the usual quandry

Hi folks
I wonder if some of you could indulge me with your thoughts on this....

I have a 16-45/4 but it's not repairable

I obtained a 24-90 which I thought would be my perfect solution, but I'm not impressed as it seems OK in the centre but quite soft at the edges at least with the copy I have, so not best suited to landscapes, so I'm starting to try and work out my options to replace it and the 16-45.

I don't want to spend as much as the current DA*16-50/2.8 price, so what to do for what would be a walkabout (wot me with only one lens hahaha!) and informal indoor family pics lens, pref without flash

I have a 12-24/4, 60-250/4 and a FA35/2 too which are fab for my fave interest of landscapes and wouldn't part with any of them

a) a new 16-45 - and live with the gap to 60mm and f4, and I have found 45mm a tad short indoors but it's superb edge to edge at f4, great for wide view landscapes
b) a new tamron 17-50/2.8 ? filter is 67mm
c) a tamron 28-75/2.8 - not wide enough indoors, but longer is nice ?
d) a tamron sp 24-135/3.5-5.6 - quality ??
e) a sigma 24-60/2.8 - would like a bit of overlap with my 60-250 (but the 24-70 seems expensive and an inconvenient filter size too IIRC)
f) a sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 but 72mm filter (all the other lenses I have are 49, 67 or 77mm filters)
g) find richard days mythical 16-60/2.8
h) a pentax 28-105 but these don't have rave reviews IIRC
i) a pentax 28-70/4 (the FA*2.8 is too pricey I fear, besides it's silver !)

I'm not keen on the idea of a pentax 17-70 presently as it's SDM only, f4, and I don't want to lose my debug mode on my K10, although the range seems to make sense,.

I want to like my 24-90, the range seems right to me on paper, but I just haven't warmed to it (yet ?) and I'm rather disappointed this option doesn't seem to be working out

a) or b) or c) or e) is top of the ops currently, what do you think ?

thanks for lending me a few grey cells temporarily.

a), b) or f).

a. or f. based on price. Or b) for f2.8 (and better performance than the Sigma).

The Sigma's 17-70 is a good range, but when I was faced with this decision I opted for Pentax glass - a 16-45 followed by a 17-70 (it was also cheaper then, which made deciding easier). I prefered the Pentax colour rendition in particular. In the same position as you now, I think I'd still opt for the 16-45. Don't neglect the extra 1mm you get with this - it's the one thing I occasionally miss with my DA17-70 (oh, and the better distortion performance of the 16-45).

Of the other two I would be tempted by the Tammy. Haven't used it, but judging from photos produced by it and users' feedback I think this might be (slightly?) superior to the 16-45, and a definite step-up from the Sigma.

I take it you're using an early firmware?

You can have your cake and eat it if you use firmware 1.3 to get SDM, together with a little application that you use over USB to put the K10D into debug mode.

There are lots of references - a few are collected here, and from others in that thread.

I've had the Tamron 17-50 for a couple of months now, and I love it. It's nice and sharp wide open.

However I have read several anecdotal reports on forums that some (many?) of these lenses exhibit a degree of front focus. This was the case with my copy, after testing with a chart I had to add a +7 or 8 adjustment in my K20D. I only mention this because I don't know if your K10D is capable of individual lens adjustments. The other negatives are that it is quite large, and fairly noisy when autofocusing. Also some cheapo lens caps (e.g. Jessops) won't fit properly without a filter because the front element protrudes almost as much as the filter ring (the back of the cap hits the front element). There is also noticeable distortion at the 17mm end, mainly in the corners. I only notice this on some architectural shots but it's easily corrected in PTLens.

On the other hand the price is unbeatable. I got mine second hand in the classifieds here for about £200 which I still think is incredible value for money. I also occasionally see them in second hand shops for about 10% more.

The K10D is not capable of AF Adjustment for individual lenses. I'm a fan of the Tamron 17-50, but would hesitate to recommend it to K10D users for this reason.

My 24-90 is sharp across the frame at 24mm, even wide open at f3.5 (on digital anyway).

The 16-50 has a bit more centre resolution on the K20D, but when I had a K10D it was difficult to decide which was better (24-90 has less CA though).

So it does sound like you may have a bad copy

R

I would recommend that you stay with the DA 16-45 as the current price of the 17-70 is too much IMO.

