Pentax Walk Around Zoom

<p>I am looking for a walk around zoom lens for Pentax DSLR and thinking of Tamron 28-75 F2.0. Have reviewed somewhat mixed reviews in past. Would like to learn more about more current perspectives. Thanks as always.</p>

<p>Dave,<br>

A couple of questions.<br>

1) Are you shooting with a K-1 or an APS body?<br>

(remember on an APS body that's like a 42-113mm lens. 42mm is IMHO not wide enough as a walk about lens)<br>

2) What do you want to shoot? Meaning do you REALLY need a lens this fast? A lens like this is pretty heavy. 500g verses 230g for the Pentax 18-55. At half the weight, 27-82.5mm (equivalent length), and a third the price the Pentax 18-55 is a better choice. The Tamron lens you mentioned wouldn't be MY choice on an APS body. </p>

<p>Doug</p>

 

<p>That lens is a f/2.8 maximum aperture, if you need such a lens. They are larger, and heavier to walk around with. Designed for full frame bodies, 28mm does not provide much in the way of wide angle for typical DSLRs with APS-c size sensors. If you are thinking of the full frame sensor of the new forthcoming Pentax K-1, then that lens would provide wide angle to moderate tele range. The Tamron lens is also not weather sealed as as are many of the more recent Pentax lenses. You have not stated which camera body you will be using, but many Pentax bodies have weather sealing (WR).</p>

<p>Pentax lenses offering both wide angle and tele with WR specifically designed for Pentax APS-c DSLRs are: the small, inexpensive DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 WR kit type lens, then the more premium DA 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 WR DC, DA 18-135mm WR DC, and if you need the f/2.8 aperture, the DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 WR SDM. The new Pentax D-FA 24-70mm f/2.8 WR is highly rated and will work with the new K-1 full frame model, yet will still provide some wide angle on a regular APS-c model. The very fine Pentax DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 WR DC Limited is extremely compact and high quality, ideal for a walkaround small zoom.</p>

<p>If WR is not of interest, there is the Pentax 17-70mm f/4, as well as some other 3rd party lenses that will go wider than 28mm with moderate telephoto range, or even a super zoom. Pentax makes one- DA 18-270mm f/ 3.5-6.3 SDM.</p>

<p>The Tamron 28-75/f2.8 is my go-to lens. It is mounted permanently on my camera. (It was permanent on my K20 until it became permanent on my K3) It is a superb lens. There are times when I want a wider lens, and then I use my Sigma 10-20. How often is that in day to day shooting? For me- rarely. I would not trade the Tamron for another lens just to get a wider focal range, speaking for myself. I get no noticeable distortion at either end of the zoom range. I just can't say anything negative about it. When I first bought the lens I thought it felt a little bit under built. After several years, those worries were unfounded. The lens is perfectly robust and adding weight to it would serve no purpose. </p>

<p>I have the DA40 and DA70 Limiteds. Images from the Tamron are nearly indistinguishable. </p>

<p> </p>

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.

<p>Thanks for the responses. Right now I am not thinking full frame but interested in K1 as future possibility. More concerned about long end of 28-75 and not fixed on speed (f2.8). Image quality is key consideration. Thanks.</p>

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.

<p>Although I have fine "pro" style f/2.8 zoom lenses and excellent "prime" (non zoom) lenses, my favorite walk around zoom lens is my Pentax DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 WR DC. Walk around implies versatility, and I have found this lens has it, with very good IQ. Photozone testing downrated it because they found substandard performance at the image edges when zoomed to the long end. This does not bother me. I do not notice any shortcoming, since when I zoom it to that much telephoto I an generally interested in the center area anyway, which is still very good quality. In other words, I can zoom from a wide angle scene instantly to grab a portrait closeup without having to change lenses. If used in the 18-70mm range, its speed stays pretty good, (f/3.5-4.5) and quality is quite high, even edges. It is very compact for carrying, its DC motor provides AF that is quiet, fast, and accurate. Its field of view is similar to 28-200mm on a full frame body, but it is cut out for APS-c use, so it would have serious light falloff (vignetting) if used on the K-1. The K-1, however, can be switched to 15mp APS-c format.</p>

