ross_keele

The Tamron 28-75 is known as quite a good full frame lens, although I am not aware of any feedback yet of it on the new digital K-1 full frame sensor. While going for that lens may future proof towards a full frame purchase, the field of view may be a limiting factor on an APS-C body, depending on what you shoot on walk-arounds. If you just shoot "normal" to short telephoto, then the 28-75 would be sufficient, however if you want to shoot wider street-style shots, architecture or landscape, you may need to look at one of the APS-C zooms. At the longer end, the Pentax-DA 16-85 has demonstrated itself to be quite decent, based upon measurements and review reports.

As others have mentioned, it would be helpful to know whether you are planning on using one of the current APS-C sensor dSLR's or the recently released K-1 full frame body, as the type of lens and field of view will be different. If you have a crop sensor body, then one of the Sigma DC 17-70mm zooms would be decent, and provide close focus capabilities. There have also been good reviews of the Pentax-DA 16-85mm, which lacks the same close focus but provides weather sealing if you have a weather sealed Pentax body. Another favorite walk-around for some is the Pentax- DA 18-135mm, which is also weather sealed, but gives up a smidge in IQ for extra reach at the long end. If in fact you will be shooting full frame with the K-1, then indeed the Tamron 28-75mm was a well regarded full frame lens in the traditional wide to moderate telephoto range. You might also find some venerable Pentax-FA or Pentax-F zooms that might work on that body, however it is so new, that there isn't a lot of information on the images that could be produced with those older zooms in the new sensor. Regardless, how you want to use the lens, subject matter, where, how often, etc. will also be important factors in determining how you will weigh factors such as weight, balance on the body, IQ, rendering, etc. Folks might be able to make more specific recommendations if you provided more information.

In my opinion, the $80 difference is a small fraction of the overall investment that you have in equipment, so the price difference, while not inconsequential, would be a smaller factor. As you have stated, you appreciate the SDM on your DA* 50-135 and would like silent focus on your wide/normal event zoom. Depending on whether the SDM-enabled candidate was manufactured after Pentax started replacing the motors, you may never have a problem. If it did start to die, you can very easily convert to screw-drive yourself if you don't choose to replace the motor. Alternatively, a new Sigma EX 17-50 with HSM would be around the same price as the SDM-enabled Pentax, with better established reliability, and better across the frame sharpness. Could be a viable choice, unless you specifically want to maintain that Pentax rendering across your two primary event zooms.

As others have mentioned, all of the choices will be a compromise of some kind in this line-up. Online data suggests the 16-50 is a bit sharper than the 16-85 at smaller apertures at the 16mm end, which would benefit things like landscapes, but the difference isn't that large. If you just account for a similar light gathering range of f4+ on the 16-50, and f3.5+ on the 16-85, they are both fairly comparable, with the 16-85 having a bit of an edge in the 50mm range. The 16-50 has challenges with chromatic aberrations, unless you don't mind managing that in post-processing. Otherwise you are really trading the f2.8-3.5 light gathering and DOF advantage of the 16-50 for the 50-85mm range advantage of the 16-85. Some photographers also reference differences in rendering, adding a more subjective artistic element to the decision. Despite some early comments on the edge performance of the 20-40, data like that found on DxO, suggest it is actually quite a nice flat sharpness profile from f4 on, although diffraction seems to hit a bit sooner at smaller aperture than on something like the 16-50. With that lens you are gaining light weight, craftsmanship and Limited lens rendering at the expense of focal range and some light gathering relative to the other normal zooms. I was using a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 prior, and while I enjoyed it, I eventually picked up a used 16-50 with a replaced SDM, to go along with my DA 12-24 and DA* 60-250. Not much was objectively known at that time about the 16-85 so I didn't consider it, but I find the rendering of the 16-50 is a good fit for this trio of zooms. That said, I jones for a light travel setup, where the Limited 15mm would pair nicely with the 20-40 and the HD 55-300 WR.

The most rescent builds with SDM motors are supposed to be less likely to fail, and certain lenses, like the DA* 60-250 f/4 never did experience unnatural failure rates. The DA* 60-250 f/4 is a very sharp lens that renders images beautifully, however despite being hand-holdable, is fairly heavy compared to your Sigma 70-300. However, it is a far better lens as well. Other than the previously mentioned differences, the DA* lenses are also weather sealed while all but one of the Limited's are not (DA 20-40 Limited is sealed). Another factor is the focal length and type of lens you are looking for. The DA 20-40 Limited is the only Limited zoom that Pentax makes, the rest being primes. As well, the Limited's don't come in focal lengths above 77mm. If you are wanting to replace your Sigma 70-300, a similar lens in size which is reported to be a bit sharper is the Pentax DA 55-300 f/4-5.8. This is a compact zoom with a decent reputation, which is less expensive, smaller and lighter than the DA* 60-250 f/4, but not as fast or sharp. There will also be Pentax's new professional full frame FA* 70-200 f/2.8 which is supposed to be very sharp, but also heavier and quite expensive right now. You could search out a used Sigma EX 70- 200 f/2.8, which had a good reputation.

