Lens upgrade.. so many options

Here I come with yet another lens question. I'll try to be short!

 

I have a K100D + GX-10 + DA 18-55 and 50-200 (+ some M lenses).

 

The thing is, I want to get rid of the 18-55 (and hopefully of the 50-200 in the

future), because the vignetting really bothers me - I like to shoot wide open -

and the distortion is nothing worth of praise.

 

My first thought, obviously, was to get a DA40 Ltd (I've got around ?300 to

spend, the less the better). Having an almost flat lens is quite attractive, but

for the same money I can get a 35mm f2 with mind-blowing sharpness, wider

aperture and more useful FOV. But by doing that I'd have no walk-around lens and

would be forced to change lenses more often than I'd like to, and I already have

a 28mm prime if I need the sharpness, and a 50mm 1.7 if I need more light.

 

Then, my main options turned to be the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 or the 18-50 EX

f2.8. Both are selling for the same price. I'm completely lost on which would

have better use. I like the overlapping of the 17-70 with my SA50-200 and the

longer end, but having a constant aperture would be nice. At some point I

considered the Tamron 28-75, it's much more sharp (photozone test) than the

others at every focal lenght, and looks great wide open, but having a 42mm

widest angle is not in question...

 

Anyone has got comparison shots between the 17-70 and the 18-50? If the image

quality is the same I'd give the fixed aperture up for more reach and just raise

the ISO.

 

Sorry for my english and indecision.

No walk around lens? I think the 35mm f2, equivalent to a 52mm FOV, is the classic walk around lens.

My "walk around" lenses are the DA21 and FA43 Limiteds. They spend about equal time on

the camera now. I have no more zooms in this focal length range: I sold them as I was no

longer using even the one I liked the most, the FA20-35/4 AL. <br>

<br>

An FA35/2 AL makes an excellent general purpose lens too, as does an FA28/2.8 AL if you

can find one. Both of these lenses, and the DA40 Limited, are smaller, lighter and far

better quality than any of the available zooms in this range, IMO. <br>

<br>

(I haven't used the DA*16-50/2.8 to assess its quality as yet, but there's no doubt that it is

a much larger/heavier lens than any of these primes.)<br>

<br>

I am certainly favorable to good prime lenses. But to get rid of your 18-55mm zoom lens and "replace" it, would require getting a better zoom lens or several prime lenses. A good general purpose walk around prime with a versatile angle of view is the 21mm Limited. The FA 35mm f/2 is a fine lens, but more restricted in its field of view, yet not telephoto either. One prime lens is not going to "replace" the focal length range of your zoom lens.

 

For the money you have to spend, a better zoom is your best bet. Be aware that most lenses exhibit some vignetting wide open- especially wide-angle. So a faster lens could presumably allow you to stop down some to reduce vignetting yet still be at an aperture equal to a slower lens. If constant aperture is important, you might also take a look at the Pentax 16-45mm f/4. Fine sharpness, although a bit heavy on CA problems. The Sigma 17-70, however, is a good consideration with its greater reach, and it is faster at the wide end.

I just did a quick check at photozone, and regarding vignetting, of the zoom lenses in consideration, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 tested as having slightly lower vignetting at f/4. But that was tested on a Nikon D200. Performance on a Pentax camera may be slightly different.

 

All wide-to-long zoom lenses I have seen have significant distortion at the wide end. This should normally not be visible except when linear objects are involved. But these three, at least, tested as having little distortion starting around 24mm.

One option might be to get the 16-45 F4 - it's also a significant improvement on the 18-55 but less expensive than the 16-50 F2.8. That would leave you some case for picking up some 2nd hand prime lenses. I've had the MF 35mm F2 and found it a good lens allthough not the most useful focal length on a film camera.

 

Also in my film days I often used primes for "walkabout" purposes - my MZ5 with the FA* 24 and 85's being a favourite however it's not quite so easy these days given that wide angle primes for APS-C sensor sizes are few and expensive. Something like the 14mm F2.8, 24mm F2, 35mm F2 and 50mm F1.7 would be nice but not cheap.

I'm still looking to add a 28mm FA or A to the lineup.

 

However, the 28mm is not the same optical quality of the 35mm.

 

Not as sharp wide open and never hits the some resolution #'s at any aperture.

 

That said, it's a good lens, reasonably sharp and a perfect 42mm (or normal lens, aka, a walking around lens) on a 1.5X SLR.

I agree with Justin completely regarding the FA 28mm prime lens. (finding one is the problem) I have owned one for many years- one of my first AF lenses. Not as sharp wide open as the FA 35mm, but few are. Nontheless, still usably good wide open, and very fine quality stopped down a bit. Among the best of all 28mm lenses.

 

It is light and compact, and on a DSLR a very good, versatile walk around angle of view indeed, as Justin says. Similar to the 43mm Limited on a film body. I often take mine on camera in lieu of one of my Limiteds when I want some width but feel the 21mm may be a little too wide for my needs.

Totally love the DA 16-45mm f/4, but I'm easy-to-please. You might find it too slow, but I'm leaving it on by default and virtually never reaching for my Zenitar 16mm Fisheye f/2.8. I'm surprised how well it performs at wide aperture.

Thanks for all the answers.d

 

I'd much prefer a zoom as my primary lens. A few years ago I only had the K1000, a 28mm and the standard 50mm. I got lots of good shots, but on countless ocasions I'd be frustrated because I couldn't change lenses on time, or neither of the lenses could give me the view I wanted. I find I'm very often movement/placement restricted, and changing FOV.

 

One thing I didn't mention is I plan to use this lens on travel. The know the advantages of using zoom in this situation are well known.

 

By what I've seen, I don't find the 16-45 enough improvement in image quality to justify the expense, and despite the interesting gain in the wide end, I'd sorely miss the other 10mm. I think I'd be very happy with only a 21 and 70/77 Ltds, but unfortunately that's completely out of question...

 

I might as well just forget this, keep what I have and buy a Sigma 10-20.

 

I think the question right now is, is the Sigma 17-70 or 18-50 EX an improvement over the kit zoom, mostly considering image quality? What would you buy in this position?

 

(btw, I'm accepting money donations! :)

Oh god. You can just skip my last post if you want, I forgot to finish half of the sentences!

 

After more careful reading, looks like the image quality wouldn't improve much with the Sigma 17-70. It's just a tad sharper stopped down, but the vignetting and corner softness are still there. I'd have to get used to having 10mm less, but seems the 16-45 is really a much better option for a proper "upgrade".

 

Time to go shopping. Any advice on cheaper countries to buy in Europe?

 

(I was getting a bit crazy on this, have to try going out with all but the 28mm. This zoom thing is messing up with me. More reach, more reach.)

When I upgrade my camera (probably in 18-24 months), I'm giving my wife my current K100D. When I do that, I'll put a $250 Sigma DC 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 on it. That'll give her a wide (27.5mm equiv) to good tele (191.25mm equiv) zoom range of 7.1x, just a tad wider and just a tad longer than what you typically get out of the new 6-6.5x Point'n Shoot cameras with a 28-29mm equiv wide-end.

 

Everything I've read says the Sigma 18-125 is a solid, basic near-superzoom without the major IQ hit. I don't expect it to be as good my DA 16-45 or DA 50-200, but far better than the 10x+ superzooms. Just a consideration, if you want a lot of range and find 18mm is "wide enough," and don't want to change the lens (like my wife).