<p>If you need greater wide angle, and high edge to edge quality even when zoomed to its full tele, the Pentax DA 16-85mm WR DC is a very good lens. That advantage comes at a price. It is not quite as compact, yet doesn't have nearly as much telephoto for versatility, even though still good in that regard. Any of this type of lens will have noticeable distortion of straight lines particularly at the widest angle zoom setting. This is normal. This can be avoided by avoiding the widest setting. So if you are using the 16-85mm, and you have say an architectural subject with straight lines near the edges of the frame, you can avoid such distortion by shooting at 18 or 20mm instead of at 16mm. That would be another wide angle advantage for having a zoom lens starting at 16mm over one of 18mm. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That lens is a f/2.8 maximum aperture, if you need such a lens. They are larger, and heavier to walk around with. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>doesnt sounds like you've ever used the tammy 28-75. it's actually a very compact zoom, and only weighs 18 oz. The Pentax 16-85, fwiw, is 17 oz. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>More concerned about long end of 28-75 and not fixed on speed (f2.8). Image quality is key consideration.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the 28-75 is a very sharp lens at f/4 and beyond. a little softish wide open, but nothing to worry about. it's fine for use on APS-C and full frame. i wouldnt hesitate to get one, if i didnt already own one. </p>

<p>I have long had the now unfortunately discontinued Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG, which also unfortunately does not have WR or a quiet DC motor. I got a good copy of this model- sharp, even so wide open. It is very compact in size and weight, perhaps even more so than the Tamron 28-75mm. Its 24mm does offer some wide angle for APS-c bodies. It is my second favorite walk around lens. If I am likely to not need the speed, but might need more wide angle, more zoom range or WR, I go with my Pentax 18-135mm for a walk around zoom lens. But if you rarely shoot wide angle shots, use far more telephoto, don't care about WR or noise in a quiet environment, or distracting a subject during candid shots, the 28-75mm may do fine, with an additional wide angle lens for those occasional times a wide angle shot is needed. I see nothing at all wrong if one is happy with this arrangement.</p>

<p>For most people,, lacking wide angle capability does not fit the "versatile" category. I'm with Doug regarding that. There is a huge difference in wide angle, and also in overall zoom range between 28-75mm and 16-85mm. The Pentax 16-85mm is compact for such a zoom range, and for its performance over that range. It also has a quiet, accurate DC motor and WR. The Pentax 18-135mm DC WR has even greater zoom range for yet more versatility, and is even more compact in size. Smaller size makes the same weight feel lighter.</p>

<p>Thank you all. How does my query about the Tamron 28-75 compare to the Pentax DA 16-85 or 18-135 as walk around lens in terms of image quality? Suggestions much appreciated. Thank you.</p>

<p>That sounds like a simple question, but it is really a complex one. For the most part, you'd likely not be able to detect an image quality difference between them. All three are capable of rendering very fine results. Each can do some things the others cannot. Where one may shine over the others, it drops to 3rd in another way. That depends on your own shooting needs!</p>

<p>If you are possibly interested in obtaining a full frame K-1, it would be the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, beyond question. The other two are not suitable for FF use. The other best option would be the new Pentax FF zoom lens, D-FA 24-70mm f/2.8 DC WR which has received very high reviews, along with its Tamron counterpart. The Pentax lens is more costly, but you'd get WR and DC. Also, the difference between 70mm and 75mm at that tele range would be very slight, while the 4mm difference at the short end between 24mm and 28mm is far greater and easy to see.</p>

<p>If you are largely interested in telephoto, staying with an APS-c body (as most people do) would be more logical, since getting the same telephoto result requires a less expensive, smaller, lighter, lens. A 100mm lens on a FF body, if put onto an APS-c body, for example, provides approximately a 150mm view field and image. The APS-c body is also more compact and lighter for extensive carrying.</p>

<p>A FF body's advantages essentially are in the realm of possible wide angle performance with lower distortion, lower possible noise at higher ISO use, better quality larger possible blowups, since the sensor/image is larger to start with, and greater possible reduction of depth of field. But they are larger and more expensive, and to get high quality telephoto requires a larger lens.</p>

<p>Image quality is indeed a complex matter. There are lens factors involved such as light falloff (vignetting), resolution, edge of image performance, far corner performance, center image performance, closer focus performance, distortion, field curvature, color fringing abnormalities, and bokeh (out-of-focus smoothness or lack). There is no such thing as a perfect lens, and zoom lenses are more challenging for designers to deal with these factors. But there are some very good ones.</p>

<p>A FF lens on an APS-c body enjoys an advantage. Since it is cut for FF, its extreme corners and edges are omitted from the APS-c frame. This should give it an advantage for edge and corner performance as well as light falloff. But the better APS-c lenses are still competitive. It is difficult to find scientific testing, however, of a FF lens on an APS-c body to compare.</p>

