[robthebloke]

I just finished posting my thoughts in your other thread. Personally, I'd go for the FA77 and the DA*300.

The FA77 has a rendering that is unmatched by anything else. (My perfect 3 lens kit for apsc would be for me the 15, 35, and 77 limiteds). Since you don't have an FA limited lens, you might as well get one to add it's unique rendering characteristics to your arsenal. Just stick it on f4 when you get it, and you'll understand (it takes time to really appreciate how to work it well at larger apertures)

The DA*300 is a mind blowing lens. The DA200 doesn't quite rise to the same standard imho.

The DFA100 WR is a superb lens on the K-1. On the k-3 though, you'll end up leaving it at home and will take the 35 ltd with you instead. If you switch to the k-1 at some point, it'll be worth it, otherwise unless you are intending to chase bugs with a tripod in tow, don't bother.

---------- Post added 01-04-17 at 09:12 AM ----------

I've just reviewed your shots in this thread. Next time you take the 15 out, and are doing a landscape shot with the sun in the frame, knock the exposure down a couple of pegs (I.e. -0.7 or -1.0 ev). At f8 or so, you should be able to pull something exciting out of those blown highlights in Lightroom (more exciting with the SMC version compared to the HD version), and should still have enough DR to pull the proper image out of the shadows

[gm4life]

I just finished posting my thoughts in your other thread. Personally, I'd go for the FA77 and the DA*300.

The FA77 has a rendering that is unmatched by anything else. (My perfect 3 lens kit for apsc would be for me the 15, 35, and 77 limiteds). Since you don't have an FA limited lens, you might as well get one to add it's unique rendering characteristics to your arsenal. Just stick it on f4 when you get it, and you'll understand (it takes time to really appreciate how to work it well at larger apertures)

The DA*300 is a mind blowing lens. The DA200 doesn't quite rise to the same standard imho.

The DFA100 WR is a superb lens on the K-1. On the k-3 though, you'll end up leaving it at home and will take the 35 ltd with you instead. If you switch to the k-1 at some point, it'll be worth it, otherwise unless you are intending to chase bugs with a tripod in tow, don't bother.

---------- Post added 01-04-17 at 09:12 AM ----------

I've just reviewed your shots in this thread. Next time you take the 15 out, and are doing a landscape shot with the sun in the frame, knock the exposure down a couple of pegs (I.e. -0.7 or -1.0 ev). At f8 or so, you should be able to pull something exciting out of those blown highlights in Lightroom (more exciting with the SMC version compared to the HD version), and should still have enough DR to pull the proper image out of the shadows

Thank you so much. I will have to remember to do that, next time I shoot. Hopefully I show some promise. I did pull the trigger on both the DA SMC * 55 F 1.4 and the DA SMC * 300 F 4 too. Thought about the 77 but wanted the weather sealing etc. I need to get off of this site it has cost me money!

Thanks again for the advice!

[following.eric]

hey guys.
I'm looking at finally changing up my lenses to build a better kit for the future. Before even found this forum two years ago I bought the Sigma 18-250mm DC Macro lens. Just feel it's hit or miss, some days it does well, others just not quite there. Never really knew what I was missing until I picked up a mint Pentax A 50mm 1.7 and the first test shot I saw on my computer blew my mind, sharp as sharp can get and great colours. Then the gears in my brain started turning and Just ready to move up I think, but obvious budget constraints. Shooting on K-50.

Hopefully the end of this week I'll have the 10-17mm fish eye in the mail , ready to juice up the creativity. But looking for suggestions for the next step. I'm thinking of selling the Sigma in New Zealand, where I can get a decent price, I guess get what I paid.

Have narrowed it down to Tamron 18-50 f2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f2.8 to replace the kit. Sigma seems to have better reviews, Tamron is cheaper.

From the looks budget wise the Pentax 55-300 Could be a good upgrade on the Telephoto end. But all seem to have similar reviews, just increasing price from the DA L version, to the DA ED, DA WR & DA PLM version.

I know it's a never ending road, this will lead to some expensive telephoto 2.8 one day, but for now. With the sale of the Sigma I could pick up I think the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and 55-300 DA L with little more investment. Obvious no brainer? suggestions? Maybe better alternative I'm missing or will only see slight increase in Quality?

Thanks

[Des]

Have narrowed it down to Tamron 18-50 f2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f2.8 to replace the kit. Sigma seems to have better reviews, Tamron is cheaper.

You mean 17-50? Can't comment on either, but I assume you are sure you want f2.8 rather than the wider focal range of say a Sigma 17-70 C, Pentax DA 16-85 or DA 18-135 (the latter two being WR)?

