Looking for a "new to me" lens

[cutterpup]

I'm looking for a short tele lens to use for non-macro flower images and landscapes. I am currently using the 18-135wr as my "walkabout lens". Although It's a very good lens, IMHO, for it's purpose, I want a sharper lens for the wide end.

In addition to the 18-135 I also have the first addition of the 18-55 kit lens and a sigma 24-703.5-5.6. I've done controlled testing of the 18-55 and found it to be noticeably worse than the 18-135. It may be that it is the first run lens, from the original ist D. I haven't fully tested the sigma yet, still need to dig it out. I haven't used it in about five years.

I have gone through my images and most are made between 20mm and 40mm and at about f8. My budget is only $250 USD which is why I'd be shopping used. I'm also open to a 35mm prime if I can find an affordable one.

Thanks in advance for suggestions.

 

[Zvonimir Tosic]

From 20 to 40mm, is the weakest spot for Pentax.

Many users have pledged for years for it to be addressed.

They have covered it recently with a single solution, unfortunately: a rather excellent DA20-40, but that lens is $1K.

You may try get used DA21, but it won't be less than $400-450.

Apart from that, you have a kit lens, which is rather poor as you already noticed. They have had 16-45 lens introduced in 2003, but it was discontinued.

Then looking for some answer from Sigma or Tamron. Which is pity; it should the primary task Pentax should address and care about, not third party manufacturers.

--
Madamina, il catalogo è questo; Delle belle che amò il padron mio; un catalogo egli è che ho fatt'io; Osservate, leggete con me.

 

[Younes B]

Your best shot is the 16 / 45 F4 , very sharp at the wide end. Can fe found used for circa $ 220.

 

[cutterpup]

Your best shot is the 16 / 45 F4 , very sharp at the wide end. Can fe found used for circa $ 220.

That is the lens I've been thinking about.

 

[justin23]

I'm looking for a short tele lens to use for non-macro flower images and landscapes. I am currently using the 18-135wr as my "walkabout lens". Although It's a very good lens, IMHO, for it's purpose, I want a sharper lens for the wide end.

In addition to the 18-135 I also have the first addition of the 18-55 kit lens and a sigma 24-703.5-5.6. I've done controlled testing of the 18-55 and found it to be noticeably worse than the 18-135. It may be that it is the first run lens, from the original ist D. I haven't fully tested the sigma yet, still need to dig it out. I haven't used it in about five years.

I have gone through my images and most are made between 20mm and 40mm and at about f8. My budget is only $250 USD which is why I'd be shopping used. I'm also open to a 35mm prime if I can find an affordable one.

Thanks in advance for suggestions.

--

Another vote for looking for a used DA16-45. IMO almost as good as the DA*16-50 optically with just 1 stop less speed and no SDM issues.

 

[fakuryu]

I'm looking for a short tele lens to use for non-macro flower images and landscapes. I am currently using the 18-135wr as my "walkabout lens". Although It's a very good lens, IMHO, for it's purpose, I want a sharper lens for the wide end.

In addition to the 18-135 I also have the first addition of the 18-55 kit lens and a sigma 24-703.5-5.6. I've done controlled testing of the 18-55 and found it to be noticeably worse than the 18-135. It may be that it is the first run lens, from the original ist D. I haven't fully tested the sigma yet, still need to dig it out. I haven't used it in about five years.

I have gone through my images and most are made between 20mm and 40mm and at about f8. My budget is only $250 USD which is why I'd be shopping used. I'm also open to a 35mm prime if I can find an affordable one.

Thanks in advance for suggestions.

--

The DA 35mm f2.4 is less than US$150 at Amazon right now or you can shop around for a Pentax F28 f2.8 or a lovely vintage Pentax SMC-M 28mm f3.5, well you might even get both the DA 35mm f2.4 and the SMC-M 28mm f3.5 with your budget.

 

[UtahManSir]

Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 done. Great lens, has always been a good lens for Sigma.

Lloyd

 

[Conjure]

I'm looking for a short tele lens to use for non-macro flower images and landscapes. I am currently using the 18-135wr as my "walkabout lens". Although It's a very good lens, IMHO, for it's purpose, I want a sharper lens for the wide end.

In addition to the 18-135 I also have the first addition of the 18-55 kit lens and a sigma 24-703.5-5.6. I've done controlled testing of the 18-55 and found it to be noticeably worse than the 18-135. It may be that it is the first run lens, from the original ist D. I haven't fully tested the sigma yet, still need to dig it out. I haven't used it in about five years.

I have gone through my images and most are made between 20mm and 40mm and at about f8. My budget is only $250 USD which is why I'd be shopping used. I'm also open to a 35mm prime if I can find an affordable one.

Thanks in advance for suggestions.

--

All photos taken with tripod, 2 second timer and SR=OFF.
PP with DCU 5: manual Lateral Chromatic Aberration Correction, Fringe removal=50

At F5.6 and F8.0 there is not that much difference.

My copy of the DA16-45 is very good at 21mm but not so impressive at 35mm.

