Bit of a quandry.

Ok, done all my buying of cheap lenses off Ebay and it's time to get rid of most and start again.

I am thinking of keeping my Tamron 24-135mm as the walkabout lens, I have a Sigma 135-400mm APO DG coming which, if is up to the quality of my K mount 300mm at that length will be kept for long stuff (If not then I may go the 55-300mm Pentax route), my F-50mm 1/7 and a macro which is undecided yet.
Now my quandry is the wide end, I don't really do landscapes atm so a 10-20mm would be a waste so am looking at either the MKII 18-55, A Tamron 17-50mm F2/8 or the Sigma 17-70mm (Pentax version just seems too much for too little imo, and its too expensive).

The other alternative is a Tamron 18-250mm but that doesn't have the speed I require for wide (inside buildings etc).

How about the 16-45mm, a superb lens that is quite a bargain at the moment.

Personally, I consider 24mm at the short end to be too long for a walkabout lens, which implies the need to take pictures of buildings. That's why I got rid of my 24-90.

My walkabout lens is the 16-50, which I find ideal for walking the streets with. A bit more reach would of course be nice, and if the 16-50 weren't available I would consider a 17-70.

I wouldn't dream of a "super-zoom" because the compromises in terms of speed, weight, and quality are too great. A cheaper alternative would be the 18-55, though the loss of 2mm at the wide end would be a pity.

G

I have a 10-20 and I don't like it for landscapes to be honest, so you aren't missing out on anything by not buying one.. It is good for buildings however.

I agree with the others that the 16-45 is a bargain at the mo, though if you can afford it the 16-50 is the way to go.
That said when I get round to it I may well buy the 17-70 as a walkabout lens. I'm hoping someone here will buy one and tell us what it is like .

Seems I may be visiting the UK next month so a trip to Watford may be on the cards if I go by car, otherwise, if I fly sleazyjet, I may have some goodies delivered to my brother .

I would go with the 16-50 but for the cost.
It's not that I couldn't afford to buy it just that I really cannot justify the expense when I know that 90% of my camera time will be macro so that is where I would concentrate my spending on. (probably the 180mm sigma if they don't get their finger out with the 150mm).

I am also leaning towards thw Sigma 17-70 because it has a reasonable close up ability when compared to others but then again their may be a glut of 16-45s on Ebay soon due to the 17-70 Pentax

An excellent idea to visit Chris @ SRS but I would not tell your friends that you are going on holiday to Watford

Very cheap indeed, I have seen several go for under AU$300 of late on E-bay if you are looking second hand.

I almost brought one myself for AU$260 even though i don't need it I just couldn't resist such a low price but the wifes hands around my throat brought me to my senses

How you finding the 18-250mm?
There is a mint one on Ebay for under £200 delivered that I keep going back to.
Might be ok as a walkabout lens and get rid of the 24-135mm

Sadly not a holiday.
An aged Uncle died yesterday, and it seems the earliest his funeral can be held is sometime in August so I am considering going over for it, if I can get everything organised, like dog care which will be tough in peak season, and the travel will also cost an arm and a leg in peak season. If I get the date of the funeral early enough I will probably sleazyjet it as that will be cheapest. Bro will pick me up in Luton.
My brother lives in Chalfont St Giles, so is not too far from Watford.
However I won't let a good funeral get in the way if I do drive over

Thats the spirit,.
As they say in the UK, every cloud has a silver lining.

To be honest i haven't used it much of late. Its a good lens no doubt but i tend to take out the Pen F-70-210 more than the Tamron and my DA*16-50 if i am on walkabout around the city.

ok, i didn't notice anybody commenting on the 16-45's close focussing abilities.



the 16-45 is almost a macro lens right out of the box.
I got some great closeups using it with the af 1.7 teleconverter....
no kidding!

And SRS have it for a bargain £199 (being replaced by the DA17-70 according to Chris), IIRC I paid over £400 for it when it came out.

I found myself in more or less the same situation just a month ago...

I was looking for a proper fast zoom lens. I bought the Sigma 24-70 f2.8.
I got it and checked quickly what was the sharpness of the lens. I was completely astonished at the relization of what follows;

The sigma was not sharper than my Tamron 18-250mm at any aperture.
Not only it was less sharp wide open, but also stopped down at f8 and f11 it was not as sharp as the old Tamron.

This made me realise that - even if I still like the idea of a fast zoom lens for pro work, I probably should stick with my idea of only going for the ultimate quality of primes.

Probably the 16-50 is sharper than the Tamron, but how much sharper? and how much of the tamron versatility is replaced by the better image quality of another zoom, whichever this may be?

To conclude: the Tamron is incredibly good, both for its versatility, and for its sharpness at all apertures. I have used it for all types of applications from wildlife, to portraiture to landscapes, and it seriously has never let me down. It is not fast, but as Matt said in a post some time ago, you will not use f2.8 anyway because you have to stop a lens down to get best IQ.

I am going to buy primes, and then see if I really need a fast zoom and if any of these lenses is seriously better than the old tamron!

Regards to all!

Nathan

As always I second this proposal. When I step out I pack this and the Vivi 105mm. Rarely need anything else.