Good 28-150mm 'ish lens

[toddr]

<p>I've got the 16-50mm DA* lens and love the quality. But I'm often near the 50mm end and switch to the 55-300 too often. Is there a good quality zoom lens somewhere in the 24/28 - 105/150/200 mm range? Need quick focus and good quality...walking-around street shooting mostly. Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

[personalphotos]

<p>There's no real modern version available in the line other than possibly considering it's mate the DA*50-135mm. You could also look at the excellent Tamron 28-75mm.</p>

<p>For older lenses if you can find one are the <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-28-105mm-F4-5.6-Power-Zoom-Lens.html">Pentax FA 28-105mm</a> or <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-28-105mm-F4-5.6-IF-Version-Zoom-Lens.html">this version </a>or <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-28-105mm-F3.2-4.5-Zoom-Lens.html">this third version</a><br>

Finally the <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-24-90mm-F3.5-4.5-Zoom-Lens.html">well regarded 24-90mm</a><br>

All of these are periodically available on the used market. My personal vote would be the Tamron if that fits your needs enough.</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

The choices Peter mentions are pretty good though unless getting to 105mm or lower purchase price is a priority, I would

stick with the Tamron 28-75/2.8 or Pentax FA 24-90/3.5-4.5. I own the 24-90, the latest of the 28-105, and the Tamron

version of the middle IF version and the 24-90 is definitely a better lens with sharper borders. The latest 28-105, usually

only found in silver, has a better-feeling (somewhat damped) focus ring and is slightly faster, is f/4 to 70mm while the 24-

90 is f/4.5 from 50mm.

 

It is also my understanding that Tokina made some good 28-70/2.8 zooms but these are less common on the used

market. There have been lenses reaching 28-135 or 28-200 but I have a difficult time imagining that any of them are

nearly as good as the lenses we've been naming here.

[wayne_campbell]

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/pentax/367-pentax-smc-da-18-250mm-f35-63">http://www.photozone.de/pentax/367-pentax-smc-da-18-250mm-f35-63</a></p>

[stemked]

<p>I'd second the Pentax 24-90 f4.5</p>

[toddr]

<p>thanks for the info. the more I think about the focal lengths I use, I think it might make sense to sell my 16-50 and get the 50-135. I do like the longer reach, rarely use much wider, and I find I miss quite a few shots because of the slow focus on the 55-300. I could carry a wide prime for the few times I need it.</p>

<p>I've been considering swapping out my k20d etc to trade to the Canon 24-105L but reviews seem mixed on how good the optical quality is.</p>

<p>are there any lenses in this range with ultrasonic or usm focusing besides the 50-135? thanks for any info.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Todd, This is about the only one I can think of: <a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-apo-hsm-ii-sigma">Sigma 50-150mm</a> I have no personal experience with the lens, but it seems well regarded by a few owners and gets a <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/322-sigma-af-50-150mm-f28-ex-hsm-dc-nikon-mount-review--test-report?start=2">good review here</a>.<br>

With HSM-SDM there's nothing else available. With either lens, you'd be hard pressed to find better I think.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I would not assume that just because a lens like the 50-135 has SDM it is faster-focusing. Some of the screw-driven AF lenses are pretty fast too. The 24-90 for example has a relatively short focus path and focuses fast enough. Of course in 'available darkness' shooting it may suffer somewhat compared to a faster lens--it's 1 1/3 stops slower than a DA* 50-135/2.8 in the overlapping range.</p>

<p>Also you don't mention which bodies you're using/comparing--for Pentax, K-7 is best, K10D/K20D in the middle, and the AA-using bodies bring up the rear. K-x may be somewhat better than the other AA bodies. AA bodies will generally do better AF-wise with AA lithiums rather than rechargeables. </p>

<p>As for Canon, I think you'll find that the 24-105/4L is a good lens but tests better on crop bodies like 50D than on FF bodies like 5D. Even the best zooms usually improve significantly one stop down. For what it's worth, this lens is quite a bit larger than a Pentax 24-90/3.5-4.5 but with a noticeably better build quality. The 24-90 isn't as bad as some say but nobody would mistake it for DA* or Canon 'L'.</p>

<p>Currently I'm wrestling with deciding between my FA24-90 and the DA17-70/4 SDM on a given day. I think the 24-90 is probably a little better optically (at least at the longer end), and it's a bit smaller but I like the quiet SDM focusing, the better build, and the availability of quick-shift manual focus touch-up on the DA 17-70/4.</p>

<p>The updated Sigma 18-125/3.5-5.6 has HSM though I don't expect its as good a choice optically-speaking as the other lenses mentioned here as its slower in the telephoto range.</p>

