[icywarm]

The 18-250 is a great comprise as a lens, I don't think it is a great lens. But given only one lens and not knowing what I will shot it is perfect.

The 16-45 is also a good lens, which I take to parties or other indoor gathering with okish lighting.

The one no one mentioned that can be had cheap is the DA 50-150, I found the length redundant, but the lens was ok?

[MSsuper]

I see the 16-50 F2.8 is around $770 at B&H. I'm not sure I can justify that much cost but the 17-70 F4 at around $480 seems viable for me.
I forgot to mention that I have 50mm F1.4 FA which is one of the sharpest I have ever used. Up there with my past 50mm 1.8 Super Takumar. So I can use this is low light and portrait shots to great effect.
Still the idea of just carrying just the 18-250mm is worth thinking about. I need to check out the IQ.
I'm probably leaning towards the 17-70mm F4 right now.

Thanks again for the responses and suggestions to consider. This helps a lot

[MSsuper]

The 18-250 is a great comprise as a lens, I don't think it is a great lens. But given only one lens and not knowing what I will shot it is perfect.

The 16-45 is also a good lens, which I take to parties or other indoor gathering with okish lighting.

The one no one mentioned that can be had cheap is the DA 50-150, I found the length redundant, but the lens was ok?

Thanks for this!

Does anyone know how the IQ of the 16-45 compares with the 17-70?

[icywarm]

This is a very tight crop of two images, I tried to get the zoom the same, but one is 45 and the other is 50

f/7.1 ISO 200 1/30

The first is the FA 28-90 f/4, similar to the other lens

The second is the DA 16-45, the exact lens you wanted

I tried to get something that went from black to white, with dark shadows and blown highlights so you could see any artifacts this could cause.

I know there are tons of tests you can do on a lens... but I just want to show that they are both ok.

Attached Images

   

[fractal]

I see the 16-50 F2.8 is around $770 at B&H. I'm not sure I can justify that much cost but the 17-70 F4 at around $480 seems viable for me.
I forgot to mention that I have 50mm F1.4 FA which is one of the sharpest I have ever used. Up there with my past 50mm 1.8 Super Takumar. So I can use this is low light and portrait shots to great effect.
Still the idea of just carrying just the 18-250mm is worth thinking about. I need to check out the IQ.
I'm probably leaning towards the 17-70mm F4 right now.

Thanks again for the responses and suggestions to consider. This helps a lot

'What lens?' threads pop up very often and people are more than willing to help out & give their advice.

Given the fact i'd heard so many reports of the DA 16-50 malfunctioning, I recently opted to go with the Tamron 17-50/2.8. I haven't given it a whole day of shooting yet but I can say i'm definitely happy with it. I like to shoot low light so the 16-45/17-70 would not have been fast enough. I sold my DA 18-250 to get this Tammy.

From ebay, what I paid would translate to about US$410 delivered. It's pretty good value IMO.

[EsBee]

I have a few zooms, a few good ones like 16-45, 16-50 and 18-55 AL II and a 18-250. All Pentax.

And I don't have a K-7, just a K20D, *ist DS and very recently acquired a K-x. I am not sure about your requirements for a zoom but I love taking my K-x along with DA40. This combination has been so effective, small, lightweight, capable and relatively affordable, that I some times wonder why I didn't get my hands on it much sooner.

[rustynail925]

Check out the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. its a great 1 lens setup, cheap and does macro too

[rparmar]

I've always been told that the 18-250mm was a great lens for it being a superzoom on this forum. I'm not sure who told you it wasn't, but I've always heard great reviews about it. Even check the review database, it has a 7.something, not sure what because I haven't looked at the database lately, but that's a pretty good score for a lens like that one.

I don't go by what I'm "told", I look at photos, read reviews, this forum (incessantly) and try out lenses whenever I can, which is not often given my geographic location.

The 18-250mm might well be the best superzoom ever. But a superzoom is always an enormous optical compromise. I will repeat that the only thing it does better than the other choices is it saves you from changing lenses to cover a large focal range. It is not even the most compact choice since I can carry two or three primes in the same amount of space. But if that is your main priority and the optical compromises mean nothing for the sort of shooting you do, then go for it! I am sure it would do very well if you are vacationing in a sunny clime and never shoot indoors. Or in shadow. Or wider than 18mm.

As far as the review database goes, the superzoom has an 8.50, which is about a median score among the DA zooms. There are seven lenses with better scores in that category. Then again, I don't think these scores mean that much.

