New Walkabout lens recommendation

I know what you are saying here about the Internet effect. But far more than "one or two" people have had this problem. One of the most trusted reviewers on the net refused to even look at the DA* because the samples were so bad. If you live near a dealer and can afford the time to return lenses until you get a good one (people have done this multiple times, surely a sign there are more than one or two bad copies) then fine. But this turned me off the lens completely.

If you do get a good copy that's fantastic, but you will still need something faster than f/2.8 for indoor shots, particularly things like signing the register. I prefer another stop faster again, if only so the viewfinder is clearer.

Back to the original poster: I think you should look at this site:
http://planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

There's lots of amazing photos and good techniques using indirect flash mainly to fill in with ambient light. Even if you cannot use flash in the church, there is a page on available light that illustrates some possibilities. The photos there were taken at f/1.4, f/4, f/5, f/2.8, f/1.4 and f/2.8 respectively.

Splitting the difference on the f/2.8 shots, I learn from this that half of the available light shots could have been done with the 16-45mm. On a second body swap between your 50mm f/1.4 and 70mm f/2.8.

At current prices this will cost you only £50 more than the DA* lens alone.

A number of people here have these lenses, and I do not recall any reported problems. If one bad batch was responsible, then it would explain why several samples from the same source may have been faulty.

G

all things being said...
I'd love to buy the 16-50....and nearly did, but a sale price on the 16-45 clinched it for me. I'll just work around the one stop diference. I have plenty of lenses and back-ups.

If I was in this fellas shoes... I'd opt for the second body, and give the fast primes some exercise.... I think it would be foolhardy to step into a wedding arena, armed with only one camera body.
triple redundancy...is best
one in your hand, one in your hip pack, third in the camera case.
same with batteries...one in the camera, one in the bag, one on the charger.
same with memory cards.

Also best to have redundancy in photographers!

One reason I don't do pro gigs: only one body at present. Need to wait until the K20D comes down in price. Must wait...

Must wait...

Must wait...

Being new here you probably aren't aware of the fact that my better half is a photographer also...and we work together to create a photo/video package that gives our competition nightmares!

Good to know that I am getting advice from a very friendly,knowledgeable and helpful group.

So,
new body. Yes
monopod. Yes
new lens. Yes Decisions Decisions
new credit card. Yes

Wallet is getting lighter and it's only my first time here.
Does this happen often here?

Davy

All the time probably. Personally, I just go with the flow...

I have the Sigma 17-70 I find it excellent, highly recommend it although it doesn't have F2.8 throughout its range

simon

The "internet effect" has put me off the 16-50 completley. I have the 16-45 so I'm not too worried.

My advice on weddings would be don't do it if you want to be able to sleep at night not if it's friends or family, nothing to gain and everything to loose.

If it's punters then go ahead but do you maybe need insurance in case your sued ? Does anyone know ?

I don't let nitwits on DPReview make decisions for me.

G

Fair enough, but I have a difficult time ignoring the more enlightened folk at Photozone and Pentax Forums as well.

Am glad you got a good copy of the lens, but quality control on this one was truly a scandal relative to Pentax's usual standard.

So I'll just ignore what you've just said then George ?

Seriously however there do seem to have been more than the usual number of quality control problems with this lens.

If it was just the usual suspects moaning then that would be one thing but even some of the Penatx officials have admitted to problems.

I wouldn't want to spend £500 on a lens that was a lemon and I'm not 100% sure that taking it back to the shop and claiming "poor image quality" would guarantee a replacement.

The other issue is that if I wanted a Tokina lens then I'd buy one and the 16-45 is pretty decent so I'll wait and see. It's a bit big anyway.

I'm going to be the lone voice of slight disagreement here.

To my eyes, the 16-45's image quality is hardly any better than the mark II version of the 18-55 kit lens. It is hardly any faster either. The 18-55 is F4.5 at 42mm.

The Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 might make a more exciting alternative. The Canon and Nikon versions got excellent reviews on www.Photozone.de. It's small and light for the type as well.

Also there will be a Pentax 17-70mm F4 - which hopefully will be good too.

The original kit lens is f/3.5 only at the very wide end. As soon as you narrow a bit it jumps to being the same as the 16-45mm, which then beats it slightly the rest of the way. But you are right in saying this is "hardly any faster". Basically they capture the same light with one having the advantage of fixed aperture.

Both have similar distortion but the 16-45mm has significantly less vignetting at 16mm than the kit has at 18mm. At the wide end it also has better resolution figures at the border even though you get 2mm more.

Certainly the difference may not be earth-shattering, but it is distinct for those needing the extra field of view. It was enough for me to purchase it as a drop-in replacement for the kit.

Is the Mark II really that much better than the original? I'd be interested to read more about that.

This will have the advantage of SDM. If the IQ is good it will make a very crowded product range. I find it hard to understand why there even is a 18-55mm Mark II when the upcoming zoom looks like a better kit option.

If the 17-70 is going to be SDM only ( as it looks from the pictures available ) then it won't be much good on my DS

I expect that it will probably replace the MK2 18-55 and then they will drop the focusing motor from the cheap K1000D/K2000D body to save space and cost.

Pentax appear to be going down the Nikon route where the D60 has no motor but the big expensive bodies do.

Perhaps this points to the long term future of Pentax going the same way as everyone else.