[thebs]

<p>I wouldn't sell the DA* 16-50 f/2.8, much less if it's an excellent copy. Keep it.<br /> I second looking at some of the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 and f/4-5.6 copies out there. I started with one myself. I ended up moving to the 16-45/16-50 range, because I don't go past 50mm (until I'm doing 180-250mm). But for yourself, the 28-105 range (43-158mm equiv 35mm) would probably do nicely. There are plenty of used copied out there that still work very well.<br /> If one doesn't need more than 70mm (105mm equiv 35mm), then the DA 17-70 f/4 is a good lens and KAF3 (pure SDM-only, no screw support). With the appreciation in the price of the non-SDM DA 16-45 f/4, I've started recommending the DA 17-70 f/4 instead. Others may disagree, and God knows I used to tout how 16mm is significant over 17mm (let alone 18mm), but I haven't lost a SDM yet.<br /> Andrew is correct, the Sigma DC 18-125 f/3.5-5.6 is a dedicated APS-C sized lens, and it is <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549243-REG/Sigma_853109_18_125mm_f_3_8_5_6_DC_OS.html">only $339 at B&H Photo</a>. But it's 7x zoom and the optical performance suffers. It still seems to be better than the DA 18-250, but not that much better. It will still be a disappointment coming from the DA* 16-50 f/2.8.<br /> Lastly, I do <strong>not </strong>recommend the DA 18-250 f/3.5-6.3, it is total disappointment coming from other lenses. I own one. I never use it. I<strong> only</strong> keep it around because I <strong>might</strong> use it some day (and got a killer price on an open box).</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>It sounds to me like your original expressed need is for a wide angle-to-tele lens, all in one, to prevent having to change lenses so often. There are a number of such lenses available, but the problem is that to achieve the f/2.8 wider aperture and upper range of quality you enjoy with your DA* 16-50mm, nothing of that nature exists in a range from 28-135mm. Extending the range from wide to long generally compromises quality and aperture range somewhat. Tamron did make a 24-135mm lens that was pretty well regarded, maybe still does. But its variable aperture of around f/3.5-5.6 is more like that of your DA 55-300mm.</p>

<p>Maybe you might compare notes with Javier, a very good street shooter who is a regular here. He prefers wide angle lenses. He also sometimes likes to use the Tamron 18-250mm. That lens of his has produced some surprisingly good results posted here, especially through the first half of its range. But it will not be in the same league as your DA* 16-50mm. Are you there, Javier?</p>

<p>In terms of speed, there is nothing magical about SDM lenses. I have some of my screw drive lenses that are very fast, at least as fast as my two SDMs. Your 55-300mm has slightly slow focus because it is more optimized for manual focus touchup and fine tuning, which can be quite delicate when dealing with the high magnification of longer telephoto, therefore it has a lot of rotation turn for its focus. I have one of those also, and use it when I need extra tele in a compact lens with very good quality. Your two lens setup is truly of very good optical quality. Sounds like adding just one more appropriate lens would address your specific walk around need.</p>

<p>Other than say the Tamron 18-250mm, again to to climb the quality ladder more, going to a shorter range would be necessary. Perhaps you'd be happy using the very fine Pentax DA 17-70mm f/4 constant aperture, just losing one stop of aperture compared to your DA* 16-50mm but gaining enough focal length to reduce the need for lens changing. If the 70mm length would do the trick for your need, the very good Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 is also worth a thought.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>BTW, regarding your comments, the DA* 50-135mm is indeed a very fine lens. Not all that big and heavy either, for its quality. About 1.5 lb. I use that when I don't need the extra tele. I agree with Bryan's statement that if you have a good copy DA* 16-50mm, it is too good to get rid of.</p>

<p>You might also consider getting a small, light K-x body and taking it along in a holster wth your shorter lens on it and carrying your larger DSLR body around your shoulders with your longer lens!</p>

<p>I often use a two-camera body system for faster operation with less lens changing. </p>

[thebs]

<p>I'm going to second Michael here. I just bought a K-x myself as a 2nd body to my K20D (selling my K100D earlier). BuyDig has the K-x w/18-55 for $499. That's cheaper than a DA* lens.<br /> When I'm shooting wide:</p>

<ul>

<li>General wide: K20D + DA* 16-50 f/2.8 (weather sealed)</li>

<li>Extreme angle: K-x + DA 10-17 f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye</li>

