Wide angle

Hello

I am really interested on the K10D and i don't know which lens i will choose for it.
I want to make portraits closed and in situation and landscape so it's hard.

For the portrait I choose a Tamron 28-75 f/2,8.
For landscape i don't know, i think 28 is too long for this.

What can i have for cheap price and good sharpness (200£ max)

Thanks

Ps : sorry for my english

Welcome to the forum pseb - it's a great source of information and advice on all things Pentax and there are some very knowledegable and competent photographers here (myself not included!).

You're right to think that 28 mm is too long a focal length for landscape images - this is equivalent to approximately 42 mm on a digital SLR so you would miss out a lot of the scenery. You really need to go down to focal lengths of 20 mm (35 mm on digital) or less to get a reasonably wide angle for landscapes.

Few second hand lenses for film cameras in Pentax K mount are available at ultra wide angle for your budget, so I would recommend you go for the Pentax 18-55 mm kit lens for digital SLRs (DA series) - it costs less than £150 new (cheaper than this if you buy it with your new K10D) and I'm told that it provides quite sharp pictures at apertures used most often for landscapes (f8 and smaller).

If you could stretch your budget to around £270 you would be able to buy the Pentax DA 16-45 mm, which is highly regarded for sharpness and other qualities by owners - I have seen some superb photos taken with this lens (e.g. by MattMatic) and at 16 mm it would be equivalent to 24 mm on a film camera.

Thank you

Do you know if the 17-35 sigma is better than the 18-55 or 16-45 ?

As far as I know, the 16-45mm is the better of the two Pentax lenses by far, but I cannot elaborate on the Sigma lens as I have no experience with it.

allthough I have seen some good lenses from sigma and others, I have a Sigma 50mm Macro lens which performs beautifully.
Pentax uses the what is considered to be the best lens coating available, the SMC coating. Especially in bright sunlight this coating is very good.
I think buying the K10D and use cheap glass on it is a waste of a good camera in my opinion.

I have used both Pentax and non Pentax glass and on average the Pentax pieces work better then the non Pentax pieces.

That's a very valid point Golfie, an inferior lens will never get the best out of the camera. Since I bought the 16-45 lens it has hardly been off my camera, and i know a lot of people rate it highly (just get MattM started on the subject!) and the 16-45 range is quite versatile on a digital too.

I'm saying nothing....





...no, it's no good, I have to get started! The 16-45 is astounding. Incredibly close focussing at 16mm for seriously mad shots, razor sharp for landscapes, great bokeh at 45mm for portraits. Super versatile... just add a set of good ND grads for landscapes and you're totally sorted
Ahh, and flare control is second to none - you'll just have trouble keeping the ND grads clean enough!!
Sorry, I can't compare against the Sigma - after trying a fair few other makes and lenses, I've stuck 100% with Pentax and haven't been disappointed.

Matt

Thanks for all the suggestions. 16-45 for landscape and 28-75mm 2,8 for portraits (This tamron has a strong reputation). I was bored with the 18-55 of the nikon d50. Idon't want to have the same feeling again.

Whatever the Sigma is like optically, in terms of physical design I'd much prefer one of the Pentax DA lenses. Even on the cheap 18-55mm (the one I have), there's the quick-shift focus that lets you focus manually while in AF mode (works very well) and the little tab that can be removed from the lens hood so you can easily rotate a filter with the hood attached... maybe little things but they really are useful and suggest much more attention to detail in design than the Sigmas IMO... plus of course the 16-45mm is a smaller and lighter lens with a smaller filter size than the Sigma... and since there doesn't appear to be much price difference, I would definitely choose the 16-45mm over the Sigma.

Since you already have the Tamron which has a great reputation and gives you better reach and speed than the Sigma can manage, I really don't think theres a contest here. The 16-45 wins hands down, with better wide angle and pretty much unparalleled image quality from what I hear.

It might also be worth thinking about something really wide like the Pentax 12-24 if you can afford it. That way you aren't doubling up on focal lengths in the same way as you will with the 16-45 28-75 pair. edit: oops just saw your £200 max, thats pretty much out of the question then!

Hiya,

"Pentax uses the what is considered to be the best lens coating available, the SMC coating"

Look..I use Pentax myself, but I think we need to put this myth to bed..I think you will find that a certain two German lens makers may disagree with you about the Pentax coatings being the best.

SMC just stands for super multi coating and all the major lens makers have their own 'super mutlti coating' processes.

I think I am also correct is saying that Pentax 'borrowed' lens coating technology from Zeiss when they had a brief partnership just before they linked up with Yashica...Zeiss has a certain T* coating....

cheers Steve.

Lens coating has been around since the 1940s, possibly earlier, but certainly post war lenses are often factory coated.

Multicoating was known before the SMC coating, but Pentax put it on the map with their new SMC 7 layer coating process. It is highly effective and a good reason to use Pentax lenses.

The most amazing coating I ever saw was on the Rolleiflex 2.8GX that I once had. You could literally not see the lens and I had to save it from many a poking finger that was headed for the front element with the words "Is there no lens in it?"