setup for a while after you get the 100-300. (But that's not how our minds work is it? We want more lenses.)

I hear you, although I do tend to find quite a lot of interest in the 45-70 range. I'd be looking to replace the 16-45 with a 17-70 and then not worry about the remaining gap. I'd be especially likely to do this if I had *nothing* between 45 and 100 for use in situations other than hiking - that's the best range for portraits and the like. If you're not seriously concerned about portraits, no nee for that gap to be covered with something fast, but still, I'd want something in there, if just a matter of holding on to the 55-300.