|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-15-2015, 11:53 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-15-2015, 11:12 AM
|
| |
I think the choice is between the Pentax 16-85 and the Sigma 17-50. While I realise that a lot of Pentaxians love their 18-135, and it is versatile and weather resistant, there is just too much agreement across virtually all reviews I've read on the lens being pretty mediocre optically. When PF calls the corners "terribly soft" and Photozone adds a note saying "Just to mention again - we couldn't believe the rather poor performance so we asked the local Pentax service in Hamburg/Germany for an assessment of the situation. Result: the lens is within factory specifications.", I am just not comfortable with shelling out a couple of hundred € on it :confused:
Until recently my brain said "Sigma!" while my heart whispered "Pentax ...", but the more I read about the Sigma, the more it appears to be a great alternative. Sure, I'd lose a bit of range and weather sealing, but the vast majority of PF members having reviewed this lens seem to consider its optical performance nothing short of spectacular. Very sharp in the image centre and decently sharp into the corners wide open at 17 mm, and razor sharp across the frame upon stopping down by just one to two stops ...
Argh, the choice is not getting easier. But I will stop bothering you folks with my undecidedness. I think I now have all the information I need, so thanks everyone for a lot of great and really helpful advise! :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-15-2015, 02:45 AM
|
| |
Of foolishness I am certainly not short :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-15-2015, 01:00 AM
|
| |
Photozone's test sample had light decentering too. Looks like Ricoh needs to step up the quality control a bit.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-15-2015, 12:43 AM
|
| |
I read the entire post, and there was not a single qualifier in there (if by qualifier you mean the requirements I have outlined). I asked for one lens with a versatile range, from wide-angle to moderate telephoto (not a super-zoom though). You suggested a Tamron and a tele-zoom. I would prefer (but not necessarily need) weather sealing, your suggestion doesn't have it. I'd like a faster and silent AF drive and you suggest a combination that has, as you put it yourself, "sluggish or non-existent auto-focus".
I'm stepping up from the kit for certain aspects only, I already own two primes and a tele-zoom, and I wasn't aware experience was linked to gear. There are people who produce outstanding images with kit lenses and those who produce rubbish with Canon L stuff, or Pentax Limited, or Leica lenses ... If you think just because I used my kit lens for certain stuff until now I am inexperienced and in no position to reject suggestions that have nothing to do with my requirements, then you're mistaken.
I don't know - and why? I was asking for an all-around standard zoom in the 16-85 mm range, not a 375 mm FF equivalent. I already have a tele-zoom, so how did the talk come to the DA* 60-250?
You're the one who replied to a thread asking for suggestions for a standard-zoom with reasonably fast AF for my K3 with the suggestion to get a Sony a5000 + Canon tele-zoom combination with, as you put it yourself, "sluggish or non-existent auto-focus". I simply replied that I don't mind the weight of my camera, so I don't need the lightest setup, and for my use I prefer something with weather sealing anyway. And the "Cold day in hell" comment was meant in good humour, as made obvious by the winking smiley behind it.
Your suggestion ignored every single requirement I outlined in my first post, and because I rejected it for that reason I'm suddenly insulted, snobbish, ignorant, sitting on a high horse, inexperienced ... From the way you're reacting it appears you're the one acting insulted.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-14-2015, 04:19 PM
|
| |
I do have the HD DA 55-300 WR which covers more at apparently a better IQ, so I am covered for the telephoto end :)
I will test whatever lens I get for decentering. If it has decentering, I will send it back and ask for another one. If I buy used I will specifically ask the seller about decentering, if s/he says there is none but I find some, I'll just send it back. For me decentering is a nuisance because I will have to test for it and maybe go through a couple of copies, but there really isn't any risk of getting a decentered lens and being stuck with it.
Yeah, I'm getting a feeling that I will ultimately end up with that one :p
I am not going to change systems. I am young and (reasonably) strong, and the weight of my camera is of little concern to me. I want something rugged with an optical viewfinder, great ergonomics and high image quality - that's why I shoot Pentax. It will be a cold day in hell before I buy a DSLM :hmm: ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-14-2015, 11:22 AM
|
| |
Hadn't thought of that one. Reviews seem to be positive, on the other hand it's €100 more than the Sigma version, and slower. How do you think it fares against the Sigma across the frame at 17 mm?
I didn't exclude any lens due to lack of WR, if I had the two Sigmas and the Tamron would not be on the list ;) I know people have taken and are still taking pictures in bad weather without weather resistant bodies and lenses, the same way people have taken sports pictures with manual focus lenses in the past. That doesn't mean that weather resistance and autofocus are not a blessing ;)
Depending on the activity I mostly shoot landscapes, people scrambling/climbing/walking, and the occasional portrait. Wildlife isn't really important, and if something interesting crosses my path I have the HD DA 55-300 WR in my backpack. So wide-angle performance across the frame is important to me, but not necessarily wide open, and I will also zoom in for some whole body shots of climbers from different perspectives.
