Standard zoom, which one?

Add Comment

Back to Forum

3,447 posts

12 years
Somerset

Link Posted 01/03/2016 - 17:48

I love my Tamron. It performs very well on my K5. But the extra reach to 135mm would make it even more useful but then it probably wouldn't be as sharp or as bright.

Best wishes,

Andrew

"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050 http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05

DarkM

Member

23 posts

13 years
Yorkshire

Link Posted 01/03/2016 - 20:24

Thanks for the replies everyone....ironically I was going to get an 18-135 when I bought the K5iis, but got distracted with non-photography matters

Judging from the replies that would have been a good move.

Dangie - I read "your" thread and took on board the comments about the 18-135 which made me reconsider it.

CMW/Christopher - that is one stunning shot, very nice. Looks like the 17-70 is no slouch either.

Hmmmmm.....

Last Edited by DarkM on 01/03/2016 - 20:25

womble

Plus Member

7,524 posts

13 years
Hertfordshire, mostly.

Link Posted 01/03/2016 - 22:41

I have the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4. Optically, it is fine. The hood and cap are both really annoying and fiddly. So much so that my hood now has a crack in it. Now, perhaps one shouldn't judge a lens by its hood, but compared to the solid feeling and well fitting hood of my 50-135... no contest.

Ho hum...

Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
My website

cedricd

Member

1,075 posts

13 years
East Suffolk

Link Posted 05/03/2016 - 18:14

Just ordered me an 18 - 135 from SRS. Thanks Doug for sorting out my errors with online ordering. Just wonddering if anyone has used said lens with the newish Pentx 1.4 converter?

Enjoy life

wvbarnes

Member

1,720 posts

12 years

Link Posted 05/03/2016 - 18:25

Hi, Yes the 1.4 converter works fine on this lens on my K3. At full telephoto it is of course focussing at F8 which i think is the upper limit of what is practicable. I don't think it was listed as being usable originally. Handy addition to the telephoto range in your camera bag.

cedricd wrote:
Just ordered me an 18 - 135 from SRS. Thanks Doug for sorting out my errors with online ordering. Just wonddering if anyone has used said lens with the newish Pentx 1.4 converter?

Last Edited by wvbarnes on 05/03/2016 - 18:25

cedricd

Member

1,075 posts

13 years
East Suffolk

Link Posted 05/03/2016 - 19:37

Thanks Bill

Off to the Orkneys in a couple of months and need a middle distance WR zoom. Will complement the DA*300 with or without the 1.4 TC.

Enjoy life

Jimd

Member

89 posts

11 years
Newport, South Wales

Link Posted 07/03/2016 - 07:05

BruceStrachan wrote:

Jimd wrote:
I've got a 16-45 and I'm a big fan. It gives great results and was on my camera most of the time.

However, I recently bought a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS and it's in a totally differnt league. Build quality, IQ, everything. At present prices seem to be at their lowest around £279.

Worth reading this comparison: http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-16-50-vs-sigma-tamron-17-50mm/introdu...

How does the sigma 17 to 50 compare with the tamron?
Both are f2.8 wonder why the sigma is more expensive...

Tamron £249 Sigma £279 not much in it.
I've no experience of the Tamron so I can't comment but the review appears a fair comparison and that was even when the Sigma was more expensive.

Add a Comment

You must be registered or logged-in to comment.

Back to Forum