Sharpest lens under £300.

Hi all,
I would love to get an idea of what you all feel is the best/sharpest lens under £300-prime or zoom.
Regards
Chris
PS. My favourite lens is my FA501.4-VERY SHARP.

currently of course the FA50 1.4 is not under £300.

The best lens in my bag which I purchased for under £300 is my Tamron SP 90mm Macro (£50), followed by my Zeiss Jena 35mm F2.4 (£20) and my Pentax FA 50 1.4 (£150 at time of purchase)

Sorry,I meant at todays prices, I paid £180 for the FA50.What I'm saying, I think, what is the sharpest lens at that price point. brand new.
Chris

Possibly the SMC 16-45mm.

Dave

Dave,do you know where the 55-300 'sits'? in terms of the hierarchy.would you class the 16- 45 more suitable as a walkaround lens.?

Regards

Chris

Currently, at new prices, the sharpest would probably be the Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro, as far as zooms are concerned, I suspect it would be DA 16-45 as mentioned by Dave, which is actually a very fine lens.

Sadly there is very little left at under £300 new, those days have now gone.

35mm f2 in samsung guise to get it under £300 - no contest. Quite the best lens I use - not just sharp but beautiful colours and contrast. Not too harsh but always delivering the goods.

Hi Chris,

I'm still in 'novice' mode and have only used the 55-300mm once since purchasing it recently so too early to make any realistic assessment. However, I did have a 16-45mm for several months and I used it for 1,000 plus shots. I found it very sharp indeed but I kept wishing I had a 17-70mm!

Dave

i used to have the 16-45 and the 55-300 as my kit lenses

the 55-300 was fab but the 16-45 i couldnt have lived without its got a lovely quality to it and is brilliant for most things

I would definatly go for the 16-45 then get the 55-300 when you can

I have no idea what the best lens is under that price. I can have a stab at what the best lens is that I own under that price, which is probably the the 210mm lens for my Horseman. I can't even remember the make! For my SLRs it might be the SMC-K 135mm f/2.5 which held its own very well against the DA* 50-135mm. The Jupiter-9 is rather nice too but I need to take some shots with it on a tripod to be sure. The 40 quid Tammy is surprisingly good in the right circumstances. Apart from one comparison between 135mm lenses posted previously, I have never really put my mind to testing them, preferring to go out and take pictures instead.

Cheers, K.

The 16-45 is fantastic, it lives on my K10D and I have no hesitation in using it for any purpose served by its zoom range. The Zeiss is a hair sharper perhaps, but only if you're talking about actually using F4 and faster (obviously there is no "faster" on the 16-45), and is more fiddly to use being M42.

Come to think of it I must make a consious effort to take the Zeiss out and make some pictures, it hasn't been used in a while!

Dave, do you wish you still had the 16-45? Did you get a 17 -70 BTW?
The trouble is, you cant try before you buy with a lens, well, only in the shop. A bit like buying a car without driving it really -hmmmm
regards

Chris

I sold my K10D and 16-45mm to pay for a K20D. I'm still pondering where to jump next. I've got the Mark 2 18-55mm plus 55-300mm and I'll see how I get on. It seems the Sigma 17-70 is a very good alternative to the 16-45mm. But, as you have seen from the responses you've had, the 16-45mm is a cracker and currently £239 from SRS. The Sigma is £245.

Cheers Dave.

Regards

Chris

At one time I had both the Sigma 17-70 and 16-45mm ... I got rid of the Sigma as (imo) the Pentax was sharper with better colour.