which lens would YOU choose?
How is the UK or USA law about this?
In the Netherlands I can get it repaired under warranty most likely even if the warranty is over. We have a law that a consumer can aspect that if you pay a lot for a product that it will at least work for a reasonable amount of time.
When you pay €700 for a lens and the SDM motor stops working after 3 years then of course something is wrong with the product since we or at least I don't expect a lifetime of a mere 3 years of a lens right.
As Aero said, we have the same law, but getting it to work in real life usually requires legal action (or at least a realistic threat of legal action).
That's a bit less good
I ain't 100% sure how it goes with us, I never had a problem...
Consumer protection law in Holland was updated relatively recently...consumers generally have better protection there than they do in the UK... I bought a fridge-freezer from a Dutch version of Comet (It's) which had compressor failure not long after I bought it, getting it repaired was completely painless...
Good to know
Don't get me wrong the resolution ist great, there is no vignetting and the range from 25-70 in film format is what I'am used to, from film photography. For longer focal distances I use another lens.
But the chromatic aberration are realy disturbing. Everytime I have taken landscape pictures with bright skys I have that fringe to retouch in Adobe Lightroom, what works well. But after retouching many pictures I sometimes think another lens would save me time and nerves.
Which one I don't know, at photozone tests they say the 17-70 produces less chromatic aberration, I don't know if it is true.
But I would not a buy a 16-45 Zoom again.
Canon F1,F1N and many Fd lenses
Hi James I owe a Pentax 16-45 and I'am a little disappointed with it.
Don't get me wrong the resolution ist great, there is no vignetting and the range from 25-70 in film format is what I'am used to, from film photography. For longer focal distances I use another lens.
But the chromatic aberration are realy disturbing. Everytime I have taken landscape pictures with bright skys I have that fringe to retouch in Adobe Lightroom, what works well. But after retouching many pictures I sometimes think another lens would save me time and nerves.
Which one I don't know, at photozone tests they say the 17-70 produces less chromatic aberration, I don't know if it is true.
But I would not a buy a 16-45 Zoom again.
Thanks Phillip! I have pretty much ruled out the 16-45 anyway. I am looking at either the Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-50, or possibly the Pentax 17-70. Still a work in progress. But going to decide tomorrow.
K.
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
Wouldn't the 12-24 be a good companion to the 24-90?
I thought that as well, but in practice found that quite often I wanted to use focal lengths either side of 24mm, which meant a lot of lens changing.
The 16-45mm is perfect for me as a consequence. It also means I don't have a lens without Quick Shift in regular use. This feature is so useful I don't like it when it's not there!
The 17-70mm would probably be better still, but it will have to wait for a while. Too many things need money spending on them just now...
Go onto one of the photo-sharing sites that use databases to sort their images by camera and by lens, and do a search on that lens. Have a look at what can be achieved with it in the real world of taking pictures. Do the same for any other lenses that interest you. I know pbase use such a system, and while it is not perfect, it's a place to start.
Wouldn't the 12-24 be a good companion to the 24-90? K.
I thought that as well, but in practice found that quite often I wanted to use focal lengths either side of 24mm, which meant a lot of lens changing.
For tripod work I agree with Kris, but for walkabout I'm more inclined to John Riley's thinking as I don't want to be constantly swapping lenses. Also not convinced I'd use the ultra-wide setting that much apart from the occasional dioramic cityscape or mountain shot. So wish-list rather than impending purchase.
PS i-Berg, thanks for the tip on image sites.
Stan
I find I quite often "walk about" with the 12-24mm Although 12mm is very wide, the 24mm is only moderately wide. I used to use a 28mm on my film cameras 75% of the time and so the 12-24 covers that nicely with a bit of leeway either side. It also helps it is stunnningly sharp!
Nice to have so much choice, isn't it?
K.
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
Hi all! In my never-ending quest to get a lens "good enough" for my amazing K7, I have narrowed down some choices to either the Tamron 17-50 or the Pentax 16-45. They would cost about the same at my local camera store. And advantages/disadvantages? WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE? Thanks in advance for any advice. hope to pull the trigger on one by Friday.
BTW...getting a good telephoto zoom is step two in my plan.
I've owned the 16-45 for a couple of years and it's been my mainstay lens in this range, it is good optically, not too heavy and not too expensive. I never found the CA to be much of a problem, whenever it occurs it can be easily fixed in pp-ing if necessary.
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/134-pentax-smc-da-16-45mm-f4-ed-al-review--test-r...
I haven't tried the tamron 16-50/2.8, except to briefly hold one in the shop.
test on nikon : http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28...
the 17-70 seems a bit better constructed than the 16-45 imho, it zooms the other way (16-45 is longest at 16mm - can be useful for candids !) MTFs quite similar, less CA on paper
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/408-pentax_1770_4?start=1
Which to choose ? I think it depends on your usage, I used to find I changed lenses a bit too often at the longer end with the 16-45, but I seem to have the sort of eye which picks out details / wants to crop in so maybe that's just me. It's good at the wide end. I'm using a K10 and there is some significant noise at high ISO (>=800) so f4 is a bit of a drawback indoors with the UK's grey skies, but on a KX or K20 or K7 it should be fine and f2.8 might not be such a draw.
have a look at the depth of field you'll get with f4 and f2.8 on dofmaster.com and think about your desired subject.
imho, budget permitting, it's basically 17-50/2.8 for primary indoor use, the 17-70 or 16-45 for primary outdoor use of which I'd choose the 17-70 if starting from scratch, the extra range gives a bit more flexibility and the build quality seems a bit better.
a good telephoto zoom ? - the 60-250 is excellent.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1626 posts
17 years
Richmond / Denbigh
F50 1.7. SMC-FAs 24, 35, 50 1.4, 85, 135. HD-FA15-30, DFA24-70, D-FA*70-200. The SMC-FA Limited Trinity.
Metz 45 CL-4, AF500FTZ. AF540FGZ.
Some Mamiya and some Nikon