suggestions for walkaround lenses

Hi all,

Wanted to ask people's opinions for what they consider to be good walkaround lenses, other than the kit lens.

Two that I am considering are the Pentax 17-70 and 16-45.

Are there any 3rd party lenses that are better than either of the two listed above, in a similar range.

Thanks in advance,

Adam

You might want to read this

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/which-is-better-for-street-photography---...

It's not exactly the same, but might help. I think it's a subject that has been discussed many times so you might find an answer from a search on the forum. That said, you will find people who love one and another bunch who love the other!

Without wishing to appear facetious, I find that, it depends on what I'm walking around.

In the range you're looking at, I think that a Tamron 17-50/2.8 is hard to beat, unless you need weather sealing.

Casting your net a bit wider, the Sigma 24-70/2.8 is just about wide enough indoors (equivalent to 35mm on FF) and 70mm at the long end is better in large spaces and outdoors and at f/2.8 it's good in low light and also useful for portraits. It's one of my most used lenses and offers excellent IQ.

As a jack-of-all trades, the Pentax 18-250 or its Tamron sibling covers most eventualities and really has very good image quality for such a zoom range.

I tend to carry my DA 18-135 WR about with me, find it has a good range and is not that cumbersome.
If size is an issue, then the Tamron, and the Sigma Graham mentions are probably both smaller lenses but having not owned them can't confirm.

The Tamron's pretty diminutive and light, but the Sigma's comparatively big and heavy (it takes 82mm filters!). That's its main drawback, to be honest. I don't really mind, as I've spent the past few years lugging around enough kit to maintain various babies/toddlers, so a slightly heavier camera bag is a drop in the ocean.

I haven't seen an 18-135 in the flesh, but I'd be surprised if it was as big as the Sigma 24-70. The Sigma certainly dwarfs my 18-250.

The DA 17-70 is my lens of choice. It is the one I use most.

I also have the 18-135 for the extra range, and WR. It is lighter than the 17-70 so nicer to have hung around your neck, but I find a lot of vignetting with mine and the IQ of the 17-70 is just all together better.

The 17-50 Tamron is a no brainer. Especially now that the DA 17-70 has increased in price quite significantly. I had one on my Nikon's and loved it.

I now own the DA* 16-50 but only because I got a very decent price s/h and really like the feel and the quality of it. If I had to pay £600 for it I would have gone for the Tamron as IQ wise there is not much to it if anything the DA* has a fair amount more of purple fringing but the Tamron is not weather sealed and it feels rather cheap and plasticky in comparison.

thanks for all the suggestions folks, appreciate it.

The last time I was walking around in a city, Edinburgh, as it happened, I had an 18-135 on the camera.

When I got the pictures on to the computer, I decided that next time, in a similar situation, it will be the 10-20.

10-35 would be even better, but 18 was far too long in most cases. For the tall buildings, I had to get so far back that it was impossible to exclude things like people and traffic.

Agreed. If I am to take one lens with me on a stroll around a city, it will be the 12-24, and I wish it were actually 8-24.

A shift lens would be even better.

G

I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and in terms of IQ... Awesome!

In terms of range.... It's a lowlight winner at 2.8 but 50mm is as long as it goes... Do you need more?

I wouldn't sell or swap but I'd consider the DA18-135 for its reach (and if you've a k20k7/k5) and WR...

Hi,

I personally feel that a walk around lens should at least have a range starting from 28mm and below to anything above 100. In this range, I find the Pentax 28-105, Pentax 50-200 WR (though does not fall under the below 28mm category), and Sigma 28-300 useful and I personally have them and use them. I found the 28-105 the sharpest followed by 50-200 and 28-300. I also have the Sigma 28-80(macro), which is quite good quality wise, but the range is not the one suitable as a walk around lens. Its great for macro at 80mm.

Regards,

Jeeess

I have a 16-45, 24-90 and (acquired more recently) 17-70 as 'standard walkabouts', all Pentax. Before buying the 17-70 I would either carry both lenses or decide on one or the other, depending on where I was walking about. Now the 17-70 is on the camera most of the time, sometimes with my 55-300 in the bag - though when I don't need the wider angle I actually prefer the 24-90 as it produces very slightly sharper results and there's less distortion at the long end. I haven't used the 16-45 since buying the 17-70, though if 45mm is long enough the image quality is just as good at not much more than half the price.