Regards
Anton


DA 21mm F3.2 AL limited @ F5.6


DA L 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL @ 21.3mm F5.6


DA 17-70mm F4 AL [IF] SDM @ 21mm F5.6


DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL @ 21mm F5.6


FA 35mm F2 AL @ F8.0


DA L 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL @ 35mm F8.0


DA 17-70mm F4 AL [IF] SDM @ 33mm F8.0


DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL @ 34mm F8.0

 

[cutterpup]

Thank you for a very detailed visual reply. I have spent a bit of time looking at them carefully. All the replies so far have given me much to consider. Thanks to everyone.

 

[Younes B]

Another that I had posteed , with the DA 16 -45 :

 

[maxxxx]

I'm looking for a short tele lens to use for non-macro flower images and landscapes. I am currently using the 18-135wr as my "walkabout lens". Although It's a very good lens, IMHO, for it's purpose, I want a sharper lens for the wide end.

In addition to the 18-135 I also have the first addition of the 18-55 kit lens and a sigma 24-703.5-5.6. I've done controlled testing of the 18-55 and found it to be noticeably worse than the 18-135. It may be that it is the first run lens, from the original ist D. I haven't fully tested the sigma yet, still need to dig it out. I haven't used it in about five years.

I have gone through my images and most are made between 20mm and 40mm and at about f8. My budget is only $250 USD which is why I'd be shopping used. I'm also open to a 35mm prime if I can find an affordable one.

Thanks in advance for suggestions.

--

Get a DA 35/2.4. It's cheap and you may be "shocked" by the quality of the pictures compared to your zooms.

 

[cutterpup]

Thanks to all who replied, made suggestions and posted images. Although I had thought I wanted the 16-45 zoom, after much research on line and looking again at the metadata of my own images I've decided on the DA 35/2.4

I would not have done so without your replies. They really made me think.

--

 

[yardcoyote]

I love both my 21mm and 35mm Macro Limiteds. I actually carry the 35mm as a walkaround lens a lot. The macro comes in handy for me, since I like to shoot flowers and bugs, but I also shoot a lot of other subjects with it and it does a great job with cars, architectural details, animals and really just about any ordinary demand you would place on a lens that length. The 21 needs no introduction-- it's the Pentax APS-C equivalent of the 35mm "street lens" on FF and it does an excellent job at all the lovely street style things you would ask a lens that length to do. It's my other favorite walkaround lens, and really I am starting to think that that field of view is becoming my second favorite after the 85mm equivalent.

I think Pentax really does fall down in that range in failing to offer a 55mm Limited as compact and joyous as the other two. However, I have developed a real fondness for my FA 50mm, which is very sharp once you stop it down to f2 or so (and interestingly dreamy when opened up), and is loaded with personality. Granted I often feel I am working for it rather than the other way around, but when we are in synch we are really in synch.



All three of these lenses were bought used from KEH and I think all together I have less in them than I would in the 20-40, and a wider range of FLs to work with plus a macro option. That and I just plain prefer primes to zooms.

 

[Bob Corson]

If a 35 mm would suit you then get the 35mm f2.4. It is a great lens nice and sharp and currently selling new for about $200.

If you want a zoom then the Tamron 17-50 is again a pretty great lens that used shoule be in your budget . . .check ebay and you might even find a new one for not lots more . . .I think I paid about $350 new for mine. This is a very nice lens and is better then the 16-45 . . .check the reviews and ratings at the other Pentax forum.

Good luck.

 

[Bob Corson]

From 20 to 40mm, is the weakest spot for Pentax.

Many users have pledged for years for it to be addressed.

They have covered it recently with a single solution, unfortunately: a rather excellent DA20-40, but that lens is $1K.

You may try get used DA21, but it won't be less than $400-450.

Apart from that, you have a kit lens, which is rather poor as you already noticed. They have had 16-45 lens introduced in 2003, but it was discontinued.

Then looking for some answer from Sigma or Tamron. Which is pity; it should the primary task Pentax should address and care about, not third party manufacturers.

 

[cutterpup]

The 35mm has been ordered, new from Amazon w/free shipping leaving me some money left over.

 

[Bob Corson]

The 35mm has been ordered, new from Amazon w/free shipping leaving me some money left over.

 

[awaldram]

Thanks to all who replied, made suggestions and posted images. Although I had thought I wanted the 16-45 zoom, after much research on line and looking again at the metadata of my own images I've decided on the DA 35/2.4

I would not have done so without your replies. They really made me think.

--

Was going to warn you off the 16-45 for 2 reasons

1 Chromatic aberrations poor

2 build quality

If 35m is wide enough for you I think you've made a good choice , The only possible fly in the ointment is if your a 'zoom' man you may find the prime limiting, On the other hand you may find it forces you to focus your creative ideas as you shoot.

 

[cutterpup]

On the other hand you may find it forces you to focus your creative ideas as you shoot.

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

I'm looking forward to being challenged by just that.

 

[yardcoyote]

Sounds very sensible to me. I know from images I have seen here that it's an excellent lens, and since you have no need for macro, it should suit you very well.