I had the 16-45 (a very nice one) and bought a very good copy of a 17-70 after testing a couple of samples (as always! :wink.

Upon reflection it was a sideways move as I do miss the wide end of the 16-45 at times, plus the barrel distortion and CA of the 17-70 at 17mm is slightly worse, but the 17-70 is much sharper at 45mm.

Don't diss the 16-45, I still think that overall it's the best bet, but do go along to your friendly retailer and ensure that you get a decent copy that has no centering or focussing issues, it usually very easy to see on the review screen at x11.

I've tried a few samples of the Siggy 17-70, the Tamron 17-50 and the DA*16-50 (which is superb from 24mm up). I would rather have the 16-45 out of them all for various different reasons.

1. It's fairly light
2. It has very fast screw drive AF (I'm not that worried about SDM, but??? :roll
3. Quickshift manual focus overide.
4. I like the large zoom ring and small focus ring, unlike the DA*16-50.
5. 67mm filter, same as my 60-250.
6. Best wide end of any wide to medium zoom lens.
7. I actually quite like the reverse zoom action!

In fact, I've almost convinced myself to get another one soon, as I think it's a classic piece of Pentax glass.

Yes I'm on firmware 1.1 and have stayed with that so that I can apply FF/BF correction to my lenses, thankfully most seem to need about the same +130um adjustment. It's convenient to leave it in debug mode all the time. The desire isn't to have SDM, the desire is to have any FF/BF fixed, some shots I've taken that suggest that poorly adjusted BF/FF contributes to purple fringing.

I was aware of the 1.3 with hack option but I didn't fancy being an early adopter for that and then finding all sorts of non-correctable woes later on ! I'll read your links and think about 1.3 again, are people finding that the hack is a reliable solution, and are able to go back to 1.1 should an SDM motor fail ?

cheers

thanks for taking the time to pitch in

You did well to get one at that price! Yes it does look like good V.F.M. even new. I can adjust for FF/BF with the debug mode on K10 but only one lens at a time.

Does it focus and zoom in the same sense (anti/)clockwise as pentax lenses ?

Thanks for your thoughts.

wrt 24-90

wrt pentax 16-50 the photozone.de results do suggest it's quite centre happy, partly why I didn't get one some time ago when they were much cheaper, I was happier with the 16-45 MTF characteristics for landscapes usage and the CA isn't as bad as reported. Not had a chance to use a 16-50 though, it's not always all about the numbers.

perhaps I should consider finding another copy of the 24-90.

talking yourself into buying another lens, nooo !!!

I do rate the 16-45 having used it for a about two years, for many of the same reasons as yourself Richard (7 is great for candids !) wobbly barrel was always a bit disconcerting though.

Come to think of it the 24-90 I have is similarly 'loose?' build qual and web reports of 24-90 do seem to suggest it's build quality isn't top notch, so that's what I expected. It seems a bit hit and miss wrt IQ of pics I get which is what bugs me, I'm not sure I can trust it to get te job done, hence the angst. Perhaps I should go all scientific with it and give it the test chart treatment

I'm just hoping I could avoid buying 2 new lenses, fill the 45-60 gap with some overlap to the 60-250, and use it indoors for family and nieces&nephews in motion, hence the dilemma.

Thanks for taking the time to post.

PS how's that 60-250 working out for you, I remember the test pics when you got it ?

Just to be clear, the links I posted were not about any kind of hack.

There is a perfectly well-behaved (I've tried it) Windows application with which you can switch to debug mode (and then leave it in Debug mode for as long as you like), even with the proper 1.3 firmware.

This gives you the ability to use SDM lenses, and also the ability to fix focussing issues, albeit with only one setting for all lenses.

The hack people refer to is where you replace the header in the 1.1 firmware, using a hex editor I imagine, so that the camera thinks it's later than the one it already has. I haven't tried that, though. I expect you would have to use that to be able to reinstall 1.1 over 1.3.

I have the Tamron 24-135mm but its at Intro2002 for repairs (and has been for nearly 6 months now). I really miss the lens, its a good length for me and the quality of it is superb (as are most Tamron SP lenses).

Finding one in Pentax mount at a reasonable price will be very difficult though.

I would be looking at the Pentax 17-70mm f4.

From memory I had no idea which way it turned had to go and get my camera. You turn it clockwise (while holding the camera like you're about to take a photo) to zoom in. I no longer have a Pentax zoom and can't remember which way it turned.