From the looks budget wise the Pentax 55-300 Could be a good upgrade on the Telephoto end. But all seem to have similar reviews, just increasing price from the DA L version, to the DA ED, DA WR & DA PLM version. I know it's a never ending road, this will lead to some expensive telephoto 2.8 one day, but for now. With the sale of the Sigma I could pick up I think the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and 55-300 DA L with little more investment. Obvious no brainer? suggestions? Maybe better alternative I'm missing or will only see slight increase in Quality?

I also used to have a superzoom (Tamron 18-250) and was also amazed when I got my first prime (also a Pentax A-50 f1.7). The 55-300 will offer a noticeable improvement in image quality over the superzoom, especially at the long end. It's about half a stop faster too.

As between the four versions of the 55-300, the first three have the same optical formula (the WR version has new coatings) but the latest PLM version is completely different. (There is a free firmware update for the K-50 that will allow the PLM version to work with that body.) The PLM version has a shorter minimum focus distance and quiet autofocus - addressing criticisms of the previous models - and is retractable when not in use, but it is a little slower (e.g. f6.3 v f5.8 at 300mm).

The three earler versions differ in this way. The DA-L has a plastic mount, doesn't come with a hood and doesn't have QuickShift (manual focus override, a handy feature for birds in trees, and to minimise hunting). The original DA has a metal mount, hood and QS. The DA WR version has a nicer finish, is weather-resistant and has newer coating (as I mentioned). I have the DA-L version and it is amazing value. The plastic mount and hood aren't really an issue (I got a generic hood on ebay for $5). QS would be nice but if you are on a tight budget the extra $50-80 for the DA version might not be worth it. These three are not internal focus lenses, which means they don't suffer from focus breathing. That gives a lot more effective reach at 300mm for typical subjects like a bird 5m - 10m away. The flip side is a longer minimum focus distance.

Have a look at image samples from all of these. It's impossible to pick the $150 lens (DA-L) from the $500 ones.

[following.eric]

You mean 17-50? Can't comment on either, but I assume you are sure you want f2.8 rather than the wider focal range of say a Sigma 17-70 C, Pentax DA 16-85 or DA 18-135 (the latter two being WR)?


I also used to have a superzoom (Tamron 18-250) and was also amazed when I got my first prime (also a Pentax A-50 f1.7). The 55-300 will offer a noticeable improvement in image quality over the superzoom, especially at the long end. It's about half a stop faster too.

As between the four versions of the 55-300, the first three have the same optical formula (the WR version has new coatings) but the latest PLM version is completely different. (There is a free firmware update for the K-50 that will allow the PLM version to work with that body.) The PLM version has a shorter minimum focus distance and quiet autofocus - addressing criticisms of the previous models - and is retractable when not in use, but it is a little slower (e.g. f6.3 v f5.8 at 300mm).

The three earler versions differ in this way. The DA-L has a plastic mount, doesn't come with a hood and doesn't have QuickShift (manual focus override, a handy feature for birds in trees, and to minimise hunting). The original DA has a metal mount, hood and QS. The DA WR version has a nicer finish, is weather-resistant and has newer coating (as I mentioned). I have the DA-L version and it is amazing value. The plastic mount and hood aren't really an issue (I got a generic hood on ebay for $5). QS would be nice but if you are on a tight budget the extra $50-80 for the DA version might not be worth it. These three are not internal focus lenses, which means they don't suffer from focus breathing. That gives a lot more effective reach at 300mm for typical subjects like a bird 5m - 10m away. The flip side is a longer minimum focus distance.

Have a look at image samples from all of these. It's impossible to pick the $150 lens (DA-L) from the $500 ones.

Ya I Ment the tamron and sigma 17-50 f2.8

Figure a sigma 17-50 f2.8 and even da l 55-300 would be better over all quality increase over sigma 18-250mm. Downside would be two lens now instead of one.

But I think I would prefer quality. Can upgrade the 55-300 after when budget improves. Cant imagine needing to replace the sigma 17-50. Maybe to more primes.

Thanks for the infos

[gm4life]

hey guys.
I'm looking at finally changing up my lenses to build a better kit for the future. Before even found this forum two years ago I bought the Sigma 18-250mm DC Macro lens. Just feel it's hit or miss, some days it does well, others just not quite there. Never really knew what I was missing until I picked up a mint Pentax A 50mm 1.7 and the first test shot I saw on my computer blew my mind, sharp as sharp can get and great colours. Then the gears in my brain started turning and Just ready to move up I think, but obvious budget constraints. Shooting on K-50.

Hopefully the end of this week I'll have the 10-17mm fish eye in the mail , ready to juice up the creativity. But looking for suggestions for the next step. I'm thinking of selling the Sigma in New Zealand, where I can get a decent price, I guess get what I paid.

