[AstroDave]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Here's a Sigma 17-50 just above your price range:

Sigma AF 17-50mm F2.8 DC EX HSM OS Lens17-50/2.8 Pentax #402 | eBay

Roberts is a reputable operation; I've bought several lenses from them.

I have this lens, and prior to my 18-135 showing up, it was what lived on my K-5 and K-3 for everyday use. It's fairly sharp.

[Penta]

Here's a Sigma 17-50 just above your price range:

Sigma AF 17-50mm F2.8 DC EX HSM OS Lens17-50/2.8 Pentax #402 | eBay

Roberts is a reputable operation; I've bought several lenses from them.

I have this lens, and prior to my 18-135 showing up, it was what lived on my K-5 and K-3 for everyday use. It's fairly sharp.

Many thanks, I've recently found a local used Pentax 18-135mm with warranty that's just in budget (shhhh as long as I don't tell the missus) - would you rate it higher overall for IQ than the 17-50 ? Also, any observations on low light AF performance between the 2 lenses much appreciated as that is a big factor.

[BigMackCam]

Older Sony Nex series mainly although I know the cheaper glass (eg.16mm pancake) is probably not the greatest (a bit soft) but at least looks quite acceptable from what I've seen.

What's holding me back is the Sony software/menus/general handling look quite cumbersome/irritating compared with Pentax + IQ and moire filters vs K-01 turn me off...

It depends greatly on which NEX bodies you're considering, and the lenses (obviously ). Earlier NEX bodies don't, IMHO, have image quality comparable to your K-01. Later ones might.

Looking at the Kurt Munger review for the 16mm pancake, it really needs to be stopped down for decent frame-wide performance (unsurprisingly). Whether you can work with the poor edge performance at wider apertures will depend on your use cases and preferences. Quoted from the conclusions of his review:

"This lens was designed for the purpose of being pocketable, inexpensive, and a platform for a couple of add-on converters, like a fish-eye and ultra wide. Sony did a good overall job with this lens, and I would consider the optical results good, but not great. Let's ponder the good things; sharp in the centers, even wide open; very compact, and able to fit in the front pockets of relaxed fit jeans, or in a womens purse; and very low noise when focusing, which is great when shooting video. A few things that could be changed for the better, say in version II, is color fringing control, mid-section sharpness, and ghosting control."

Or, in other words, you get what you pay for

As for Sony menus, they're awful, but not insurmountable. I have the A7 MkII, released November 2014, and I just don't like the menus. But I've used them for a while now, and I have no problem working with them. I still prefer Pentax menus by a country mile, though...

[AstroDave]

Many thanks, I've recently found a local used Pentax 18-135mm with warranty that's just in budget (shhhh as long as I don't tell the missus) - would you rate it higher overall for IQ than the 17-50 ? Also, any observations on low light AF performance between the 2 lenses much appreciated as that is a big factor.

Image quality is comparable, but for low light, the Sigma will be better (one or more stops). Don't know about the K-01, but on the K-3, the Sigma has a snappy focus (not sure I've tried it in real low light, though).

[BigMackCam]

Many thanks, I've recently found a local used Pentax 18-135mm with warranty that's just in budget (shhhh as long as I don't tell the missus) - would you rate it higher overall for IQ than the 17-50 ? Also, any observations on low light AF performance between the 2 lenses much appreciated as that is a big factor.

I know you've asked this question of AstroDave, so I hope you and he won't mind me responding here...

I know of no other comparable lens in K-mount that beats the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 in terms of frame-wide image quality. But, as a constant f/2.8 aperture lens, it's quite bulky and heavy. Although this is a very general statement, you really can't hope for a variable aperture lens to achieve the same results at the same focal lengths and apertures unless you're looking to stop down somewhat on both lenses. For example, at f/3.5 I wouldn't expect the 18-135 to perform as well as the Sigma 17-50 at f/3.5 if you were to examine the whole frame. Maybe at f/5.6 they'd be similar, and at f/8 they'd be much closer. The same at 50mm, though I'd expect the Sigma would pull ahead even further here, at least at faster apertures.

The 18-135 is just a very different lens to the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. The former is more versatile in terms of focal length, while the latter is better within its more limited range, but heavier and bulkier as a result...

[Penta]

It depends greatly on which NEX bodies you're considering, and the lenses (obviously ). Earlier NEX bodies don't, IMHO, have image quality comparable to your K-01. Later ones might.

