New Member

Hi Folks,
Glad to be a member of the PU family. Am hoping to learn and benefit from the experienced 'veterans' out there! I would categorise myself as an 'advanced beginner' (i.e. somebody with limited basic theoretical knowledge of photography)! My only 'hands-on' experience with a DSLR has been with a K-r for 6 months which I sold very recently. Bought a K-5 with a 17-70 SDM as my kit lens mainly because I wanted the best IQ possible for an amateur of my level. I am conscious of the fact that it's the operator and not the camera that determines the final results!
My main interests : travel, landscape, portrait, my pets and a bit of architecture. With that in mind, what would be the best and most suitable lens to complement my kit?
Your thoughts would be most welcomed. Thank you.

Hi major and welcome to the forum.

I am certain you will receive many and varied replies to the 'suitable lens' question so I may as well start the ball rolling with my pet favourite.

As you list landscape and architecture - I would suggest a good wide zoom would be a natural choice

Several lenses spring to mind but given that your interests are very similar to mine - I would highly recommend the Sigma 10-20 for your landscape, travel and archtecture shots. It is by far my most used lens and delivers superb IQ. You will find many excellent reviews of this lens on-line and many forum members who are fans.

You will also undoubtedly hear from many who prefer the Pentax 12-24 etc - and the fact is there are several excellent lenses of this range and it is all down to peronal preference and how much you want to spend.

Carl

Hello and welcome, have used the Sigma myself for many years, and can recommend it. The 12-24 Pentax is of higher quality but also higher price.

Thank you Carl and 'snappychappy' for your very helpful responses.
It's precisely what I had in mind : my problem is choosing which one, the Sigma will save me a fair bit but the Pentax is optically superior. Is the Jpeg IQ better with the Pentax? Best IQ (once i've mastered the fundamentals of photography!) matters very much to me. So, which one should it be? Is there an obvious choice?
Your comments, of course, invited.
Cheers!

The 17-70mm was a very good choice of lens, and I would stick with that for a while before deciding whether you need something wider or longer!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'is the jpeg IQ better with the Pentax'?

Thank you 'Pentaxophile' for your comment.
I think I'll stick to your advice and familiarise myself with my K5 and 17-70 before purchasing an ultra WA lens. It's just that I am too eager to try out new gadgets! It's like me trying to run before I can crawl!! It would also allow me time to save for my next purchase. The Pentax 12-24 is way too expensive, anyway.
I read in a photo mag comparing the jpeg final results (or something like that!) of leading DSLRs with very similar specs. The Nikon D7000 was better than the K5. Hence, my jpeg IQ question. It probably only make sense to me! That article, obviously, did not influence me in anyway.

I see what you mean! Well I expect the differences in jpeg quality are only vanishingly slight, and probably a bit subjective. I've read comments that the K5 is better.

Want to play with new toys? Why not try a few A or M manual lenses, low price and zero risk as you can easily flog them if you don't like them!

I would consider getting a fast prime. It will open up opportunities for low light, thin DoF, fast shutter pics. There are FA 50 1.4 and FA 50 1.7 for sale in the classified section of the forum now for good prices, or the 1.4 can still be bought new for less than £300.

Thank you, Philip for your thoughts.
Have decided on an ultra-wide lens but unsure which one to buy: the Sigma 10-20 f/4 - 5.6 OR the f/3.5.
Please explain the differences and advantages for a relative novice like me! It would be used with my K5, particularly for landscape, architecture and indoors.
Your comments would be much valued. Thanks!

Welcome to the forum!
I have a K-5 with the 17-70 too. It is my main lens.
I bought the 18-125 as a travel lens but I still keep coming back to my 17-70. I also have a 60-250* and a Bigma, both of which get used for landscapes too.


I would wait a while before buying anything else, until you know what you want to photograph and what you miss with the 17-70.

Be really sure you know what you want to do with an UWA - landscapes don't work with them imho, unless you have really good foreground interest. You do not get the sweeping landscape you imagine you will - the picture format doesn't allow for that and it just ends up squashed. you are better off stitching two or more photos for a wider view. I know others will disagree with me on this, but that is my experience and opinion.

Hi Jacey.

Another vote for the Sigma 10-20.

Take care.

Hi Gwyn,

Thanks for your wise comment. As someone with experience AND very similar kit, it makes sense for me not to rush and buy on impulse.

BTW Chris, which Sigma do you own as a matter of interest?
Cheers,

Jacey.

The Sigma, EX 10-20mm: f1.4 - f5.6: DC.


Take care.

The version Chris has is probably the one to get... the new version has slightly less 'wavy' distortion, but slightly less sharp borders I believe. The faster f3.5 aperture is neither here nor there IMO. You just don't tend to shoot these lenses wide open.