A shorter zoom to replace my 18-250mm

Well, after six months of using my Pentax 18-250mm, I again find myself in another quandary regarding it's potential replacement. "Why?", i hear you ask!!. Because:

1 - maybe I just feel like I need to play with another lens (I'm that kinda guy!)

2 - having looked at the EXIF for all my images these past six months, I have found that images over 150mm only make up 10%

3 - images that I have used or deem suitable for TIFFing and putting in my library are all between 10mm (my Sigma 10-20mm) and 100mm, with the bulk of them between 18mm and 70mm

Go for a 17-70mm i hear you shout!!!
But!!!! I like my Sigma! i love the range and the nice contrasty images (certainly more contrasty than my 18-250mm. and I want to find a lens that compliments this one.

I'll use my Sigma for my landscape shots thats for sure, so am looking for something that suits the focal lengths I use the most BUt that has minimal distortion at the wide end.

The last time i went through this 'crisis' John Riley convinced me to stick with the 18-250mm, which I do not regret, but now I'm wanting a lens that is contrasty, suffers from minimal distortion at either end.

I would even consider older lenses . afterall the three primes that I have had (all manual ones) have been as sharp as a button (its still beyond me why this saying is still alive because I've never come across a sharp button yet!).

I never do any long range shooting so the long zoom ranges are of little interest, and if they do become of interest I'd probably go for something starting at 100mm.

So, ladies and gents, your thoughts please. I have looked at the Sigma 24-70mm EX f2.8 . The filter ring is 82mm though and I reckon I'd get some considerable vignetting if I used my P-series filters on it.

DAMN DAMN DAMN!!! That dying fly thats been buzzing behind me on the window cill for the past half an hour hasn't so much as died but buggered off!!! Was gonna take some nice macro shots of it's corpse. Photographic subjects can be so inconsiderate sometimes!!!! Now!! wheres' my 3 year old lad!!

Well, you're doomed it seems. Doomed to a lifetime of buying lenses. Still, there are worse things!

Well John. Everyone has to have a hobby I suppose. I have my photography and the wife has her beauty treatments. Thankfully my hobby is by choice. Hers' is by necessity.

Pete, you do like living on the edge. If she reads that, you'll be Doubly Doomed!

How about a trade .. your 18-250mm for my Sigma EX 24-60mm f2.8.
Just as sharp as the 24-70mm but only a 77mm filter size.

I thought you were selling an 18-250 Mike?

Im pretty sure its sold .. just waiting for confirmation (payment).
Since sale agreed, wife now wants to go to Spain in the next few months so I need a travel lens again

Any single lens that covers 18-70mm will have a fair amount of distortion at the wide end - not necessarily as much as your 18-250mm, though.

I don't see how owning the Sigma 10-20 means you can't have a 17-70 as well. Surely a good pairing?

Completely agree here. I have the Sigma 10-20, and there's no way I'd consider having my next zoom starting at 24mm (or even 20mm)! For what it's worth, my main zoom is a 17-50.

I also own the 18-250 in the Tamron guise, as well as the Sigma 10-20.
Recently added was the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (72mm filter).

Very pleased with it, and both of the Sigmas make a lovely pair .

Regards
Adrian

Is the 18-250 (either Pentax or Tamron) better than the Pentax 55-300mm f4-5.8 SMC DA :

Sigma do a 17-70 don't they?

The 55-300mm is better at 300mm but not quite as good at 18mm.

Thankfully John, my wife is computer illiterate, and being a Lancashire lad brought up on the humour of Les Dawson, she would only sigh and call me a 'saddo who lives in the past'. mind you, she calls me that all the time.

It is a good pairing indeed, that I cannot deny.