Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-19-2010, 04:20 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: none of your business
Posts: 96
What's better than the Pentax 16- 45 ?

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

03-19-2010, 04:36 AM   #2
Veteran Member
rustynail925's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,552
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

Last edited by rustynail925; 03-19-2010 at 04:41 AM.
03-19-2010, 04:50 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 423
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
03-19-2010, 04:51 AM   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Thunder Bay
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 184
sigma

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.

03-19-2010, 07:41 AM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Henry, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,909
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
03-19-2010, 07:45 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,738
I second the Sigma 17-70mm. It is a nice lens and relatively fast in the wide end.
03-19-2010, 09:13 AM   #7
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: none of your business
Posts: 96
Original Poster
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.
03-19-2010, 10:17 AM   #8
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,684
QuoteOriginally posted by Al_in_the_Shire Quote
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.)

03-19-2010, 10:31 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 407
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.
03-19-2010, 01:57 PM   #10
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
.


Consider Sigma 50-150 2.8


.
03-20-2010, 09:30 AM   #11
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
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.
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!
k-mount, lens, macro, pentax, pentax lens, sdm, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:54 PM. | 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