Walk around lens

Well, as with LBA, I need more. More .... MORE!!! At least this time I know what I'm looking for. To start off with, b4 my LBA I had one lens, a 18-200mm Sigma which I used mainly between 18mm and 30mm when walking around. I've got a Sigma 30mm f1.4, but I don't know if a prime would make the ideal walk-around.

So I now want a better walk-around lens, and I think that my DA* 50-135 may be a lil to long at the wide side for that. So I've been batting around a few ideas in my head. While I would love it, the DA* 16-50 is just far to expensive. Also, the zoom range seems a bit limited. Now I'm trying to figure out what I need in a lens. Most of my shots are 24mm+/-, but I really like having a wide-angle lens every once and a while (16mm would be schweet), as well as a slight telephoto on the other side. I suppose I could do a photomerge in CS4 to get a bit wider if I needed, so because of that I've left out the UWA zooms (12-24). I've also got a very unhealthy addition to fast glass...

That narrowed me down to 17-70, 24-70, 28-105, or maybe even a 35-105 - but the 35mm may be a touch too wide. The only reason I would consider the 35-105 is that I found one for 125GBP which seems like a great deal. I've found a few Tamron 28-105's which are f2.8, that they are manual focus doesn't bug me but I'm more concerned about their weight. There are also tons of cheaper lenses with constant F4, or even variable apertures.

Given that I don't need AF, am leaning towards something older and slightly faster. I also want something in the 16-100mm range (+/- a tad bit). Last, I'm a big lad, but something this big won't do for me either.




So given all this what would you lads/ladies suggest? My budget is around 150GBP, and I'm looking at the used market.

If the DA*16-50 is too expensive why not a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 that one would also fit the SA*50-135 nicely.

You may not be as 'Over' Whelmed as with the 50-135, but have you considered the DA 16-45? That covers the range you want, and has room to spare at the top end. It's constant f4 - not as fast as your new long zoom, but still much better than the kit. Optically it's a good lens for the money, doesn't weigh too much, yet built well to boot.

It's been my main walkabout lens, and remains a favourite - perhaps you've noticed

Not sure what the going price 2nd-hand is though.

I would include the the Sigma 18-125mm and Tamron 24-135mm
Excellent range.
I have the a Sigma 28-70mm F2.8-4 and its a fine lens, but it kept having the 17-70mm at the same time (sold now) 28mm always seems restrictive.
I think the 17-70mm compared to 24-70mm will still seem favourable, despite the F2.8 advantage of the later lens.
With 24-135mm at least you really gain on range. Even more so for the 18-125mm, although that has disputable fame.

Something a bit off the wall...

Pentax-M 28mm f3.5

It's all manual, but a very sharp, compact lens. I tend to leave it on my K-m now as the default choice. It makes the camera not much bigger than a large bridge camera, so it's very unobtrusive for walkaround stuff.

Look here link for a DA 16-45 at a very good price (received mine last week)

BR

I purchased a 16-45 and it has hardly been off my camera since, IMO it is just a great lens.

I have the Pentax 17-70. It is the lens I use the most. It is a good range I find, and F4 is fast enough most of the time.

Since I bought the 60-250 I haven't used my 50-135. I am only hanging on to it because I may be glad of the F2.8 some time, but then I also have a Sigma 24-70 for that. One of them will have to go eventually.

hah!

And Gwyn, you've got a bit of my mindset when it comes to the F2.8 - I love me my fast glass. I guess I've got to figure out if F4 is quick enough for me. Suppose I'll just lock my Sigma zoom in Av to F4 and run around like that for a few days to see how I feel on the short end.

I suppose it looks like the Tamron 17-50 versus the Pentax 16-45 then. Will have to look at the specs, just wish there was somewhere I could try them out... stupid Jessops.

Be fast with the DA16-45, it's out of production according the Japanese site and that's mostly up to date.

Here is the proof http://www.pentax.jp/japan/imaging/digital/lens/index35_others.html

Sigma 17-70 would be my suggestion if on a budget (Pentax 17-70 otherwise).

I'm pretty sure the Sigma is the equal of the 17-50/16-45 in IQ and I'm guessing it suffers less CA than both, added bonus is it covers a wider range too. It's also "nearly" a macro lens which may prove useful

Simon

Well, why not try it? Limit yourself to this lens for a month. You may find you need little else.

The recommendations for the DA16-45 are right on the money. It covers the range you most need, plus more on each end. It is a wider range than it looks and an excellent performer.

Well then you're not going to get anything better or faster in a zoom.

I just bought a 16-45 about 3 weeks ago and love it already. Good quality, lovely rendition of colours and it's sharp. As people mentioned, 16mm seems significantly wider than the kit lens. I'm not sure if the 45mm is a little bit short for me, but with the FA50 being such a small lens, it's easy to have that with you for then you "need" 50mm.

There's a great deal on ebay for the lens at the moment:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=380217019474&ssPageName=STR...
I'm not associated with the seller in any way beyond the fact that they were the supplier of my lens. It was new stock and delivered pretty quickly.

I picked up a 35-70 F SMC f3.5 to 4.5 for £20 from a local pawn shop last week and so far I'm loving it.

It's compact, fast focusing and sharp. And it's macro, or at least close focus.

But it is a film lens, so it's about 52 - 105 which is not quite what you want.

1 vote for DA 17-70mm