[Ira7]

Thanks for the welcome, guys!

I’m getting a huge, HUGE legal settlement in a few weeks, and I want to buy some toys. First on my list are a few modern lenses, money no object.

I have my eye on a Sigma 17-70 2.8, but is that as good it comes for this range?

I also want a long telephoto, and I’m thinking about the Pentax DA 200.

HOWEVER...

The Pentax-DA 18-270 covers all this ground as more. Quality wise, do you think this one lens will check all the boxes for me? Keep in mind that I would also like macro, but I know you can’t have everything.

[troenaas]

Welcome to the forums from Norway...

[UncleVanya]

Thanks for the welcome, guys!

I’m getting a huge, HUGE legal settlement in a few weeks, and I want to buy some toys. First on my list are a few modern lenses, money no object.

I have my eye on a Sigma 17-70 2.8, but is that as good it comes for this range?

I also want a long telephoto, and I’m thinking about the Pentax DA 200.

HOWEVER...

The Pentax-DA 18-270 covers all this ground as more. Quality wise, do you think this one lens will check all the boxes for me? Keep in mind that I would also like macro, but I know you can’t have everything.

My advice is to post this question in the lens section where more people will see it.

In the meantime here are my answers:

1) there isn't a Sigma lens that is 17-70 f2.8 constant, there is a 17-50 like that and s 17-70 that is f2.8-4. Both lenses have excellent reputation but neither is weather sealed if that matters to you. There is a good article here on the sure that compares the 17-50 and the 16-50 Pentax and a similar Tamron in a detailed review. I will try to find the link.

Please note that used screw drive converted 16-50 lenses are very inexpensive and offer weather sealing if that appeals to you.

2) Extreme range zooms tends to compromise in many places. They are mostly viewed as a compromise option when carrying one lens is necessary. However I have never compared the 18-270 to the da 200. The 200 is likely much sharper, and it is much faster optically as it is f2.8.

If money isn't an object and you are sticking to an APSC body, I would consider the DA 60-250 F4 and a 16/17-50.

A lighter alternative is the 16-85 or 18-135. These lenses offer wide range with better quality than the 18-270 in the opinion of most users. You could then add the 55-300 which is also excellent (multiple versions of this lens exist, the Plm is the fastest focusing but only works with newer bodies: K-3 and newer generally).

For telephoto reach the dfa 150-450 is hard to overlook... But it is heavy and expensive.

One more factor: Sigma has decided to stop making any new K mount models. I'm not sure about current models but my impression is these are also winding down. Sigma support has been very good in the past so perhaps this is ok.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Welcome!

[normhead]

Well OK then if we are going to continue on in this thread.
Here's my most used Kit.

Camera bodies, K-1 and K-3. The K-3 will be replaced with a new APS_c flagship next year, so if going APS_c you might want to wait for it. If you want APS_c now, the K-P is amazing.

DFA 100 macro.. lightweight, sharp edge to edge, a completely underrated lens.
I'm going to cheat and claim I have the DA 16-85, (instead of the 18-135 that I own) , because if I were buying today that's what I'd buy. (And is probably the next lens I'll buy, although, won't sell my 18-135, I want both.)

DA* 55 1.4. Another amazing lens, that is severely under-rated.

My long time personal favourite is the DA* 60-250. I also own the DA* 200, which is also an awesome lens but rarely is used unless I need the 2.8 aperture. But usually I want versatility, but my current most used telephoto is the DA 55-300 PLM. The DA 55-300 PLM hs been rated best in class by at least one magazine that rated it tops in weight/performance, overall/performance and IQ. Again, I cannot overstate what fantasitic lens it is in such a small package. It has to be the PLM version though. Also the speed of AF will blow you away. It won't work with your K-x though... it's KAF4 and has no aperture lever, and an electronic aperture.

So, if I were you. I'd be looking at
K-P
DA 16-85
DA 55-300 PLM
100 Macro
DA* 55 1.4
And a nice camera bag.


If you want the added expense of a K-1 full frame to take full advantage of your M42 glass, then you're looking at whole different set of lenses.
The way better than kit lens is the DFA 28-105.
The "trinity" would be the DFA 15-30, the DFA 24-70 2.8 and the DFA* 70-200
I'd still go with he DFA 100 macro and DA*55 1.4 (although you do have to buy a shorter 3rd party lens hood for it to work on FF.)
With the DA 150-450 being the "long lens" of the group.

IN any case, it's whole pile of money and in the case of the K-1 or K1II full frames, a whole lot of weight.
I'm sure there will be other opinions, but that's the way I'd go.

If you're like me and weight is getting to be a problem for you, I'd avoid a lot of FF kit. It's all just too heavy. The K-P on the other hand is relatively lightweight.

The being said, most days I go out with my K-3 the 18-135 and DA 55-300. everything else is for special occasions.

[Robin]

The Pentax-DA 18-270 covers all this ground as more. Quality wise, do you think this one lens will check all the boxes for me? Keep in mind that I would also like macro, but I know you can’t have everything.

When looking at zoom lenses, my feeling is that anything more that a 3 times zoom (15-50, 70-210 etc.) comes at a compromise to image quality and light transfer. If you are traveling, and want a single lens to cover all eventualities, then the 18-270 would be ok. But if you are wanting image quality, sharpness, bokeh and flair control rather look at shorter zooms and primes.