<p>As previous posters have pointed out, on the crop sensor of the dSLR, while a 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens, the field of view is altered by approx. 1.54x on current Pentax digital cameras. Thus, a 50mm prime now makes a nice portrait focal length similar to what the 77mm was on SLR film, while a 35mm lens will get you closer to the traditional "normal" focal length of a 50mm-55mm on film.<br /><br />That being said, "normal" would exist in a range on dSLR from about 24mm-40mm. Each photographer has their own preference for "normal", and you will see 24, 28, 35, and 40 bantered around regularly. The DA Limited 21mm will be most similar to the 35mm used on film for that "wide'ish" photojournalism look. </p>

<p>As Nick mentioned, many people with failed SDM who are not prepared to have it repaired out of warranty have converted the lenses to screw-dirve by backing up, and then altering the firmware in the lens.<br> http://www.pentaxiste.org/pratique/depannage/article/how-to-deactivate-sdm-and-allow<br> http://www.pentaxiste.org/pratique/depannage/article/how-to-deactivate-sdm-and-allow-386<br> While it is not difficult, it does require a comfort level and knowledge of computers, firmware, and some program editing to have confidence in the process. Mistakes can be problematic. However, the lenses themselves then work quite fine, and are quick to focus, albeit with typical screw drive noise levels. Selling prices are reflective of usable SDM or not though. As Nick also stated, used DA* 16-50's have begun to drop more in price over the past year with some of the available alternatives, while the DA* 50-135 has continued to maintain most of it's used value. </p>

<p>While I also believe that a built-in flash has value, a large proportion of users of this particular camera are using off-camera flash, so I suppose it was a a decision they had to make if they wanted to maintain the ergonomics, or relative weight. In terms of the review,</p> <p>"...and some weather sealing"<br />"As all cameras should have..."<br />"Pentax makes no professional DSLRs and no full-frame DSLRs. It's sort of an orphan brand, now owned by Ricoh. They make a relatively <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/0/Ntt/Pentax+645/N/0/BI/287/KBID/1037" target="_blank">inexpensive near-medium format system</a>, and otherwise don't even make a full-frame DSLR."</p> <p>This whole review stinks of a bias, and that's not just me being a fan-boy for Pentax. I have no problems with reviewers objectively remarking on what they believe may be short-comings for specified users, however Rockwell's words and phrasing in this review provide no sense of objectivity or integration of information from the field in regards to the awards and merits already achieved by the K-3 system.</p> <p>And that is about all the energy I am going to put into thinking about that review....</p>

Granted Pentax dSLR's do not have industry-leading AF, but then I'm not aware of Pentax trying to compete in the sports shooting market, or to those who "spray and pray" for a decent shot, as opposed to creating images. On that front Pentax has received praise from the industry and other reviewers for its innovation, optical performance, and size. The size and ergonomics of Pentax's flagship bodies regularly receive praise. I personally would not give up my K-5 iis for any of it's Canikon contemporaries. While far from perfect, Pentax bodies don't earn that type of derision, nor is it supported by other knowledgable professionals and reviewers. I consider such comments and opinions an outlier, and thus take them with no more than a grain of salt. As for the product boxes, really ?? I could care less about the quality of the graphics or how thick the cardboard is. If the camera came to me out of a retail outlet and I'm taking it home, I'm not bashing it about. Any bodies I've had shipped were well secured and protected for shipping. I would rather pay less or see those dollars go into the product than some self-agrandizing graphics. I already know what I bought, I don't require flash and pomp to help me justify the purchase price.

<p>You have some nice tools to work with, so enjoy :-)</p>

<p>With the vast majority of my subjects, I haven't found moire to be a problem. If you are using Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom v4+, there are tools and procedures that can help you to remove moire, and many tutorials to that effect if you Google for them. There are also several tutorials on the web regarding avoiding moire e.g., change distance to subject, change angle, slight change in focus point, or stopping down the aperture and allowing diffraction to assist (if you don't need shallow DOF). </p>

<p>I think if you know your own shooting style and preferences, and that falls within the normal to portrait range, you have chosen some very decent lenses that are affordable, especially if you prefer primes. The 16-45 zoom has very nice rendering and is decently sharp when you want the convenience of walk-around glass without having to switch lenses.<br> <br /> Your kit will be easy enough to add on to the wide or telephoto ends if and when you decide you need those angles of view, or that you would enjoy close focus or macro work, and you have the scratch to indulge the desire. You have some very nice tools, and hope your initial experience with Pentax is satisfying. Now start creating !</p>

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the micro focus corrections are for autofocus lenses. The user determines focus with MF lenses, so micro focus adjustment is irrelevant for that glass. And yes, for zooms there may be different optimal values at different focal length in the range, thus one needs to compromise on an average value, or choose one that favours a preferred or frequently used length.

<p>Criticism of the default JPG "Bright" setting has been common for a long time with the last several generations of Pentax dSLR's, and many suggest if you want more realistic colour, to use "Natural" and then bump things PP. There is another blog which describes fine tuning the "Natural" setting as well. As this is something easily alterable, it is really a none issue, other than that most reviewers don't tweak, but just go with the out-of-the-box settings.</p>