Reading mode: Light Dark

Kit lens replacement?

Go to last post
L

loco77

Well-known member
Messages
196
Reaction score
5
Location
VA, US
Hello all,

Would love to hear any and all opinions on kit lens replacement choices. I have a K-r with the first version of the DA 18-55 AL lens. In researching alternatives, I have narrowed it to the Sigma 17-70 (either old or new version), Tamron 17-50 2.8, or one of the Sigma 18-50 varieties.

I would like to keep the price around $350 and under if at all possible, so used is an option.

I really like the focal range of the Sigma 17-70 and it seems to be pretty well regarded, however it isn't very fast across the zoom range. The Tamron 17-50 and some Sigma 18-50's have a constant 2.8 aperture capability. I wonder if the faster glass trumps the longer range? I'd kind of like the longer range, rather than actually have less range with my new lens.

Of course, my main concern is I want to see a significant improvement over the Pentax kit lens I already have. I feel the lens is pretty good, but not as sharp as I'd like. It does fairly well when stopped down to f8 and in the 24-40mm range, but I find it rather limiting. I also am not crazy about the contrast, but that can mostly be corrected in PP.

Just wondering if folks who've actually used these lenses could chime in and let me know if you have any strong preferences and your experiences with them. Money is tight these days, and I would like to get the best bang for my buck.

Thanks much!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locosphotos/
 
Used Sigma 17-70 2.8/4.5 Dc Macro F/pentax.

One at Adorama.com in EX- Cindition for US $274.
One at KEH.com Grade EX for US $325.
Cheers.

Ron

--
Ron - 'We don't have time to go take pics this afternoon Carl.'
Carl - 'What do you mean? It will only take 1/1000s.'

'Keep your eyes looking forward. However, glance back now and then to see where you've come from. It will put a smile on your face.' ~ brandrx
 
The thing is most lenses are shaperst when stopped down to f8 or so.

If you need f2.8 for a reason, then go for it, but you'll probably find most f4 zooms are generally as good as the f 2.8 zooms, they just are a stop slower.

If you want something cheap, the DA16-45 is easily these days the most underrated lens. I think any of the other 3 you would be satisfied with as well, just be aware that most lense will be soft wide open.

--
Justin
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pentaxphotogallery/justinwatson
 
Thanks for those prices, Ron. I've seen those. Are you recommending the Sigma 17-70 or giving me prices because I'm interested in it? I wasn't clear on that.

justin, the 16-45 looks good, but I don't think I want something that short. I feel I would really miss the longer end. Maybe I'm wrong.

I realize most lenses are sharper stopped down, but I guess reviews were leading me to believe the ones I mentioned were sharper at the wider apertures than the kit lens. I'd like something versatile, so yes, I'd like to be able to use a wider aperture if available.

I really appreciate all feedback, but I'm especially looking for people's experiences with these lenses and their recommendations.

Many thanks!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locosphotos/
 
I have the older Sigma 17-70 and it is my workhorse for travel photography, Use it in conjunction with my Sigma 10-20 and Pentax 55-300 as my main hiking kit as well. It is a great lens, decent wide open and better stopped down, good focal range. I shot this slot canyon exclusively with the 17-70 http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/pinecreek2010/slideshow

Keep in mind that I was pushing my K200d's sensor for high ISO for some shots so don't judge the lens on that. Anyway, I really love mine, and when I don't want to be limited to a prime it is the first lens I grab.

LLoyd
--

“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken

http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
WSSA #354

 
I'm impressed by my Tammy 17-50 - sharp through the range. Only trouble is it front focuses on my K-r but I have adjusted that out.
 
Have you considered a prime? There are a few very good prime lenses available new (and more used) in your price range. I suspect you might find that most any of the kit-like zoom lenses you've listed would be only a moderate improvement over the kit lens in image quality, while a good prime lens is a much more significant improvement. A faster lens, prime or zoom, would open up new possibilities, particularly in lowish light situations.

The DA 35/2. DA40/2.8 limited, or one of the 50mm lenses might be a nice choice. If you don't mind manual focus, the Voigtlander 40mm/4 or 58mm/1.4 are very nice lenses and good deals.

Of course, a zoom lens does have somewhat more flexibility; it just usually comes at a cost...generally of speed, image quality (particularly wide open), and size.
--
--DrewE
 
Thanks to all for the great feedback so far!

Lloyd, those are some terrific images under challenging circumstances. Thank you for posting that link, very helpful! The color and contrast look good.

flacko_man, nice to know the Tammy is another good option. Sounds like both the Sigma and Tamron are worthy replacements.

Drew, yes, I have several primes. But a zoom is a nice thing to have for walking around when you just aren't sure what you'll encounter. :)

steephill, thank you. Yeah, the 16 would be nice, but that's a big difference on the short end. I've certainly considered the 16-45 but can't quite get past that difference. The Pentax 17-70 is more expensive and is slower than the Sigma, so I'm not considering it.

Looking forward to more opinions, thanks again!
 
OK, I think I've narrowed it down to the Tammy 17-50 and the Sigma 17-70.

Would prefer the longer range of the Sigma, but the reviews seem to suggest the Tammy is a little better lens as far as IQ and is faster. It's also about $100-150 more than the older 17-70.

Any other thoughts people can provide when comparing these two lenses? Thanks!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locosphotos/
 
I have been in the same decision dilemma for years...... So I just kept shooting with my kit lens at f 8.0 since I heard and read that any lens pretty much are good at that f stop.