Have narrowed it down to Tamron 18-50 f2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f2.8 to replace the kit. Sigma seems to have better reviews, Tamron is cheaper.

From the looks budget wise the Pentax 55-300 Could be a good upgrade on the Telephoto end. But all seem to have similar reviews, just increasing price from the DA L version, to the DA ED, DA WR & DA PLM version.

I know it's a never ending road, this will lead to some expensive telephoto 2.8 one day, but for now. With the sale of the Sigma I could pick up I think the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and 55-300 DA L with little more investment. Obvious no brainer? suggestions? Maybe better alternative I'm missing or will only see slight increase in Quality?

Thanks

I guess without knowing exactly what you will be shooting I can't really comment on either lens, the Tamron or Sigma. Furthermore I haven't used either of them. For a nice walk around lens I highly recommend the universally praised 16-85 Pentax, no it isn't a fast lens nor is it a star lens but the photos it takes are nearly if not * lens quality. In fact I was set on a 18-135 till I visited this place and stepped up to the 16-85 sharp lens that takes exceedingly excellent photos.

Regardless of what you do on the other lens I recommend the 55-300 HD without PLM when on sale for less than 300 bucks can't beat the bang for the buck. It does make some noise when focusing but it isn't that bad. I love mine.

[following.eric]

I guess without knowing exactly what you will be shooting I can't really comment on either lens, the Tamron or Sigma. Furthermore I haven't used either of them. For a nice walk around lens I highly recommend the universally praised 16-85 Pentax, no it isn't a fast lens nor is it a star lens but the photos it takes are nearly if not * lens quality. In fact I was set on a 18-135 till I visited this place and stepped up to the 16-85 sharp lens that takes exceedingly excellent photos.

Regardless of what you do on the other lens I recommend the 55-300 HD without PLM when on sale for less than 300 bucks can't beat the bang for the buck. It does make some noise when focusing but it isn't that bad. I love mine.

Thanks. I like the idea of the 16-85, but it's a bit pricey at the moment. But so far I like what im hearing about the 55-300. Seems even the DA L version would be better than my Sigma 18-250mm and cheap on the DAL end, Marketplace has a HD WR for 290.

All depends what a sigma 18-250 is worth?

[TER-OR]

As usual, it depends on what you want to do but can't do (or can't do well) with your current lineup. Second, are there some fun items like the pancakes which you might enjoy? I really like the DA21mm I picked up inexpensively.

I'm considering the DA300 because my images at extreme zoom are disappointing, and I have plenty of opportunities along the river.

[following.eric]

I have a big two months trip coming up through New Zealand and every time I shoot with my Sigma 18-250 I just feel disapointed. There's just no texture in the detail. Slap my 50mm 1.7 and crop in yield better results. So I want to cover the range on this trip So I'll have 10-17mm, Hopefully 17-50mm 2.8 and maybe just the DA L 55-300mm to cover the far end. I am moving to the U.K next and then can start to build the collection further with Limited edition lens. Hopefully Pentax never Change mounts and I can build a kit for years to come.

[Des]

I have a big two months trip coming up through New Zealand and every time I shoot with my Sigma 18-250 I just feel disapointed. There's just no texture in the detail. Slap my 50mm 1.7 and crop in yield better results. So I want to cover the range on this trip So I'll have 10-17mm, Hopefully 17-50mm 2.8 and maybe just the DA L 55-300mm to cover the far end. I am moving to the U.K next and then can start to build the collection further with Limited edition lens. Hopefully Pentax never Change mounts and I can build a kit for years to come.

The superzoom will never match a prime, but they should do OK in good light. if you try stopping down to f8 you will get the most out of it. Shoot in RAW, and images from these lenses also benefit a lot from post-processing to fix distortion and bring out more contrast and micro-contrast.

Having said that, you will notice an immediate improvement with the 55-300.

I think you can be confident about K-mount being supported for years to come.

[gm4life]

Thanks. I like the idea of the 16-85, but it's a bit pricey at the moment. But so far I like what im hearing about the 55-300. Seems even the DA L version would be better than my Sigma 18-250mm and cheap on the DAL end, Marketplace has a HD WR for 290.

All depends what a sigma 18-250 is worth?

Yes, the 55-300 are a very good consumer lens, good IQ and good value for the money. I am pleased with mine, for the money they can't be beat. I have seen the 16-85 as low as 540 or so and the slightly longer reaching 18-135 at 400 USD too.

I do have my big boy 300 F 4 * coming tomorrow to supplement my 55-300 HD WR on the long end. My 55 F 1.4 * came today for the short end and portraits, low light etc. and I am in love wth the one too.

Best of luck in your gear hunt.

[gm4life]

The lineup as it currently stands. LBA is coming to and end. I think I am done floor a long while.