Looking at the Kurt Munger review for the 16mm pancake, it really needs to be stopped down for decent frame-wide performance (unsurprisingly). Whether you can work with the poor edge performance at wider apertures will depend on your use cases and preferences. Quoted from the conclusions of his review:

"This lens was designed for the purpose of being pocketable, inexpensive, and a platform for a couple of add-on converters, like a fish-eye and ultra wide. Sony did a good overall job with this lens, and I would consider the optical results good, but not great. Let's ponder the good things; sharp in the centers, even wide open; very compact, and able to fit in the front pockets of relaxed fit jeans, or in a womens purse; and very low noise when focusing, which is great when shooting video. A few things that could be changed for the better, say in version II, is color fringing control, mid-section sharpness, and ghosting control."

Or, in other words, you get what you pay for

As for Sony menus, they're awful, but not insurmountable. I have the A7 MkII, released November 2014, and I just don't like the menus. But I've used them for a while now, and I have no problem working with them. I still prefer Pentax menus by a country mile, though...

Haha definitely sounds to me like a slightly soft undercooked eggy pancake (so to speak)!


The higher end (at least for its time) NEX 6 was the main contender; EVF but no mic jack and mehhh that flippin (back on the pancakes!) beginner orientated messy GUI.


Aside from those gripes (and the NEX overheating shut-off issues in video mode) it seems to be a very well rounded aps-c mirrorless option.


The A7 does indeed look verrry nice but I expect that the day I can dream of a full frame camera setup the Pentax K-1 will be my no.1 choice.

---------- Post added 04-30-19 at 01:02 AM ----------

Image quality is comparable, but for low light, the Sigma will be better (one or more stops). Don't know about the K-01, but on the K-3, the Sigma has a snappy focus (not sure I've tried it in real low light, though).

Definitely a few more nods to the sigma many thanks for that firsthand insight.

---------- Post added 04-30-19 at 01:06 AM ----------

I know of no other comparable lens in K-mount that beats the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 in terms of frame-wide image quality. But, as a constant f/2.8 aperture lens, it's quite bulky and heavy. Although this is a very general statement, you really can't hope for a variable aperture lens to achieve the same results at the same focal lengths and apertures unless you're looking to stop down somewhat on both lenses. For example, at f/3.5 I wouldn't expect the 18-135 to perform as well as the Sigma 17-50 at f/3.5 if you were to examine the whole frame. Maybe at f/5.6 they'd be similar, and at f/8 they'd be much closer. The same at 50mm, though I'd expect the Sigma would pull ahead even further here, at least at faster apertures.

The 18-135 is just a very different lens to the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. The former is more versatile in terms of focal length, while the latter is better within its more limited range, but heavier and bulkier as a result...

Another nod to the Sigma... anyone know how it compares to the Tammy 17-50 f2.8 (I saw on the review posted by Jense copy-specific AF issues were mentioned?).

[angelo9978]

I searched keh and found this tamron 17-50mm f2.8 $208. for your consideration
https://www.keh.com/shop/tamron-17-50mm-f-2-8-aspherical-di-ii-sp-if-ld-xr-a...-dslrs-67.html

[normhead]

If low light is really part of the spec, the 18-135 is probably OK but not great. I used my K-01 mostly with the 21 ltd. or 40 XS, because of form factor, but for your purposes the 35 2.4 is probably what you're looking for. Any 17-50 will do. The ratings usually go Sigma 17-50, Tamron 17-50. The Pentax 16-50 centre is very centre sharp but not as good edge to edge. But I suspect in terms of all out love the Pentax is more appreciated. Despite the edge to edge focus these days, most people still take images that don't often need edge sharpness. Among the 17-50s and the 18-135, honestly, I'd go with the best price. And don't forget the 17-70s.

By the way, if you ever get around to tilt shift, theres a system that uses pentax 645 lenses that only works completely functionally on a K-01. The overhandg on the pentaprism housing stops an upward tilt on most Pentax's.

[Penta]

I searched keh and found this tamron 17-50mm f2.8 $208. for your consideration
Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 Aspherical DI II SP IF LD XR (A16) K Mount Autofocus Lens For Pentax APS-C Sensor DSLRS {67} at KEH Camera

Thanks for that angelo yes I'm favouring the Tammy based on the fact it's a bit lighter and overall smaller size than the Sigma for the K-01... unless ofc there are any major negative overriding factors to consider when paired with K-01?

I can find the well respected legacy zoom Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 DC macro (which is also smaller than the Sigma 17-50) for a good price, but would that be worse combined with the K-01 with regards AF performance or ?