I 'm using a Pentax K100d so SDM is out of question. But recently my camera with kitlens while attached to the tripod fell down facing the lens...... now my kit lens wont zoom past 24mm.

So my decision will be beetween a older Sigma 17-70 or the Pentax 16-45 for the 16 mm wide end.

But I'm still thinking ........ but the 17-70 would cut down on my lens changing....
Decision ......decision
 
For what it's worth, I have the Sigma 17-70 HSM. I am very pleased with it, and find it is my most used lens, (with my Pentax DA* 50-135 after that, which is a super lens and gets 10 out of 10 for I.Q.) I wanted a replacement for the kit lens on my K-x and decided that the 17-70 range would suit me best. I compared it against the Pentax 17-70, using the same test shots with both in a side by side comparison. I found the Sigma lens gave better quality images, and that combined with it's lower cost and the fact that it is a faster lens made it a bit of a no brainer for me. I would give it an 8.5 out of 10 rating, taking into account value for money as well as usefulness for me.
You may find this site interesting:
pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-17-70mm-f2-8-4-dc-macro-os-hsm.html
 
Uloo,

I know, it's a tough choice, isn't it? I hope it doesn't take me years, although it would save me some money! :)

fitzgaf,

Thanks for letting me know how much you like the Sigma. That's great! I keep seeing such great reviews of the Tammy but that extra 20mm keeps clouding up my decision. And the IQ of the Sigma seems to be very good as well!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locosphotos/
 
What I came to realize is with today's modern good high Iso technology the f 2.8 lenses are not so much a must have criteria, except for DOF concerns.
Also it seems that those type of lenses are better built.
 
loco77 said:
Thanks to all for the great feedback so far!

Lloyd, those are some terrific images under challenging circumstances. Thank you for posting that link, very helpful! The color and contrast look good.
Click to expand...
One of my favorite shots from a recent trip that the Sigma handled very well.

f9.7 23mm 1/250s on a tripod with MLU, focus point was on the tree, I probably should have stopped down to f11 or 13 to get a little more DOF for the background, though you don't really notice it at 11x14 print size.

Original Size



Cheers.

Lloyd
--

“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken

http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
WSSA #354

 
loco77 said:
Hello all,

Would love to hear any and all opinions on kit lens replacement choices. I have a K-r with the first version of the DA 18-55 AL lens. In researching alternatives, I have narrowed it to the Sigma 17-70 (either old or new version), Tamron 17-50 2.8, or one of the Sigma 18-50 varieties.

I would like to keep the price around $350 and under if at all possible, so used is an option.

I really like the focal range of the Sigma 17-70 and it seems to be pretty well regarded, however it isn't very fast across the zoom range. The Tamron 17-50 and some Sigma 18-50's have a constant 2.8 aperture capability. I wonder if the faster glass trumps the longer range? I'd kind of like the longer range, rather than actually have less range with my new lens.

Of course, my main concern is I want to see a significant improvement over the Pentax kit lens I already have. I feel the lens is pretty good, but not as sharp as I'd like. It does fairly well when stopped down to f8 and in the 24-40mm range, but I find it rather limiting. I also am not crazy about the contrast, but that can mostly be corrected in PP.

Just wondering if folks who've actually used these lenses could chime in and let me know if you have any strong preferences and your experiences with them. Money is tight these days, and I would like to get the best bang for my buck.

Thanks much!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locosphotos/
Click to expand...
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 macro 1st choice, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 (new ver) second choice.

I have used the original Sigma 17-70mm for over 3 years now and its still my work-horse lens. The lens has a great walk around focal length range to keep IQ at a high level. You will see a good difference versus the kit lens. Especially at the f/5.6 range. The lens is well built and feels like it will last me a long time. My copy still has no zoom creep. My copy is pretty good at f/2.8 and 17mm better than reviews will have you thinking. It can also take a picture of anything as close as touching the front glass. Doing that at 70mm brings you decent macro (although not a true macro) ability.

I really can't say enough about it. More money will by a faster lens, a lens that gets tack sharp at f/5.6 instead of f/8. But put both at f/8 and you will be hard pressed to better the Sigma.

You really can't lose however with any of the walk around zooms not going higher than 70mm.

--
jamesm007,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesm007/
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
 
I'm happy with my Tamron 17-50 f2.8. It is sharp wide open and very sharp at f5.6. I like having f2.8 at the wide end for shots of the night sky and f2.8 is good for portraits at the long end. It's a versatile lens and it pairs well with my Pentax 55-300mm lens. The only thing I don't like about it is some vignetting and distortion at 17mm. Another thing to consider is many copies of this lens have front focus/back focus problems, so getting a new one with a warranty is a good idea. I got lucky when I bought a used one for $300 and it works fine.
 
Nice photo, Lloyd! Thank you for posting it.

jamesm007,

That's a ringing endorsement for the Sigma, for sure. Glad to read about your excellent experience. Just as I was swaying towards the Tammy.... :)

Then comes blowfish23 loving the Tamron! LOL!

I think the bottom line is both are very good and will give a noticeable improvement over the kit lens.

I'm still not sure, but since it's cheaper, I may try the Sigma and see how I like it if I can find it at a place with a good return policy. If it doesn't work out, set my sights on the Tamron.

All your help is much appreciated! Thank you!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/locosphotos/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top