[howieb101]

Sigma 17-50mm F2.8. It has silent autofocus, is sharp and focusses fast. I'd suggest this over a prime lens but it is your decision.

[Des]

Sigma 17-50mm F2.8. It has silent autofocus, is sharp and focusses fast. I'd suggest this over a prime lens but it is your decision.

Plainly you and Jonathan both love it. But (and there's always a but) it's pretty heavy (565g), especially if you compare it to something like the DA 20-40 Limited (283g) or the plastic fantastic (124g) or the DA Limited primes. To some extent the weight is a consequence of its constant f2.8 aperture (like the similar-weight DA*16-50 f2.8) but the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 weighs significantly less (430g). Everything's a compromise!

[AyeYo]

Mine must be broken ...

I mean... with colorful, nice contrast scenes, great lighting, and post-processing anything is possible. I have cell phone pictures that look better in web size than half the pictures in the KP w/DA 20-40 thread, but I'm not sure I'd call the cell phone camera or lens superior. I called the lens junk because it has a pretty small sweet spot where it renders decent contrast and needs absolutely ideal conditions to even do that.

[Des]

I mean... with colorful, nice contrast scenes, great lighting, and post-processing anything is possible. I have cell phone pictures that look better in web size than half the pictures in the KP w/DA 20-40 thread, but I'm not sure I'd call the cell phone camera or lens superior. I called the lens junk because it has a pretty small sweet spot where it renders decent contrast and needs absolutely ideal conditions to even do that.

Have a look on Flickr at the sample images posted by @kh1234567890 Two were shot at f5.6 and the other at f6.3 - so not stopped down much or at all. They look really really good on Flickr, and I doubt they would be shown up at full size. I don't get the sense that conditions were ideal either (it's the north of England, not Arizona).

The PF review gives this lens probably the lowest ratings of any current lens in the Pentax range. But even so, the review says, "from near 100mm the DA 50-200mm WR starts to look great; it is sharp almost all the way to the edges even at the largest aperture possible at that focal length (4.5), and it starts to look super around f8." I wouldn't call that a really small sweet spot.

If this is the weakest lens in the current lineup, it underlines how much zoom lenses have improved in the digital era. If you really want to see a junk lens have a look at some of the low-end consumer zooms from the 1980s.

Once we get a taste for premium lenses, we tend to get sniffy about kit lenses and superzooms. But in skilled hands, and used within their limitations, they can do well.

---

Last edited by Des; 01-04-2018 at 01:49 AM.

[UncleVanya]

Beating a dead horse but read this if you think the 50-200 is so terrible folks: In skilled hands any lens just about can be made to sing.

Nikon's 'Worst' and 'Best' Zoom Lenses Compared

[kh1234567890]

My DA18-55WR is also broken ...

Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with smcpda1855mmf3556alwr

[Jonathan Mac]

Plainly you and Jonathan both love it. But (and there's always a but) it's pretty heavy (565g), especially if you compare it to something like the DA 20-40 Limited (283g) or the plastic fantastic (124g) or the DA Limited primes. To some extent the weight is a consequence of its constant f2.8 aperture (like the similar-weight DA*16-50 f2.8) but the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 weighs significantly less (430g). Everything's a compromise!

I haven't owned mine for long and have barely used it, but my christmas day walk with it was enough to convince me to take it as my main lens to Italy next week. It is a heavy item and doubtless that's largely down to the constant f/2.8, but the Tamron also has that and is considerably lighter, so I put the weight down to it's great build quality, something the Tamron lacks.

[AyeYo]

Beating a dead horse but read this if you think the 50-200 is so terrible folks: In skilled hands any lens just about can be made to sing.

Nikon's 'Worst' and 'Best' Zoom Lenses Compared

I don't want to derail the thread with too much of this discussion, but I guess it is actually semi-relevant. Come on though... those photos are edited and color brushed into oblivion, so of course they all end up looking pretty good. That's hardly a relevant lens comparison or meaningful - unless all you care about is sharpness.

I have a Star-D 28mm old Korean junker with rear elements that probably aren't centered anymore and front elements that still have traces of lighter fluid oil from a failed aperture blade cleaning attempt. I use it as a beater lens when hiking and I've taken good pictures with that one too. Doesn't make it a good lens.

There's a few issues at work here...

1. If you're willing to put in the editing time, there isn't much that can't be fixed (or straight up added/fabricated if it doesn't exist). Surgical sharpness is also grossly overrated and not at all a requirement for a nice photo.

