Starting From Scratch
Posted 01/04/2014 - 17:08 - Helpful Comment
Link
What an unfortunate time you've had. Let's hope things go better for you moving forward.
If I were in your shoes and trying to decide which lens to buy first I'd review the exif data of my photo library to determine what focal length I'd used most previously and start there.
If I were considering something better than the kit lens but similar range to the Sigma 17-70 I would look at the Pentax 16-45. Bit shorter than the Sigma but I found the IQ of the one I had to 'replace' my kit lens (which I never used) was very good for the money.
If I were in your shoes and trying to decide which lens to buy first I'd review the exif data of my photo library to determine what focal length I'd used most previously and start there.
If I were considering something better than the kit lens but similar range to the Sigma 17-70 I would look at the Pentax 16-45. Bit shorter than the Sigma but I found the IQ of the one I had to 'replace' my kit lens (which I never used) was very good for the money.
Posted 01/04/2014 - 17:51 - Helpful Comment
Link
Hi for prime I would suggest FA43/1,9 ....bit more expensive, sure but more universal than any of those you mentioned - in between focal lenght but more speed than DA40....
Posted 01/04/2014 - 18:01 - Helpful Comment
Link
I like the Sigma 17-70. I have the older version; it's a great all rounder and superb value for money. I too would recommend the FA43 as a small fast prime, lovely lens.
Regards, Philip
Posted 01/04/2014 - 20:52 - Helpful Comment
Link
I've just acquired a Sigma 17-70 and am very impressed with it. For a zoom it is ultra-sharp and silent focussing too. The Pentax 17-70 is also very good, slightly slower, but a constant F4 rather than variable. The two are quite different in character, not sure which I prefer, but I will be offloading one soon as I can't justify keeping two 17-70 lenses.
I think the Pentax has slightly better contrast / colour rendering, whilst the Sigma probably just edges it for sharpness. The Sigma is cheaper.
Regards
David
I think the Pentax has slightly better contrast / colour rendering, whilst the Sigma probably just edges it for sharpness. The Sigma is cheaper.
Regards
David
Posted 01/04/2014 - 22:04 - Helpful Comment
Link
smudge wrote:
I like the Sigma 17-70. I have the older version; it's a great all rounder and superb value for money. I too would recommend the FA43 as a small fast prime, lovely lens.
same here for the Sigma 17-70. Mine's the older version too. Superb value for money, the IQ is top notch for what you can pick them up for now
I like the Sigma 17-70. I have the older version; it's a great all rounder and superb value for money. I too would recommend the FA43 as a small fast prime, lovely lens.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 01/04/2014 - 22:26 - Helpful Comment
Link
For a good quality but inexpensive basic outfit I recommend:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 + Pentax 55-300
Then you can optional throw in a prime or two later. Or first.
Tamron 17-50 2.8 + Pentax 55-300
Then you can optional throw in a prime or two later. Or first.
Posted 01/04/2014 - 22:48 - Helpful Comment
Link
gwing wrote:
For a good quality but inexpensive basic outfit I recommend:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 + Pentax 55-300
Then you can optional throw in a prime or two later. Or first.
+1For a good quality but inexpensive basic outfit I recommend:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 + Pentax 55-300
Then you can optional throw in a prime or two later. Or first.
and then the DA35 f2.4 then the DA50 f1.8
Given the amount of use the DA55-300 gets I may as well have got the DAL version.
Lurking is shirking.!
Posted 01/04/2014 - 23:35
Link
Wow, such a lot of great responses, thank you! So it seems to be between the sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 17-50, which in all honesty hadn't been on my radar at all so I will be sure to look into that. I am a children's event planner & face and body artist by trade so wonder if the extra reach on the sigma will be good for portraits of my work when I am doing the make up at parties ... I guess it is a game of research and waiting for the right lens to come up for sale as I can't afford to buy new right now.
Lots of affirmation for the 55-300 is nice to see, I really did love it for the 2 weeks I had it.
As for the primes, in all honesty I want the whole lot (who doesn't?) And I feel I may got for a prime prior to the 55-300, I know it is not the same but I really love the 01 prime for the Q, maybe I need to keep my eye out for an FA 43.
Lots of affirmation for the 55-300 is nice to see, I really did love it for the 2 weeks I had it.
As for the primes, in all honesty I want the whole lot (who doesn't?) And I feel I may got for a prime prior to the 55-300, I know it is not the same but I really love the 01 prime for the Q, maybe I need to keep my eye out for an FA 43.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
33 posts
17 years
As the title says really, I am in the position of starting over with regards to my Pentax system. I had used a K100d + 18-55 + M 50 1.2 + Sigma 50-200 for about 4 years before my the K100d died a death last year. I upgraded to a K7 + 18-55 WR & DA 55-300 but after only owning them for Two weeks we got broken into and they were stolen, along with a brand new Q + lenses too, on a technicality our insurance wouldn't cover them and getting the money together to begin replacing things Other than the Q has taken till now. lesson learnt, get separate insurance!
I have just paid for a K5 body and have a small amount of money to start again on the lenses. I am left with sigma,but it does now have a little fungus in the lens and the M 50. I think my instinct is to go for a Sigma 17-70 and more than likely the older 2.8-4.5 version to save a bit of money, I never really fell in love with the kit lenses as some do, and I do quite a bit of indoor photography so with it being that bit much faster, it seems like the better idea plus I live on the coast so that extra bit of room at the wide end would be a help. Does anyone have any other suggestions or thoughts from experience?
I am also thinking about introducing an AF prime too, But I am not sure which between the DA 35, 40 & 50. They are all so reasonably priced at the moment, does one really stand out amongst the others? Maybe I will wait until I get a zoom lens in that range and see which focal length I shoot at most.
Eventually I will replace my 55-300 as I fell in love with it in those 2 weeks, again I think this time I could consider the DA L version for the money that can be saved.
So there is my rough plan! Any hints, suggestions and thoughts would be great & fully appreciated.