[Themdragons]

I have purchased a K-r with a 18-55 lens and was thinking of upgrading to a Sigma 17-70 lens. Is there enough difference between the two lenses to justify the expense? I am a basic photographer, nothing professional about me, (old cars, planes, family pets, kids and bugs!) basic stuff! I also already have a Pentax 100-300 for fun.

Can someone please give me an opinion without steering me towards a different lens costing $1000 or more!

Thanks

[SOldBear]

Themdragons,

Please do not post the same issue/question in multiple threads. Electrons (and photons) are getting more and more expensive these days....

I suggest unless you have an urgent need for a particular lens, use the kit lens while you learn to know the camera and more importantly, yourself. Then it's not too late to acquire more toys.

[Adam]

I would say yes, as you'll also be able to shoot in lower light.

[SpecialK]

I would say yes, as you'll also be able to shoot in lower light.

It's only a stop difference at the long end - not really a low-light wonder :-) Possibly more importantly, it has a better focal length range (wider and longer) and a bit better IQ.

[psychdoc]

No matter what others say, the point is whether YOU will be able to notice the difference. If you are a "basic photographer" you are most likely to do that if you get a much faster lens:

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 if you don't need the wider end. They are not very expensive and will be an upgrade from the kit lens.

[Ubuntu_user]

Yup, I agree with psychdoc. The Sigma 17-70 is probably better (in IQ) than the kit lens, but if you really want something better then go with either of those tamrons. That way you'll get a much faster lens (this makes a big difference in low light).