I didn't say that f/2.8 is important, I wrote that f/2.8 would be a plus, but not necessary. It can be useful in bad weather, for night sky photography (shots of the milky way) or at dusk or dawn. But it really isn't too important - my favourite lens out of the list doesn't have it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-14-2015, 09:15 AM
|
| |
Because I am looking specifically for a lens that in the near future will primarily be used in the Scottish highlands, parts of which are among the wettest regions in Europe? And because I travel quite widely, often to very wet or very dusty places (in past couple of years, among others, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Australia, Malaysia, Iceland, Namibia ...)? ;)
I have non-WR lenses too, but if WR doesn't make sense for outdoor exploits in rainy regions, then when would it ever make sense?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-14-2015, 08:33 AM
|
| |
That was ... not very helpful :D A Nikon full frame is not really the solution to my problem :P
I'm looking for a versatile zoom, not a wide-angle prime ;)
That's longer on the short end and shorter on the long end than anything listed above, cheapest price in Germany is €680 and for such a premium price tag it doesn't even deliver a constant f/2.8 or high enough image quality. Only pro I can see is weather sealing, good AF and high build quality, but it's just not versatile enough.
K3.
As size is not much of an issue and I don't technically need f/2.8, the DA 16-85 really does seem to be the best choice. Guess I just have to save up a bit longer and wait until Christmas ... Maybe a nice cashback will come around too.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-14-2015, 07:35 AM
|
| |
I haven't even thought of that one :eek: But then, the edge performance seems to be really ... underwhelming? Photozone, ePhotozine, even Pentaxforum all seem to agree that the optical performance is pretty mediocre except for in the frame centre. PF states that "Corners are terribly soft and lacking in contrast, especially at wider angles due to high distortion" and "Vignetting is very strong at wider angles with little improvement after 2-3 stops".
I'm certainly not pixel peeping the extreme corners (otherwise I wouldn't have survived five years with the DA L 18-55), but I would like to use the new lens for landscapes.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-14-2015, 07:08 AM
|
| |
I'm currently in the market for a new standard zoom, because after five years of photography and one year with the K3 the DA L 18-55 WR really doesn't cut it for me any more image quality wise. I do have the very sharp DA 35 f/2.4 and SMC-A 50 f/1.7, but the main use will be mountaineering - hill walking, scrambling, climbing, obviously some landscape shots of the beautiful Scottish highlands. Changing lenses during mountaineering and climbing is a pain in the ... rear parts, so I'm looking for a zoom.
Here's the problem - while there is certainly a rather good selection of standard zooms out there, none of them ticks all the boxes. What I primarily want is better image quality (especially sharpness and micro-contrast) than the kit lens, a useful range (wide enough for landscapes, enough tele for climbing shots). Weather sealing (Scotland :p) would be great, f/2.8 a plus, but not necessary, and ideally I want a faster and silent AF drive. And being on a student budget, the price should be reasonable (all prices stated are the cheapest prices I found in Germany).
Pentax HD DA 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 DC WR
+ very useful focal range
+ WR
+ very high image quality all around
+ fast, silent AF
- €600 really is a bit much
- no f/2.8
Pentax DA 16-50 f/2.8 SDM AW
+ good enough focal range
+ great built, AW
o SDM is silent, but not exactly fast?
o image quality apparently good, but with edge performance unworthy of a lens of this price?
- €850 totally out of my budget
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 Contemporary
+ very good image quality in frame centre and middle range to long end
+ fast, silent AF
+ f/2.8-4
+ very good focal range
o very decent build quality
o €400 is feasible
- apparently very bad edges at wide end that don't improve upon stopping down (bad for landscapes)
- no weather sealing
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM
+ very high image quality
+ fast and silent AF
+ €350 is very competitive
o very decent build
o good enough focal range
- no weather sealing
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC
+ at €290 the most affordable option
+ very high image quality
o good enough focal range
o very decent build quality
- no weather sealing
- slow and noisy AF
So, I am kind of torn. I know the perfect and affordable lens doesn't exist and I cannot expect all the goodies at a low price point, but every single option lacks not only one, but at least two of the features I would prefer. The Pentax lenses are both too expensive, and all third party alternatives lack weather sealing (which really is a big deal when you're out in the Scottish highlands regularly). In addition to that, the Sigma 17-70 shows a bad performance at the wide end, the Sigma 17-50's focal range is a bit small, and the same applies to the Tamron, plus the AF is noisy and slow.
So I guess my question is - did I miss something? All my knowledge about these lenses was gathered from reviews, if you own any of the lenses, have you made different experiences?
Also, did I miss any reasonably modern AF normal zooms available for Pentax (except for the 16-45, which I do not want)?
Another question would be whether there is a chance of any of these lenses being updated soon? The Sigma 17-70 was only introduced in late 2009, and was upgraded to the Contemporary line just four years later, so can a similar update be expected for the Sigma 17-50 soonish? Any rumours?
If you were in the same situation, which one would you prefer/did you prefer?
|