2. I'm the furthest thing from a pixel peeper or lens snob, but "better" lens is a real thing and "this camera/lens/phone took this nice looking photo therefore it's a good camera/lens/phone" is kind of a dishonest argument. A 1991 Civic gets me to work just as well as a Ferrari, but that doesn't make them equivalent. This rationale never fails to get rolled out in every lens and camera discussion for all of time, and it simply isn't relevant or helpful. If taking a decent looking photo is the end-all standard and nothing else matters, then let's all just save a ton of money and stick to our cell phones.

Again, I'm not a lens snob by any means. Calling it "trash" just means it has the worst color, contrast, and tonality rendering of any lens I've used (I have no obsession with sharpness, so haven't even noticed anything on that front). Of course it can still take good pictures, any lens can, any camera can, any modern cell phone can. That's not the standard though. Relative to other lenses in the lineup it simply sucks. The one thing you can't really get back in editing is micro tonality and "3D pop" and this lens is the king of doing those things poorly. I can't even remember the last time I reached for mine.

[UncleVanya]

Actually if you read the article the point made us that cameras have vastly improved while lenses have barely changed. The fact is it depends a lot on what the lens is asked to do. Shooting at f8 in good light most will be fine. There are bad lenses. But they generally aren't bad. My af sigma 400 was low contrast but still managed good shots. It was more work than the fa* 300. The point is that great photos don't need great lenses so pick based in what you need them to do that you can't or pick based on your enjoyment of them.

[Glen]

Hi all,
Pentax newbie here. My husband and I have just bought our first dslr, the K-S2. So far we have used mostly CSC cameras like the sony nex line and decided to upgrade. We chose the K-S2 for raving reviews about image quality and performance in low light situations, and ended up finding a very good deal for the zoom kit (18-50 DAL and 50-200 DAL). We thought that for our needs for everyday photos, the kit lenses should be fine.
Unfortunately, we are underwhelmed by both lenses... slow AF in any setting, even if you get the desired part in focus, the photo will be unsharp, even with good lighting conditions or with flash. The collapsible kit lens is massively annoying and clumsy, the zoom lens is slow and noisy too. The latter we still need to test better.

Honestly, besides the sharpness and unreliable focus, all else we could deal with. Maybe is us who do something wrong, but the sony kit lens has so far outperformed the pentax one (please don't hate me ).

Came here to ask:
- Are we doing something wrong - or you really cannot expect anything more from a kit lens?
- What would you suggest as a good replacement for starters?

For the replacement, the ideal lens is: sharp, fast, performs reasonably well in low light and you can preferably take it a bit closer to your subject, maybe up 15-20 cm. If possible, something that can be used for general street photography too. Prime lens are OK, if there is a bit of zoom, it is preferred.

So far this is my top choice: Pentax HD DA Limited 35mm F2.8 Macro Lens - any other opinions?

Thank you in advance.

It's been said above indirectly so I'll say it directly. Keep your two kit lenses even after you buy better lenses. There are two reasons for this suggestion. First they have very little value on the used market so selling may be more trouble than it's worth. More importantly, keep them for your travel photos. When traveling there is a risk of damage, left, or annoyance from the weight of better lenses. That is the time to pull out the kit lens so you have fewer worries. Besides, when traveling with others you often don't have the time to get a great image and you are usually looking for souvenir photos. The kit lens can do that. If your gear is stolen overseas you only lose a cheap kit lens and you get an excuse to upgrade your camera body.

[Jonathan Mac]

It's been said above indirectly so I'll say it directly. Keep your two kit lenses even after you buy better lenses. There are two reasons for this suggestion. First they have very little value on the used market so selling may be more trouble than it's worth. More importantly, keep them for your travel photos. When traveling there is a risk of damage, left, or annoyance from the weight of better lenses. That is the time to pull out the kit lens so you have fewer worries. Besides, when traveling with others you often don't have the time to get a great image and you are usually looking for souvenir photos. The kit lens can do that. If your gear is stolen overseas you only lose a cheap kit lens and you get an excuse to upgrade your camera body.

I disagree on the second point but I suppose it depends on your attitude to photography while travelling. To me, travelling is a fantastic opportunity for photography and I want to have good gear in order to maximise the quality of the photos I can get and minimise frustration at not having the equipment for the situation. However, if your travel photography really is just snap-shots then by all means use the kit lens.

I'd say that the second reason to keep the kit lenses is weather resistance, assuming you have the WR versions. If your kit lenses are not WR then I'd suggest selling the non-WR and buying the WR. It depends on where you live and travel, but my 18-55mm WR has made the difference between getting photos (even good ones) and getting no photos at all because I'd have had to keep the gear hidden away in a waterproof backpack.