[Welfl]

Regarding the K-5, would these two older autofocus lenses be acceptable replacements for the 18-55mm kit lens? At least until more autofocus lenses could be purchased?

Tamron AF28-80mm F3.5-5.6 Aspherical (used).

Sigma 28mm F1.8 II Aspherical, MF (still new in box).

Believe it or not, I was lucky enough to buy both of them last week in a small town (about 100 miles away) for a grand total of $150 ($25 for the 28-80 and $125 for the 28mm).

Thanks.

---

Last edited by Welfl; 03-21-2012 at 07:51 PM.

[foxhead]

Well, since you have both lenses, and I'm assuming you have a K-5 and the kit lens, why don't you use all three lenses to take some comparative photos and then let us know? It certainly sounds like you found a good deal.

[jimr-pdx]

'Acceptable' need only apply to you - we'd love to feel important enough to pass judgement but try 'em and see how you feel! I would miss the gap between 18 and 28 myself, but that's me. I have owned several good Tamron and Sigma lenses but not the two that you found. Small-town shops can definitely hold some treasures!

Don't miss out on the lens reviews on this site - but note that your specific lenses on your specific camera may prove better, or worse, than any that were tested before you.

[RioRico]

I got the Promaster-badged version of the Tamron zoom a few weeks ago for US$7.50 shipped. I haven't used it much (and it's not with me on my current journey) but I found nothing objectionable with it -- it passed my sharpness and aberration tests. I don't have that Sigma prime and haven't checked COMPLETED LISTINGS on eBay to see current sales prices, but that doesn't sound too out of line. It has a good reputation, and 28s of f/2 or faster are fairly desirable. You'll be able to put it to good use -- my most-used prime is a MF 28/2.

As jimr-pdx said, a 28-xx zoom doesn't cover the same range as an 18-xx zoom, and that's an important gap. 28-80 is the old kit.lens range for FF film cameras, FOV-equivalent to the new 18-55 kit.lens range for APS-C cameras. On APS-C, 18mm is wide and 28mm is 'normal'. There's nothing wrong with a 28-80 but it's not a direct replacement for 18-55 -- the usual replacements are more like 17-50 or 16-45, and those are mostly f/2.8 zooms that cost quite a bit more.

My recommendation on the zoom: Shoot with it, but don't throw away the 18-55!

[Welfl]

Well, since you have both lenses, and I'm assuming you have a K-5 and the kit lens...

No, I don't have a K-5 yet (I admitted this in the first draft of my post, but then I deleted it for some odd reason). I don't own any DSLR yet (I've been studying them -- especially the K-5 -- extensively for the last year, though). I am asking the question because I want to know if I should bother buying the K-5 with the kit lens or if it would be satisfactory to save some money and just use the two lenses I already have -- for now. I'm asking this question now due to the $999 K-5 sale at B&H and Adorama.

I would miss the gap between 18 and 28 myself, but that's me.

Actually, I think I would really miss that gap too. I was hoping (against hope) that someone would tell me it's no big deal. That is the primary reason that I asked the question.

Small-town shops can definitely hold some treasures!

The odds of my finding Pentax gear anywhere in western Nebraska or east-central Wyoming is normally slim to none, so I considered myself extremely lucky to stumble onto this little treasure trove. That's why I considered it worth my time (and gas money) to go on a 200-mile round trip to see what he had to offer. I also bought a Sears F2.8 28mm manual lens for $15 or $20 and a 2x manual converter (that I probably did not need) for the same price. I was also set to buy an Asahi Pentax F1.7 50mm manual lens for $15 or $20, but I somehow left without it! Darn it! And it isn't worth another long drive just for that one lens. I really miss the Minolta F1.4 55mm lens I owned from 1978 to 1980 (I didn't realize at the time how rare F stops "below" 2.0 are).

[Welfl]

I got the Promaster-badged version of the Tamron zoom a few weeks ago for US$7.50 shipped.

And here I thought I was getting away with a steal on that one.

I don't have that Sigma prime and haven't checked COMPLETED LISTINGS on eBay to see current sales prices, but that doesn't sound too out of line. It has a good reputation, and 28s of f/2 or faster are fairly desirable. You'll be able to put it to good use -- my most-used prime is a MF 28/2.!