Pentaxians you are amazing, once again thanks for all the help

---------- Post added 04-30-19 at 02:02 AM ----------

If low light is really part of the spec, the 18-135 is probably OK but not great. I used my K-01 mostly with the 21 ltd. or 40 XS, because of form factor, but for your purposes the 35 2.4 is probably what you're looking for. Any 17-50 will do. The ratings usually go Sigma 17059, Tamron 17050. The Pentax 16-50 centre is very centre sharp but not as good edge to edge. But I suspect in terms of all out love the Pentax is more appreciated. Despite the edge to edge focus these days, most people still take images that don't often need edge sharpness. Among the 17-50s and the 18-135, honestly, I'd go with the best price. And don't forget the 17-70s.

By the way, if you ever get around to tilt shift, theres a system that uses pentax 645 lenses that only works completely functionally on a K-01. The overhand on the pentaprism housing stops an upward tilt on most Pentax's.

I already have the 40mm XS and generally prefer shooting with an old (wider) 24mm manual lens so unfortunately the 35mm is too close for what I'm after although definitely seems a great option... the 21mm has definitely been a big contender and may yet be the 'one'... if I can find one.

I can get a Sigma 17-70 f2.8 (legacy) for a really good price, a Pentax 17-70 (F4 too slow I think) for a great price, an 18-135mm at the top end of the budget (and a tad slow), but currently steering towards the Tammy 17-50mm due to size, f2.8 and at least a current lens designed for APS-C format.

PS. will have a read up on the tilt shift things you mention, something I've not touched on yet, thanks it sounds very intriguing

[ramseybuckeye]

I don't have the K-01, but I have the 18-135 and the Sigma 17-50. I like both lenses and they both have strong points. For the wide side the Sigma is better, at least in my opinion. If you want small the DA15 would be hard to beat, yes it's F4, but at 15mm, F4 is pretty fast. I also have a Sony a6000, which I bought used. I had the Sony 16 lens and got rid of it, maybe I had a bad copy, but I did not care for it. I don't think I'm alone on that because the used market is flooded with them, it cannot be compared to the DA15 in any way except the mm length. The DA15 is just that much better. Now I do have the Sony 20mm 2.8 which I'm happy with, I think 20 is a really nice usable focal length (DA 21 is on my want list). The Sony camera is OK, I'll have to agree that the menus are not intuitive.

[clackers]

I already have the 40mm XS and generally prefer shooting with an old (wider) 24mm manual lens so unfortunately the 35mm is too close for what I'm after although definitely seems a great option... the 21mm has definitely been a big contender and may yet be the 'one'... if I can find one.

I mean, that's the one, it's up to you to save up for it, to be honest, Penta. You get what you pay for!

I have the Sony 16mm pancake on a NEX 7 and … it's terrible.

[Qman]

You can get small, or fast, but not both. For small my pick would be the DA15 f4. For fast I would pick the DA14 f2.8. They're both great lenses and they're both over your budget. However, the cost to switch to another system that gives you as good IQ would be much more than the cost of either of those lenses. For example, my son has a Fuji XT-2 and a 14mm f2.8 lens. That lens is slightly smaller than the DA14, much more expensive, and I don't like the rendering as much as my DA. Then you'd need to pick up a body, and spare batteries. I suggest that you try save your pennies and start looking for a couple of Pentax lenses to fill your needs.

[calsan]

If you don't mind me being "arbitrary and capricious", I'd say you're crazy to want/need f/2.8 in a wide angle. f/4 should be enough for anyone for many reasons - ie: easy to hand hold wide angles, bokeh's not going to happen anyway...

Just get the 15 limited.
Yes, it's probably about $400 second hand and therefore double your budget, but just wait enough time until you have saved up for it.

[Cthulhugan]

An alternative to investing in a faster lens could be better noise reduction software. I got quite clean results from my K-01 up to around ISO 1600-3200 with good software (I use Topaz Denoise, others are as good or maybe even a little better). There are other reasons to shoot at lower ISOs, so it may not be the best choice for you. I also had the previous-generation Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC Macro on my K-01, and found it easy enough to use, but I also put up with the DA*50-135/2.8 on it, so I might just be a masochist ... :-)

My wife has the K-01 now, and my daughter has the Sigma on my K-x, after I upgraded to a K-3 and Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art (although the DA 16-85 now lives on my K-3, and the Art only comes out for VERY low light conditions).

[jumbleview]

I used k-01 with Pentax 16-45 f4 and I liked it apart of the fact that setup is too big. Now I mostly use it with Da 35mm limited: (no zoom but smaller overall).