Short zoom to replace kit lens

Need some advice on a new lens for my K30. For the last 4 years i have been shooting with the Pentax DA 18-55 that came with the K10D and now with the K30. It's okay, no real complaints when its stopped down a bit. But now fancy something with better optics.

Budget is not great, £200 tops but would rather not spend that much if possible. AF not a priority, this won't be for action shots. So an older manual lens an option.

On our classifieds we have a member selling the Pentax 16-45. Tried reading the reviews but its hard to workout if they think its a worthwhile purchase or not over the 18-55. Sounds like its weak at 16mm and not long enough at the top end. Plus its slower at the bottom end. And even at £190 its going to be £160 more than the 18-55 is worth.

Another option is the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4, but a secondhand previous generation. How does that stack up? Apart from its faster with a great zoom range. And with Pentax fitting rarer than Hens teeth.

Never easy. Any advice greatly appreciated.

I quite rate the 16-45mm, always found it a very good lens, wasn't so keen on the Sigma 17-70mm though.

You should find a Pentax fit used Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 within your budget though and I would take that over both the others (just for the 2.8 )

I can highly recommend the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 or 2.8-4.0

I have one and it's very crisp for it's price range.

I have a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 as well, and find it just fine.
I went out to buy the Pentax 17-70, and when I compared the image quality the Sigma was the equal of the Pentax, with the bonus of being cheaper and faster.
The trouble is that I don't use it very much nowadays - tending to favour the more pocketable limited lenses. I must use it more often!

The 16-45mm is a great lens for the price, I've no complaints with the one I have. It's not very fast though, if you want that.

I take a few lenses out on shoots, but still always take the Sigma 17-70 when I know I'm going to need something general on one body.

Pockets? I wear a couple of bum bags. batteries,cards and spare lenses fit into those no probs.

Hi Russ,

The problem with an older manual lens, is that very few are really wide enough for the APS-C format (and any that are, are already sought after, mega expensive items). Also, quality then was as variable as it today, and unlikely to better a similar lens to your 18-55 which has been optimised for digital.

Manual primes are a bit different in that they're plentiful, faster and cheaper (although not really wider).

John.

Excellent, many thanks everyone.

Thanks John. I'll leave the manual zooms alone. I have the Pentax-A 50mm, which i love, could add the 28mm? Then have a couple of primes and the 18-55.

I think i will keep my eyes peeled for a secondhand Sigma 17-70 then. Sounds like you guys rate it on the whole.

The 16-45 appeals but i think i would kick myself if the Sigma appeared at a good price.

One last question. As it could be some wait for a Sigma 17-70, is it worth changing the DA 18-55 for the DA 18-55 WR? I notice SRS are selling the WR on Ebay for £59 delivered.

The mark II version is optically the same with and without WR. Do you need it for the WR?

John K

The 16-45 is great Russ, as is the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, you wouldn't go wrong with either.

In my film days (sounds so long ago...), my favourite focal length was my M 40mm f/2.8 pancake - the 28mm matches this almost exactly, and is the only prime I really use on APS-C.

If you want a modest and very cheap upgrade / complement to the 18-55 while you're waiting, you might keep an eye out for an F series SMC 28-80. My copy of the SMC 28-80 matches / betters my 18-55 for image quality at the centre, and is vastly better than the kit lens at the edges. Maybe I've just got a good version of the SMC 28-80, or a bad copy of the 18-55..?

Note that the SMC F 28-80 is often confused with the various 'kit'versions (and the FA version), both of which are quite different. The SMC F 28-80 was expensive in its day, and scored 3.3 on the photodo website (the highly regarded F 35-70 scored 3.1, the FA version of the 28-80 just 2). It's not really quicker than the kit lens, alas, as it needs stopping down before it gets truly sharp. It's also relatively heavy, if that's an issue.

But because of the confusion with the other 28-80 versions, you can pick the SMC F 28-80 up very cheaply indeed - so it might be worth a tiny punt while you wait for a decently priced Sigma to emerge...I certainly prefer the results from mine to those I get from my version 1 kit lens, which is fine in the centre but very soft at the edges.

Well with a bit of searching i have found a UK retailer selling a used Sigma DC 17-70 F2.8-4.5 for £150. It's the first gen model with the slightly slower optics and no HSM motor. But seems a good price.

Problem now is a few people in the thread mentioned the Tamron SP 17-50mm F2.8 XR. So i went off doing some research and its appear to be a killer lens with knockout optics. Only drawbacks are the usual Tamron flaws of poor AF performance and budget build. I can live with both of those no problems. The price is less easy to live with. But i think i'll save for a while, stick with the 18-55 (may add the Pentax-M 28mm F2. and then buy the Tamron.

Thanks for all the help and recommending a some great options. Yet more money to spend but i feel its worth it. I've only ever had real budget glass, be nice to have something with recognised good IQ.

It is a good price. I paid £200 for mine


then get that Sigma above then

This time tomorrow i plan to have bought a new lens. I'm hoping i may have got the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 from a private seller for a very good price but just waiting for him to come back....
If that falls through, then i will phone up for the Sigma. Either way i will have something new and more up market than a kit lens. Only downside is my Pentax-A 50mm 1.7 (and the DA 18-55) has to go to make it happen, orders from the chief boss lady.