Replacing the 18-55mm kit lens. What to buy?

Sendeman · 07-16-2007, 03:34 PM

Hi all,

I'm really interested in buying a Pentax K10D body. As a lens I would prefer to use the upcoming da* lenses, but my budget doesn't allow that right now. Nevertheless, I am looking for a lens that is a step up from the 18-55 mm kit lens, that I can use untill I have saved enough for the 16-50/2.8 da*.

Candidates as I see them are the Sigma 18-50/f 2.8 EX and the Pentax 16-45/f4.

Worries I have with these lenses:

Sigma:

Softness at both ends of the zoom range at open aperture;
Purple fringing;
18 mm. 17 or 16mm would have been nice;
MF-switch seems clumsy.

Pentax:

Pronounced colour shadows at the wide end of the zoom range;
f4 instead of f2.8 >> although the pentax seems to be sharp right from f4, whereas the Sigma may need some stopping down. So effectively, the f4 shouldn't prove a really big problem, although 2.8 does give a brighter viewfinder.
45 mm doesn't give a very large range, but then again 16 mm does!

All in all, I tend towards the Pentax 16-45. But I'm not sure! The colour shadows of the Pentax aren't reassuring and the 2.8 of the Sigma do appeal to me as well. Does anyone here have advice or do you have experiences with these lenses, that could help me reach a decision?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Best regards,
Martijn Senden.

barbosas · 07-16-2007, 04:03 PM

I'm also thinking of swapping my (DA18-55 + FA35) for a sigma 18-50 f2.8 or 17-70 F2.8/4.5..

Don't know if it's a good swap or not

Wethphotography · 07-16-2007, 05:00 PM

Back in December, I purchased the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI LD and the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 DI LD to tide me over until the DA* were available. I got both for a total of about $650.00 after rebates at B&H. This was/is still over $200 less than the cost of the DA*. I am very pleased with the performance of both. The 28-75 is exceptional; while the 17-35 is very good, but it is plagued by some of the issues present with all the glass in that range (prone to flaring, vinetting wide-open). If you don't mind two lens instead of one, you might investigate this combination. Best wishes on your search.

smcclelland · 07-16-2007, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Wethphotography

Back in December, I purchased the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI LD and the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 DI LD to tide me over until the DA* were available. I got both for a total of about $650.00 after rebates at B&H. This was/is still over $200 less than the cost of the DA*. I am very pleased with the performance of both. The 28-75 is exceptional; while the 17-35 is very good, but it is plagued by some of the issues present with all the glass in that range (prone to flaring, vinetting wide-open). If you don't mind two lens instead of one, you might investigate this combination. Best wishes on your search.

Sounds like the 28-75 comes highly recommended from the reviews I've read and user opinions. I was looking at a Sigma 28-70 a while back and also stumbled on a 28-105 f2.8-4 (non DG) for a decent price but couldn't seem to find any reviews on it aside from some Canon users.

Personally I've been looking at replacing the 18-55 with the 16-45 but I'd be interested in hearing others opinions on alternative lenses as well. The 28-105 f2.8-4 lens I mentioned previously has still been on my mind as I found it for $140 (though I believe you get what you pay for

).

-s

xfraser · 07-16-2007, 06:12 PM

The kit lens works just fine for me. Just use it awhile and see if you really want to get another lens before you save up for the new ones....

Mike Bokeh · 07-16-2007, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by xfraser

The kit lens works just fine for me. Just use it awhile and see if you really want to get another lens before you save up for the new ones....

+1.

No doubt there are better zooms out there, but I can't complain about the image quality for only having my K100D + kit lens for about 10 days . I do wish it were faster though; 25 years of using mostly primes with maximum apertures of f2.0 or faster has spoiled me.

Mike

bc_the_path · 07-16-2007, 10:44 PM

I am happy with my Sigma 17-70mm.
It is faster with a wider range on both ends.
Neither very big nor very heavy. Easy to leave on the camera.
Sharpness, contrast and chromatic performance are comparable.

If you can find it for a nice price, you may well go for it.

Christian · 07-17-2007, 02:40 AM

Hi

I have the 18-50 2.8 Macro. It's much better than the earlier non-macro version (I had that before - it left a yellow cast over everything, which I didn't like) the non-macro is a little closer to my 50mm prime output.

Pornflake don't sell your 35mm ... primes are really much better ... I still use my manual 24 and 50 when I have time, fo r photos that look unbelievably excellent. If you do want to sell it, can you sell it to me?I lost my autofocus 50mm prime and would love the 35 as a replacement! if only the 40mm pancake was 30mm and 1.8 or so (it came out top of a recent review of 50mm primes and would reduce the weight of my camera nicely - the 18-50 sigma is heavy!! Also shame that the Sigma 30 1.4 is so big and the HSM doesn't work on pentax.

beware tha tthe 18-50 or simliar renders your flash useless in most situations.

Christian · 07-17-2007, 02:44 AM

also...