[normhead]

When looking at zoom lenses, my feeling is that anything more that a 3 times zoom (15-50, 70-210 etc.) comes at a compromise to image quality and light transfer. If you are traveling, and want a single lens to cover all eventualities, then the 18-270 would be ok. But if you are wanting image quality, sharpness, bokeh and flair control rather look at shorter zooms and primes.

My Sigma 18-250 became de-centred and unusable for landscape. We haven't had a lot of luck with older Sigma and tamron glass, well except for the Tamron 90 and 300 2.8, which are fantastic lenses. IQ wise, I did a test I can no longer find showing with a poll that most people couldn't tell the difference between my Sigma 18-250 and the DA* 60-250 when Tess and I were side by side taking pictures of this guy. Of course the guys who really knew what they were looking for could tell, based on the quality fo the background bokeh, but even then, the difference while definable, was barely observeable.



My honest assessment would be, if you don't plan to use a TC, and you don't need wider aperture for exposure, you probably won't want to pay extra for a more expensive lens. If you are shooting in broad daylight at ƒ5.6 or narrower one of those 18-250 lenses will work fine. Before it became de-centred we took our Sigma 18-250 on many trips where I had the DA*200 and DA* 60-250 available because it was the best tool for the job. But not everyone puts their gear in Pelican cases and carries it over hill and dale for hours at a time, like I do.

My biggest reason for preferring DA* gear is those lenses are built like tanks.
My reasons for using DA lenses are they have excellent IQ and are very portable.
But with the 28-105 3.85:1 and 16-85 5.36:1 both being over 3:1 and both being excellent lenses, I can't endorse the "no lenses over 3:1 notion.You really have to test each lens to see that it does what you like. My own testing suggest the advantage in IQ of most DA* glass over DA glass is vastly over-rated. It really only matters to me if I might want to use a TC at some point, in which case DA* glass is an definitely advantage, both in IQ and aperture.

The "modern glass for modern sensors lenses" seem to have been designed in anticipation of future MP increases and wildly out resolve current sensors. Anything designed at the time of the DA 16-85 and later will fit those profiles.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-12-2019 at 11:22 AM.

[Robin]

My Sigma 18-250 became de-centred and unusable for landscape. We haven't had a lot of luck with older Sigma and tamron glass, well except for the Tamron 90 and 300 2.8, which are fantastic lenses. IQ wise, I did a test I can no longer find showing with a poll that most people couldn't tell the difference between my Sigma 18-250 and the DA* 60-250 when Tess and I were side by side taking pictures of this guy. Of course the guys who really knew what they were looking for could tell, based on the quality fo the background bokeh, but even then, the difference while definable, was barely observeable.



My honest assessment would be, if you don't plan to use a TC, and you don't need wider aperture for exposure, you probably won't want to pay extra for a more expensive lens. If you are shooting in broad daylight at ƒ5.6 or narrower one of those 18-250 lenses will work fine. Before it became de-centred we took our Sigma 18-250 on many trips where I had the DA*200 and DA* 60-250 available because it was the best tool for the job. But not everyone puts their gear in Pelican cases and carries it over hill and dale for hours at a time, like I do.

My biggest reason for preferring DA* gear is those lenses are built like tanks.
My reasons for using DA lenses are they have excellent IQ and are very portable.
But with the 28-105 3.85:1 and 16-85 5.36:1 both being over 3:1 and both being excellent lenses, I can't endorse the "no lenses over 3:1 notion.You really have to test each lens to see that it does what you like. My own testing suggest the advantage in IQ of most DA* glass over DA glass is vastly over-rated. It really only matters to me if I might want to use a TC at some point, in which case DA* glass is an definitely advantage, both in IQ and aperture.

The "modern glass for modern sensors lenses" seem to have been designed in anticipation of future MP increases and wildly out resolve current sensors. Anything designed at the time of the DA 16-85 and later will fit those profiles.

Thanks Norm,
Point taken, and beautiful photo to prove it. But, like I said, it's my personal feeling. So while I can afford it I'll stick to the premium lenses.

[normhead]

Thanks Norm,
Point taken, and beautiful photo to prove it. But, like I said, it's my personal feeling. So while I can afford it I'll stick to the premium lenses.

I tried to as well, as long as i could carry them. After all, whether ƒ4 or ƒ2.8, you might need the aperture. But over the last 10 years, between the ages of 60 and 70 comfortable portability has come to mean more than "ready for any possible scenario" performance.

The point was especially driven home when Tess and I offered images of this wolf to Algonquin Park for use in their public presentations, and they selected her Sigma 18-250 images instead of my DA*60-250. At least in the minds of this "purchaser" there was no advantage to the DA* image. The images were practically identical, but that just meant she aha 50/50 chance of having hers selected. I always wanted to believe better glass would give me a better chance of having my work selected. Turns out, that's not necessarily so. More money for fewer sales is not OK, if money is a concern.

[Ira7]

Well, my head is spinning:

Since I plan to spend a few grand, I’m now actually considering getting into full frame and the world of cine, and I’m looking at the new Sigma fp.

Although designed more for cine than still (and that’s debatable), it can still do still duty. At $2,200 with the 45 2.8, I’ll obviously stick with one lens for awhile, until I research costs versus performance for native L lenses versus an adaptor, not to mention new L lenses Sigma is going to come out with. No doubt I’ll need a zoom for cine, but currently, the L prices are off the charts.

Am I nuts? (Don’t answer that.) And any thoughts or links here about the fp that you can point me to?

[MikeyBugs95]

Welcome back! And don't worry, the forum never forgets.