I paid about $25 below the average, based on PF's lens database. I could have had it for $100, but I opened my big mouth because I didn't know its value while I was standing there, and I didn't want to pay too much for it. He checked the internet and found the very expensive modern version of the Sigma 28mm. He freely admitted that his is an older model, but he still added $25 to the price. I could have kicked myself.

As jimr-pdx said, a 28-xx zoom doesn't cover the same range as an 18-xx zoom, and that's an important gap. ... There's nothing wrong with a 28-80 but it's not a direct replacement for 18-55 -- the usual replacements are more like 17-50 or 16-45, and those are mostly f/2.8 zooms that cost quite a bit more.

You have both confirmed my own suspicions on the matter. I would like to get an 18-55-ish lens that is better quality than the kit lens (I've occasionally read less-than-glowing comments about it), but I'm not into paying hundreds of dollars, like most people seem to be here at PF. If I was still taking meaningful, memorable pictures of people and places that I care about, I might be willing to spend that kind of money, but that isn't the case anymore (regrettably), so I don't want to spend a fortune just to take pictures of generic landscapes and other impersonal subject matter -- but I do want the quality and dynamic range of the K-5's images and some lenses that will do them a fair amount of justice without breaking the bank.

P.S. I also have six manual K-mount lenses (actually nine, but two are 135mm, and three are 50mm) that I am eager to use (for fun, of course). If the K-01 hadn't had a number of deficiencies (by my biased standards), I would have gladly bought it (in spite of its looks), due to its amazing focus peaking and much more versatile video mode. I desperately wish the K-5 had focus peaking and a better video mode.

[RioRico]

I think I would really miss that gap too. I was hoping (against hope) that someone would tell me it's no big deal. That is the primary reason that I asked the question.

It's a big deal. I might possibly carry a kit of my Tamron 10-24, Promaster-Tamron or FA 28-80, and FA100-300. I could live with the 24-28 and 80-100 gaps. But not being able to go wider than 28mm? That would really hurt. That 10-24 and my DA18-250 are my constant companions.

Today I wandered Nogales, Sonora with only a fast 24mm prime, and I got shots that just wouldn't have been possible with a 28mm -- the spaces I was in were just too cramped. I have 28-70 and 28-80 and 28-90 zooms and they're fine, from a distance, but not for working in tight spaces nor for comprehensive views. Wider is necessary.

[cali92rs]

I agree with Rico...hell, I just bought the 18-55 wr just for the 20-28mm range and weather resistance

[RioRico]

I do have positive words about normal-plus AF zooms. I have various in the 28|35-70|80|90 area, all either around f/3.5-4.5 or f/3.5-5.6. Those with the shortest focal ranges, my F35-70/3.5-4.5 and Promaster-Tamron 28-70/3.5-4.5, are the fastest and sharpest and most agile. And they cover an ideal people-shooting range, for portraits from full-body to head+shoulders. No headshots with razor-thin DOF; no fisheye stretches; just competent pictures like people keep (kept?) in their wallets or diaries. And they're cheap.

[Welfl]

It's a big deal. I might possibly carry a kit of my Tamron 10-24, Promaster-Tamron or FA 28-80, and FA100-300. I could live with the 24-28 and 80-100 gaps. But not being able to go wider than 28mm? That would really hurt. That 10-24 and my DA18-250 are my constant companions.

I know exactly what you mean. Ever since I discovered PentaxForums over a year ago, one of my favorite lens clubs (besides the manual-lens clubs) has been the The 15mm Limited controls my mind - club. I love those wide-angle images! As I wrote in my original post (in so many words), my Tamron 28-80 is only going to be a stopgap, until I am finally ready to buy a more standard zoom lens. I was just hoping to take advantage of the $999 sale for now, instead of the $1,199 sale that includes the kit lens.

Today I wandered Nogales, Sonora with only a fast 24mm prime, and I got shots that just wouldn't have been possible with a 28mm -- the spaces I was in were just too cramped. I have 28-70 and 28-80 and 28-90 zooms and they're fine, from a distance, but not for working in tight spaces nor for comprehensive views. Wider is necessary.

I discovered the free Hugin panorama software over a year ago and have had a blast putting panoramic images together (see here). I had been dreaming about doing that sort of thing ever since I was a kid, so, yes, wide angle images have been a passion of mine for a long time.