I sometimes regret just not buying a couple of primes for my K10D. Before now I've had a couple of zooms for my film SLRs but always preferred/used my primes.. I guess it's a bit like why I shoot RAW over Jpeg... I want the best possible result!

I just thought that these days the zooms are better... they are... but I'd still recommend using a coupel of primes.. especially for a beginner.. it'll save you zooming in and out and messing around... see what you like, shot it. if not, find a better spot.. you'll find it's a better spot for a reason an dnot just a zoomed it version of your worse spot.

Sendeman · 07-17-2007, 03:36 AM

Thanks for the sound advice Christian. I may have a look at some primes too. Do you have any good suggestions for the K10D?

Best regards,
Martijn.

barbosas · 07-17-2007, 04:35 AM

Thanks Christian,
i'm going on holidays next week and i'll be taking my DA18-55, FA35, F50, and a Tamron 70-300.

This holidays will make me decide if this combination of lens is the right for me, i realy enjoy my FA35.

cheers

axl · 07-17-2007, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by xfraser

The kit lens works just fine for me. Just use it awhile and see if you really want to get another lens before you save up for the new ones....

Perfectly right...
As someone mentioned, there are better zooms, but then, kit lens is good enough for most of the situantion. Replacing it with anothre lens of the same focal lenghts, does not make much sense for me, unless you can afford to buy new lens anytime you want and you are happy with the focal lenght and you are going for pure quality, but then again, there are the primes for it....
I'd stick with kit lens, and get something wider, much wider (DA12-24 or Sigma 10-20) and something longer, f.e. Tamron 28-200 or something similar, but that's just me...

SpecialK · 07-17-2007, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Hi

I have the 18-50 2.8 Macro. It's much better than the earlier non-macro version (I had that before - it left a yellow cast over everything, which I didn't like)

I have "that" lens and have not seen any yellow tint. I've seen 2 people comment about it, though. Probably 198,998 have not :-)

07-16-2007, 03:34 PM	#1
Sendeman New Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands Posts: 5	Replacing the 18-55mm kit lens. What to buy? Hi all, I'm really interested in buying a Pentax K10D body. As a lens I would prefer to use the upcoming da* lenses, but my budget doesn't allow that right now. Nevertheless, I am looking for a lens that is a step up from the 18-55 mm kit lens, that I can use untill I have saved enough for the 16-50/2.8 da. Candidates as I see them are the Sigma 18-50/f 2.8 EX and the Pentax 16-45/f4. Worries I have with these lenses: Sigma: Softness at both ends of the zoom range at open aperture; Purple fringing; 18 mm. 17 or 16mm would have been nice; MF-switch seems clumsy. Pentax*: Pronounced colour shadows at the wide end of the zoom range; f4 instead of f2.8 >> although the pentax seems to be sharp right from f4, whereas the Sigma may need some stopping down. So effectively, the f4 shouldn't prove a really big problem, although 2.8 does give a brighter viewfinder. 45 mm doesn't give a very large range, but then again 16 mm does! All in all, I tend towards the Pentax 16-45. But I'm not sure! The colour shadows of the Pentax aren't reassuring and the 2.8 of the Sigma do appeal to me as well. Does anyone here have advice or do you have experiences with these lenses, that could help me reach a decision? Thanks in advance for any help. Best regards, Martijn Senden.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Replacing kit lens: Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 or Tamron 17-50mm 2.8?	kari	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	10-03-2010 11:57 AM
Recommendations for replacing the 18-55mm DA-L Kit Lens...	Internetpilot	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	66	06-12-2010 11:49 PM
DA 18-55mm AL II vs DAL 18-55mm (kit lens) vs DA 18-55mm WR	rustynail925	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	01-08-2010 02:06 PM
18-55mm WR compared to the original 18-55mm kit lens	HogRider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	11-26-2009 12:01 PM
K200D - should I buy the 2 lens kit?	mmcguigan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	11-25-2008 02:18 PM

07-16-2007, 04:03 PM	#2
barbosas Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lisbon Photos: Gallery Posts: 683	I'm also thinking of swapping my (DA18-55 + FA35) for a sigma 18-50 f2.8 or 17-70 F2.8/4.5.. Don't know if it's a good swap or not

07-16-2007, 05:00 PM	#3
Wethphotography Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Washington, D.C., USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	Back in December, I purchased the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI LD and the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 DI LD to tide me over until the DA* were available. I got both for a total of about $650.00 after rebates at B&H. This was/is still over $200 less than the cost of the DA*. I am very pleased with the performance of both. The 28-75 is exceptional; while the 17-35 is very good, but it is plagued by some of the issues present with all the glass in that range (prone to flaring, vinetting wide-open). If you don't mind two lens instead of one, you might investigate this combination. Best wishes on your search.

