Originally posted by JinDesu Between those two, I'd go with the 17-50 from Sigma - as it has HSM.
However, if you look on the used markets on this forum, you can find both lenses at 60-80% their MSRP. Used isn't such a bad thing.
Alternatively, you can look at the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM which does better than the kit lens at everything; just not as good as the 17-50s.
Yeah that's why I'm leaning towards the 17-50 range. The IQ on those seems really good even compared to some of the primes.
Originally posted by jezza323 The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 has been great in my experience. Very sharp at all focal lengths and apertures (well until stopped down and diffusion becomes an issue).
Can't give any insight into the other options though!
Thanks for your input. What do you mean by diffusion? I know a bit about diffraction. How far can you stop down before it's an issue?
Originally posted by joe.penn An everyday walkabout lens imho would be both wide and long, like an 18~250, pentax tamron and sigma have one, the sigma seems to be quite good ->
Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
How concerned are you with IQ? I mean everyone is concerned with IQ but if you are looking for prime quality out of a walkaround lens it's just not going to happen with any one walkaround lens, you could however get there with 2 lenses (17~50 and DA*50~135), but that option seems to be over budget. Honestly, if I had your budget I would learn to deal with the 18~55 kit lens and work on getting a DA*50~135.
I see you are referencing the 17-50 as others are, what kind of shooting are you doing? Are you using the 50FL of the kit lens often?
Here is the concern - you are noting that you want another lens to compare in quality of the Tammy 90 - well, I am not sure that the 17-50/18-50 is going to give you the IQ as good as the 90mm.
When I use the kit lens nearly 90% of the pictures I took were between 18mm and 40mm so that range seems to work for me. I am definitely interested in really good IQ. I know a broad range walk-around lens won't get me prime quality. That's why I'm looking at the 16-50 and 17-50 range.. You don't think a 17-50 would compare to prime? Some of the reviews I read and pictures I saw made it seem like difference between the two isn't that much.
Originally posted by Na Horuk Id suggest trying a 35mm prime (so its close to 50 on the crop camera). In most situations its "just right" and pentax makes some nice ones.
I would love to get a 35mm prime in the future but I'm looking for something with a bit more range at the moment. Do you know/like anything about the plastic pentax 35mm? It's cheap and everyone I talk to that has it really likes it.
Originally posted by twitch I think the OP'er is on the right track; and either of the options mentioned would be good. Sometimes it comes down to filter size, or needing quiet AF, or the direction the zoom & focus rings turn in which would tip the balance either way. I think the optics are pretty close.
The screw-drive focus doesn't bother me much. It's loud but works well. The lenses do seem fairly close. I read a review on this website comparing the 16-50, sigma 17-50, and tam 17-50. The tamron seemed to win the majority but I'm concerned about the toughness of a plastic lens. Anyone who owns this lens have anything to say about how its holding up over time?