Believe it or not, in spite of that passion, I had never owned a lens wider than 50mm until one year ago this month. Then a retired friend in Oregon gave me three lenses (and a Pentax KX 35mm camera). One of them is a Deitz 28-80 (a very solidly built and very precise-feeling lens, which is barely mentioned on the internet). It was wonderful finally to be able to see such a wide field of view in my 35mm viewfinder.

[Welfl]

I agree with Rico...hell, I just bought the 18-55 wr just for the 20-28mm range and weather resistance

Okay, you're all ganging up on me! I suppose I had better get the 18-55mm AL WR lens right away -- if I am brave enough to buy the K-5 instead of waiting for the "affordable" K-5/K-r hybrid that is sure to be announced two days after the $999 sale ends (ha????). For quite some time I've been eyeing the 18-55 AL WR on Amazon, where it is only $144.20 at the present time (and is sold by Amazon itself). That's $55.80 cheaper than if you buy it as a kit with the K-5. What would I be missing by not buying it as part of a kit?

[Jean Poitiers]

Okay, you're all ganging up on me! ... What would I be missing by not buying it as part of a kit?

Bonjour,

I bought my used K-7 body, then later purchased a DA 18-55 WR to go with it. Next sold the K-7 body, and got a K-5 bundled with another DA 18-55 WR. So, I have two now and see - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-equipment-sale/178707-sale-t...resistant.html (shameless self promotion here)

Just depends on the kit's price point as opposed to a separate purchase price point ...

Salut, J Frog

[Jean Poitiers]

I agree with Rico...hell, I just bought the 18-55 wr just for the 20-28mm range and weather resistance

Agreed, plus this lens is very good for "close focus" applications ...

Plus @ 31-33mm range, mine is very good/sharp, too ... J

[sterretje]

Actually, I think I would really miss that gap too. I was hoping (against hope) that someone would tell me it's no big deal. That is the primary reason that I asked the question.

Let me be the one telling you that it's not necessarily a big deal It simply depends on your needs. For me, something between 28 and 35 is wide enough (closer to 28 being preferred) for most of what I shoot.

You have both confirmed my own suspicions on the matter. I would like to get an 18-55-ish lens that is better quality than the kit lens (I've occasionally read less-than-glowing comments about it), but I'm not into paying hundreds of dollars, like most people seem to be here at PF. If I was still taking meaningful, memorable pictures of people and places that I care about, I might be willing to spend that kind of money, but that isn't the case anymore (regrettably), so I don't want to spend a fortune just to take pictures of generic landscapes and other impersonal subject matter -- but I do want the quality and dynamic range of the K-5's images and some lenses that will do them a fair amount of justice without breaking the bank.

Sorry, but better quality costs money. The kit lens is not the worst lens; see e.g. samples in https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/45425-kit-lens-club.html An alternative that might not break the bank can be the Tamron 17-50/2.8

I discovered the free Hugin panorama software over a year ago and have had a blast putting panoramic images together (see here). I had been dreaming about doing that sort of thing ever since I was a kid, so, yes, wide angle images have been a passion of mine for a long time.

You can keep on stitching panoramas with the 28mm (or any lens for that matter).

[Welfl]

So, I have two now and see - Da 18-55 wr (shameless self promotion here)..

That's alright. I'm immune to your "shamelessness," John, because I don't live in Europe; therefore I cannot buy your lenses. Ha . Kidding, of course. I don't mind self promotion. I appear to have done it myself with my link to my panoramic shots, although I was doing it to back up my claim that I really do like wide angles (photographically speaking).

Just depends on the kit's price point as opposed to a separate purchase price point ...

Thank you for the confirmation.

For me, something between 28 and 35 is wide enough (closer to 28 being preferred) for most of what I shoot.

If the standard kit lens on APS-C dSLRs had been 28-80 from the beginning, I probably wouldn't have thought a thing of it (until recently, I had never even shot an image wider than 50mm), but I would still have felt a desire to have a wide-angle lens in my collection, anyway. I've spent most of my life simply backing waaaaayyyyyy up to get wide-angle shots.

Sorry, but better quality costs money.

Only because they charge so much for it.

The kit lens is not the worst lens.

I like hearing that.

You can keep on stitching panoramas with the 28mm (or any lens for that matter).

Oh, I know. I've really been looking forward to having to take fewer panoramic "segment" shots once I start shooting with a wide-angle lens.