<p>If you do a lot of people shots, or of subjects mostly in the central area, the Pentax 18-135mm WR DC would be very fine. Its central resolving capabilities are excellent. Only beyond about 70mm do edges and corners begin to diminish significantly in quality. Even out to 135mm the central area is of high quality. It is quite fine for most any use from wide angle to 70mm. It is very compact and lightweight. If I need corner to corner higher quality beyond 70mm, I can bring along my Pentax 55-300mm WR lens, or if I need even higher edge quality and speed too, I will switch to a pro caliber setup with my Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 EX DG combined with my Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 WR SDM.</p>

<p>The Pentax 16-85mm WR DC provides great performance with exceptional resolution corner to corner throughout its zoom range. It has been awarded Photozone's rare "Highly Recommended" status. You might check out Justin Serpico's threads below. He is very experienced, and shoots very fine landscape scenics.</p>

<p>The FF Tamron 28-75mm enjoys a very good reputation for its focal range, especially at its price point for an f/2.8 zoom lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the same Sigma 24-60/2.8 EX that Michael K. mentionned, for the most part I've preferred my Pentax FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 over that lens. The Sigma is a little more solid-feeling but I find the backwards (vs. Pentax) turning controls and relatively fiddley hood & lenscap attachment kind of annoying in comparison, plus I find the colors a little different than Pentax. It's relatively compact for an f/2.8 zoom but it does have a 77mm (vs. 67 for the FA24-90 3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 28-75/2.8) filter size, and it's also heavier (548g, vs. 355g for the FA24-90 and 505g for the Tamron 28-75). Plus I like the extra reach, and the 24-90 is pretty decent at the long end of its range, slightly better I think than the DA17-70/4 (67mm filter, 485g) that I usually use these days, more of a concession to the usefulness of having wide angle in the same lens. Unlike the other three alternatives, it also features quiet SDM AF and "quick-shift" manual focus touch-up (the other three require switching the body to MF to allow moving the focus ring). If I was buying today I would probably be looking hardest at the the 16-85 and 20-40 limited. The most recent version of the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is probably better than the Pentax 17-70, at least in some regards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is very compact in size and weight, perhaps even more so than the Tamron 28-75mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the sigma is 1.5 oz <em>heavier</em> than the tamron 28-75.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> lacking wide angle capability does not fit the "versatile" category. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>that all depends. i've used the 28-75 on aps-c. it's more "versatile" on the long end than a 17-50, making it more suitable for portraits in particular. also good for live music if you're a bit back from the stage. i definitely missed the wide angle in my own shooting, but my point was that that focal length <em>can</em> work for some applications. WRT to the 16-85, that's much more of a compromise lens, based on spec. a max aperture of 2.8 @75mm allows for much more DoF control than max aperture of 5.6. so, the 16-85 would be a better landscape lens, while the 28-75 would be a better portrait lens. you do get the wide range with the 16-85, but you could always get a 12-24/4 as an UWA option. </p>

<p>Well, a "walk around" lens is not usually a portrait lens, although having greater portrait capability would add still more to its versatility, IF it has wide angle capability too. A versatile "walk around lens" by the most common definition is one that can shoot wide angle, normal, as well as some tele range to handle a variety of scenes. This would obviate the need to carry a second lens to "walk around" with.</p>

<p>But, if one is happy walking around with no WA capability, fine!</p>

<p>The Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 is really a moot point, since it is no longer available new. I only brought it up since I have it, to bring up the value I have found of its having some WA, with 24mm vs 28mm being more suitable for a "walk around" lens. I have long had a Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens, but with APS-c I go to the Sigma because of its having 24mm for wide angle shots. There are other zoom lenses available which are 24mm at the short end. My Sigma apparently is just a tad weightier than the Tamron, but the Tamron is a tad longer. The Pentax FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 lens would certainly be a good "walk around " option, but unfortunately it is likewise no longer made.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Another good choice for APS-c would be the latest Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 which has better than average closeup capability, and better than average speed. It has also come in very well in test reports. Of course, you don't get WR, and the lens front does reportedly rotate when focussing, making the use of rotational filters more inconvenient to use.</p>

<p>Test wise, however, the Pentax 16-85mm comes in even better, and offers WR, but apertures are not as fast as the Sigma's are for low light shooting, reducing DOF, or getting up higher shutter speeds without raising the ISO.</p>