Next Lens

tibbitts · 11-29-2010, 08:56 PM

I have the 16-45, and I got it because of the 2mm advantage over the 18-55, more than for any image quality difference.

But now I have the 10-20mm (sigma) so it turned out not to matter much. But if I hadn't gotten something wider, 1mm would matter. I'm assuming it's actually 1mm - I haven't seen both lenses (the pentax and the sigma you're considering) actually measured, so you might look into that.

Paul

boldy80 · 12-01-2010, 07:38 PM

I concur with Mickey, the 17-70 sigma 2.8-4.5 was a huge improvement over the kit 18-50 sigma I got with my K200D.

It's now my walk around lens, with a 50mm 1.7 and 100mm in the bag - now I'm hunting for a fisheye!

bessa66 · 12-02-2010, 02:00 AM

I have the 16 -45 and 55 - 300 and it covers things quite well. Just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered a prime - the 35mm f2.8 macro is a beauty.

Gerrys · 12-04-2010, 09:38 AM

I went with the Tammy 17-70,2.8 and it is a beauty

Last edited by Gerrys; 12-04-2010 at 10:04 AM. Reason: Mistake on focal length of lens

Gerrys · 12-04-2010, 10:05 AM

I went with the Tammy 17-50 2.8 and so far,so good

12-02-2010, 02:00 AM	#18
bessa66 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 53	I have the 16 -45 and 55 - 300 and it covers things quite well. Just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered a prime - the 35mm f2.8 macro is a beauty. Last edited by bessa66; 12-02-2010 at 02:08 AM.

11-29-2010, 08:56 PM	#16
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	I have the 16-45, and I got it because of the 2mm advantage over the 18-55, more than for any image quality difference. But now I have the 10-20mm (sigma) so it turned out not to matter much. But if I hadn't gotten something wider, 1mm would matter. I'm assuming it's actually 1mm - I haven't seen both lenses (the pentax and the sigma you're considering) actually measured, so you might look into that. Paul

12-01-2010, 07:38 PM	#17
boldy80 New Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 8	I concur with Mickey, the 17-70 sigma 2.8-4.5 was a huge improvement over the kit 18-50 sigma I got with my K200D. It's now my walk around lens, with a 50mm 1.7 and 100mm in the bag - now I'm hunting for a fisheye!

12-04-2010, 09:38 AM	#19
Gerrys Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New jersey Photos: Gallery Posts: 152 Original Poster	I went with the Tammy 17-70,2.8 and it is a beauty Last edited by Gerrys; 12-04-2010 at 10:04 AM. Reason: Mistake on focal length of lens

12-04-2010, 10:05 AM	#20
Gerrys Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New jersey Photos: Gallery Posts: 152 Original Poster	I went with the Tammy 17-50 2.8 and so far,so good