Lenses choice

I am quite new to Pentax and new here in this forum )
For some months by now I am using Pentax K10D with Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 and Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6. I love the camera and it's IQ.

I am looking now for a lens for general use to replace the kit lens I own. The most important factors for me are sharpness, IQ and true to life colors.
The alternatives for me are -
Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL
Pentax smc DA 17-70mm F4.0 AL (IF) SDM
Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Which one is most versatile and gives the most for the money?
Which one will you take and why?

I saw in some sites that there is an issue with the colors and IQ of both Sigma and Tamron compared to Pentax lenses - is it true? any samples to show the difference?

I also saw that Pentax plan to have a 16-85 lens. Is it true? when? It can be perfect but I am afraid the price would be probably too high...

All your comments are welcomed )

It is true that there's something special about pentax colour, and the lenses themselves are surely part of that. On a practical level, if you keep to the same maker for all your lenses then whatever the colour bias of them it should hopefully be consistent across the range.

The K10D has lower resolution than latest cameras, so there is a limit on that. It produces excellent pictures though, and of the lenses you list I know from my own use that the 16-45mm works very well with it.

I used a 16-45 on my K10 & K20 still using it on my K5 although thinking of upgrading.
I think it is a superb lens if you can get one at a good price you wont regret it
Sorry can't help with others mentioned although I will be interestef in other peoples views

I have a penchant for the Pentax colours

I've got the DA16-45 (my son now uses it on his K10D) and it is an excellent lens. Colours, sharpness and contrast are excellent. The range is slightly narrow, but not generally a problem, and the bokeh is, IMHO, ok but not brilliant.

I've had the DA17-70 and that was an excellent lens! Love the range (and still hanker after that range). The sharpness is superb - my copy was not much different from the FA50/1.4 The bokeh is smoother than the DA16-45, and more like the FA24-90 and FA50/1.4 SDM focus is very quiet, but the focus throw is short and the intertia is low (so sometimes it hunts for focus - a gentle finger pressure on the focus ring damped it nicely). I only sold mine to fund the DA*16-50 which I love!

It's a tough call - but the DA16-45 can be had for stupidly low prices if you shop around (seen it around £150!), where as the DA17-70 is easily twice that price second hand

I'd imagine the DA*16-85 will be easily £700+ (given the price of the DA*16-50) ...

Hope that helps!
Matt

Another vote for the DA 16-45. I rate it highly and at circa £150 secondhand it's a bargain!

I have had all 4 lenses and the only one I kept was the 17-70mm. Saying that it was only for the extra 25mm otherwise I would have kept the 16-45mm which is a great buy for the money.

To be honest, I don't think you can go far wrong with any of those four, so it all kinda comes down to what you want.

The Pentax 16-45 is probably cheapest, but doesn't have a particularly big zoom range. It does have the Pentax colour reproduction in it's favor.

The Pentax 17-70 I owned briefly - it's got a silent focus motor, which is a plus, although it isn't the fastest in the world. You've got a bigger range than the 16-45 (and perhaps slightly better image quality) but you're paying quite a bit more for it. I did have one briefly, but let it go in favor of the Tamron - I needed the lower light capability.

The Sigma is a bit of an unknown quantity for me - I've heard a few good things, but little to recommend it ahead of the Pentax 17-70, which it is broadly similar to. If you found it for a good price, it could certainly work for you.

The Tamron I own and can recommend - you get an awful lot of bang for your buck. It's much cheaper than the rival f2.8 zooms, but has comparable image quality, as well as being very light and compact. A friend of mine had a 16-45 which became damaged, he replaced it with the Tamron and never looked back. Drawbacks are the shorter range than the 17-70, and the noisier screw drive focus.


I went for the Tamron, but I'm not saying that's the right choice for you!

Just a layman's question - how much better results will I get with any / all of the above mentioned 4 lenses?

I don't have any experience of the Sigma or Tamron, but have the Pentax DA17-70 and FA24-90, and used to have the DA16-45. The 17-70 is the 'default' lens on my K20D (in the process of upgrading to K5) and is generally excellent - sharp, rich colours, and smooth bokeh - but it is the only lens that I've occasionally missed focus on (both auto and manual), plus there's some barrel distortion at the longer end (only really noticeable if you have a sea horizon or occasionally with architecture, and easily corrected in Photoshop etc). In terms of image quality I don't think there's much to choose between the 17-70 and 16-45, though I'd say the bokeh is better on the longer lens. I actually prefer the 24-90 to either (it's smaller and lighter too), but it's not really wide enough to be a standard walkabout lens. I expect I may be tempted at least to look at/borrow/hire the new DA* lens when it comes out.

That depends.

Generally speaking, these lenses should give you better results (sharper picture, better colours, nicer bokeh), however, if you mainly shoot F8 or smaller aperture landscapes, then you probably won't notice any difference at all. The Pentax kit lens is perfectly competent.

If you're shooting indoor, or in low light, then these lenses allow a bit more light in, meaning that your shots can be less blurry and less noisy.

With all these lenses, because of their larger apertures (lower f number) you can create a shallower depth of field - that is, only a smaller amount of the picture will be in focus. This means that when taking a picture of, say, a person, the background will be more blurry and so less distracting from the subject of your image.

Unfortunately, as with most things in this hobby, there's no guarantee that buying more/'better' equipment will make your pictures any better. If you don't know what difference these lenses will make to your pictures, then I would suggest that you practice with the equipment that you already have, in order that you can get a better feel for what is missing.

Another thing you could consider is buying some old manual focus lenses, as these are typically much cheaper and let you test out different focal lengths/larger apertures without putting yourself well out of pocket. You can sell on those that you don't like.

Generally speaking an old 'prime' lens (that is, one that doesn't zoom) will give better quality images than an average new zoom lens.