[Marc Sabatella]

Two things:

- What makes you think the 18-55 would be a step down from the 28-70 in quality? I've heard kind of mixed things about that lens; overall people don't seem to be any more enamored of it than the 18-55. It does have the constant aperture going for it, though. The 17-70 would be what I'd suggest if that's important (or the Sigma version, which is faster, but variable).

- This question is about lenses, not cameras, so I am moving it to the proper forum.

[fractal]

The 18-250mm might well be the best superzoom ever. But a superzoom is always an enormous optical compromise. I will repeat that the only thing it does better than the other choices is it saves you from changing lenses to cover a large focal range. It is not even the most compact choice since I can carry two or three primes in the same amount of space. But if that is your main priority and the optical compromises mean nothing for the sort of shooting you do, then go for it! I am sure it would do very well if you are vacationing in a sunny clime and never shoot indoors. Or in shadow. Or wider than 18mm.

As far as the review database goes, the superzoom has an 8.50, which is about a median score among the DA zooms. There are seven lenses with better scores in that category. Then again, I don't think these scores mean that much.

Sure it is a compromise, but it might mean getting the shot. Anyway, i've used the DA 18-250 in very dark places and usually been quite happy with the results. Sure it's no 2.8 but it is possible.

Photo bucket has stripped the metadata but i'm quite sure this is 18mm F3.5. Handheld. Sorry I couldn't find a larger version.

[rparmar]

I know what the difference is. You live in Melbourne, where it is generally quite sunny (rumour has it) and where wide-open vistas call your name. The mega-zoom is a good lens for you most of the time, so even in bad situations (that last photo you posted) you are willing to overlook the disadvantages. This makes sense!

I live in Ireland where it might rain six days out of seven and where I spend almost all of my time in dark pubs, dance and concert venues and the like. Even when I vacation I get six days of rain in a row in Spain, etc. So for me the mega-zoom would be useless most of the time and I would be harping on about its problems the rest.

If you moved to Ireland you'd see things my way. And you'd be drinking a lot more.

But in the meantime, thank goodness Pentax has lenses for different people.

[jct us101]

I only will judge a lens by the photos that I see that are taken with it, and I've done many Flickr searches on various subjects with that lens, and I'm really blown away by the results. Sure there's a compromise that you have to make with a superzoom, but I really think that the DA 18-250mm is a great package that doesn't really have that bad of one.

[MSsuper]

Two things:

- What makes you think the 18-55 would be a step down from the 28-70 in quality? I've heard kind of mixed things about that lens; overall people don't seem to be any more enamored of it than the 18-55. It does have the constant aperture going for it, though. The 17-70 would be what I'd suggest if that's important (or the Sigma version, which is faster, but variable).

- This question is about lenses, not cameras, so I am moving it to the proper forum.

With the 28-70 being design for full frame I had the impression it holds up better towards the edge on APS-C format. I don't think it beats it by a lot though.

I'll check out the Sigma you mentioned.

Thanks.

[Pentaxie]

Yes, do not discount Tamron and Sigma lenses.
Recently, Sigma has improve on its lenses, thus I will give my thumbs up for the 18-250mm. It was claimed that the 18-250mm might be the best superzoom but as it is more than 3X zoom from its lowest point, there may be some optical compromises. (Compared this with 3 or 4 prime lenses like the 18mm, 70mm, 135mm and 200mm which is superior optically)

But if the style of shooting require the 18-250mm, by all means go for it if you can live with the disadvantages (optical compromises)

Given a choice, I will still opt for the Tamron 17-50/f2.8. For me the 16-45mm and 17-70mm will not be fast enough. Well, its just my 2 cents worth of opinion.

Cheers.

[fractal]

If you moved to Ireland you'd see things my way. And you'd be drinking a lot more.

Oh dear. I drink enough as it is, but I see where you are coming from. As for what the OP was asking, the 18-250 is not that bad a lens to consider. A lot of people won't be able to tell the difference between a shot taken with a super zoom and a shot taken with a prime anyway. When I first bought the 18-250 I was a total noob, so I didn't even know what compromise was. Anyway, it gave me a year & a half of happy snapping.

I only will judge a lens by the photos that I see that are taken with it, and I've done many Flickr searches on various subjects with that lens, and I'm really blown away by the results. Sure there's a compromise that you have to make with a superzoom, but I really think that the DA 18-250mm is a great package that doesn't really have that bad of one.

Photos displayed on Flickr are quite small. I don't think you could judge a lens too well from looking at Flickr images.