20-40 or 18-35
Regards, Philip
I remember buying an 18-50mm as my first "good" lens for my K200D and took it back the next day as it was very soft wide open. I changed for a Tamron which was much better optically, though with poorer build quality.
More recently I got the newer Sigma and sold the Tamron as I like the Sigma more. Optically they're on a par but the Sigma is much better built and has an in-lens focus motor. It's also significantly heavier but that's the price you pay for good build quality.
Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3 & K200D, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
20-40mm good walk about, small filter size, 55mm as far as I can remember, way smaller , lighter than the 18-35mm.
I have had both, but if I was looking for coverage in those lengths I'd choose neither, and get a pentax 16-85mm instead.
Just my tuppence worth.
Derek
I know what i like, If not always why.

Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3 & K200D, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
The problem with the 16-85mm is that it's slow, which makes it much less useful in low light. A very different lens from an 18-50mm f/2.8.
Ah I know that, which is why I said it depends on the type of shooting he wants to do.
I know what i like, If not always why.

Nobody is perfect, but being Scottish is a start
That's really well regarded and when I had one, i just loved the iq.
I have no experience with the newer sigma that Jonathan-Mac suggested. But to be honest, either of the 2 lenses you initially suggested should be capable of giving you the results you want. It's a toughy
Derek
I know what i like, If not always why.

T140
Member
ayrshire
Nobody is perfect, but being Scottish is a start