07-16-2007, 06:08 PM	#4
smcclelland Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 168	Originally posted by Wethphotography Back in December, I purchased the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI LD and the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 DI LD to tide me over until the DA* were available. I got both for a total of about $650.00 after rebates at B&H. This was/is still over $200 less than the cost of the DA*. I am very pleased with the performance of both. The 28-75 is exceptional; while the 17-35 is very good, but it is plagued by some of the issues present with all the glass in that range (prone to flaring, vinetting wide-open). If you don't mind two lens instead of one, you might investigate this combination. Best wishes on your search. Sounds like the 28-75 comes highly recommended from the reviews I've read and user opinions. I was looking at a Sigma 28-70 a while back and also stumbled on a 28-105 f2.8-4 (non DG) for a decent price but couldn't seem to find any reviews on it aside from some Canon users. Personally I've been looking at replacing the 18-55 with the 16-45 but I'd be interested in hearing others opinions on alternative lenses as well. The 28-105 f2.8-4 lens I mentioned previously has still been on my mind as I found it for $140 (though I believe you get what you pay for ). -s

07-16-2007, 06:12 PM	#5
xfraser Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ohio Photos: Gallery Posts: 828	The kit lens works just fine for me. Just use it awhile and see if you really want to get another lens before you save up for the new ones....

07-16-2007, 08:42 PM	#6
Mike Bokeh Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Queens, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 608	Originally posted by xfraser The kit lens works just fine for me. Just use it awhile and see if you really want to get another lens before you save up for the new ones.... +1. No doubt there are better zooms out there, but I can't complain about the image quality for only having my K100D + kit lens for about 10 days . I do wish it were faster though; 25 years of using mostly primes with maximum apertures of f2.0 or faster has spoiled me. Mike

07-16-2007, 10:44 PM	#7
bc_the_path Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Ankara, Turkey Photos: Gallery Posts: 401	I am happy with my Sigma 17-70mm. It is faster with a wider range on both ends. Neither very big nor very heavy. Easy to leave on the camera. Sharpness, contrast and chromatic performance are comparable. If you can find it for a nice price, you may well go for it.

07-17-2007, 02:40 AM	#8
Christian Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Islington, London UK Posts: 206	Hi I have the 18-50 2.8 Macro. It's much better than the earlier non-macro version (I had that before - it left a yellow cast over everything, which I didn't like) the non-macro is a little closer to my 50mm prime output. Pornflake don't sell your 35mm ... primes are really much better ... I still use my manual 24 and 50 when I have time, fo r photos that look unbelievably excellent. If you do want to sell it, can you sell it to me?I lost my autofocus 50mm prime and would love the 35 as a replacement! if only the 40mm pancake was 30mm and 1.8 or so (it came out top of a recent review of 50mm primes and would reduce the weight of my camera nicely - the 18-50 sigma is heavy!! Also shame that the Sigma 30 1.4 is so big and the HSM doesn't work on pentax. beware tha tthe 18-50 or simliar renders your flash useless in most situations.

07-17-2007, 02:44 AM	#9
Christian Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Islington, London UK Posts: 206	also... I sometimes regret just not buying a couple of primes for my K10D. Before now I've had a couple of zooms for my film SLRs but always preferred/used my primes.. I guess it's a bit like why I shoot RAW over Jpeg... I want the best possible result! I just thought that these days the zooms are better... they are... but I'd still recommend using a coupel of primes.. especially for a beginner.. it'll save you zooming in and out and messing around... see what you like, shot it. if not, find a better spot.. you'll find it's a better spot for a reason an dnot just a zoomed it version of your worse spot.

07-17-2007, 03:36 AM	#10
Sendeman New Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands Posts: 5 Original Poster	Thanks for the sound advice Christian. I may have a look at some primes too. Do you have any good suggestions for the K10D? Best regards, Martijn.

07-17-2007, 04:35 AM	#11
barbosas Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lisbon Photos: Gallery Posts: 683	Thanks Christian, i'm going on holidays next week and i'll be taking my DA18-55, FA35, F50, and a Tamron 70-300. This holidays will make me decide if this combination of lens is the right for me, i realy enjoy my FA35. cheers

07-17-2007, 11:37 AM	#12
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by xfraser The kit lens works just fine for me. Just use it awhile and see if you really want to get another lens before you save up for the new ones.... Perfectly right... As someone mentioned, there are better zooms, but then, kit lens is good enough for most of the situantion. Replacing it with anothre lens of the same focal lenghts, does not make much sense for me, unless you can afford to buy new lens anytime you want and you are happy with the focal lenght and you are going for pure quality, but then again, there are the primes for it.... I'd stick with kit lens, and get something wider, much wider (DA12-24 or Sigma 10-20) and something longer, f.e. Tamron 28-200 or something similar, but that's just me...

07-17-2007, 09:26 PM	#13
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Quote: Hi I have the 18-50 2.8 Macro. It's much better than the earlier non-macro version (I had that before - it left a yellow cast over everything, which I didn't like) I have "that" lens and have not seen any yellow tint. I've seen 2 people comment about it, though. Probably 198,998 have not :-)