</ul>

<p>When I'm shooting tele:</p>

<ul>

<li>Sweetspot tele: K20D + DA* 200 f/2.8 (weather sealed)</li>

<li>General tele: K-x + DA 55-300 f/4-5.8</li>

</ul>

<p>If I want the ultimate range (here's what you could do as well, right now, by just adding the K-x body):</p>

<ul>

<li>General wide: K20D + DA* 16-50 f/2.8 (weather sealed)</li>

<li>General tele: K-x + DA 55-300 f/4-5.8</li>

</ul>

<p>I also have the D-FA 100 f/2.8 Macro WR (in my slingbag), DA 16-45 f/4 (default K-x lens in its holster) and DA 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 (typically in a bag I don't carry).</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Thanks for the kind words Michael 8-)<br>

It would help to see examples of the type of street shooting you do Todd.<br>

I spend 90% of my time street shooting and I use a 24mm prime 80% of the time. The other 10% is divided between my Tamron 17-35, Sigma 10-20 or for event street shooting I use my Tamron 18-250mm lens, though I have since switched to the DA*50-135, but find it to long for most things.</p>

<p>What is it that you shoot?<br>

Here is one of the last images I made with the 18-250. This is at 250mm @ F/8 with the K20D<br>

<a href="http://s404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Strangers%203/?action=view&current=streetvision31-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Strangers%203/streetvision31-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a></p>

[toddr]

<p>thanks for all the great info...lots to digest...</p>

<p>Javier, I'm mostly shooting things more than people at 40-300mm focal lengths...check my portfolio here or my<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/avibodha/"> Flickr acct</a>. My biggest complaints with the K20D & 55-300 is the slow focus. Also minimum focus distance is a problem sometimes. When I carry the 16-50, I'm always at 50...just don't like to be in too close to bother people.</p>

<p>I'm thinking the short zooms are going to be too short for me. I'm thinking at least 105mm. I never considered a second body....</p>

<p>Javier, love your shot there, how do you manage focusing speed when catching moments like this at the long end of your zoom?</p>

<p>My other walkaround camera is a Lumix FZ35, which isn't a speedy focuser either but is very unobtrusive.</p>

 

[thebs]

<p>Todd --<br>

Okay, maybe you do want a superzoom, other than going with a two-body system.<br>

I guess the Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 is an option for you then, or a full frame 28-300 lens. The 18-50 was also licensed and sold by Pentax as the DA 18-250 f/3.5-6.3. I just can't stand the image quality, although it's not bad for an ultrazoom. BTW, I also have a Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 that I don't use. I bought it long ago for around $100 used. It's still in the box (if I can find it). Like most superzooms, the IQ is crap compared to shorter lenses, but it does have reach.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Todd,<br>

It seems like you have a good handle on your shooting needs. I'd describe your shooting more of "found objects" rather than street. The latter tends to refer to people shots which a lot of folks prefer to use wider angles to capture the whole scene sharply and quickly.</p>

<p>I think the DA* 50-135mm would work exceptionally well for you. And selling your other lens sounds like a good idea if you don't use it. You can always get another one, though I'd think a DA 21mm Ltd would be a handy lens for your pocket. I've dona a lot of found object shooting, and I would think that the DA 55-300mm is just too long. The exception is if you are carrying a tripod around with you.</p>

<p>I find the DA* 50-135mm to be a fast focusing and accurately focusing lens. If you haven't already, consider shifting the AF function solely to the AF button. The improvement in accuracy and shooting speed is palpable. I would recommend that you also pickup the Ultrapod II mini-tripod that will help steady the lens. I find it on the heavy side over several hours, but I often have a bracket and flash etc. attached to the camera.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[thebs]

<p>I'm going to throw this out there ...<br>

<strong>Have you considered a Prosumer, Superzoom Point'n Shoot (PnS) camera? </strong>Many are 31-39mm equivalent 35mm wide angle (20-26mm in APS-C), and extend out to 450mm equivalent 35mm tele or longer (300mm or longer in APS-C) at over 10x zoom range. Because when you start hitting superzoom lenses, you're already starting to hurt IQ anyway.<br>

Consider the positives: </p>

<ul>

<li>Much lighter than carrying a second body</li>

<li>Possibly still lighter (and definitely less bulky) to carry one dSLR with a wide angle plus a superzoom PnS than just one dSLR with a superzoom lens</li>

<li>The lens is image stabilized, with an improvement over in-body shake reduction</li>

<li>The superzoom PnS aperture is still often faster than a superzoom lens, lessening the negative of a smaller sensor (which drops max ISO without noise)</li>

<li>Cheaper than a second body, and never more expensive than a decent superzoom lens</li>

</ul>

<p>I don't carry a superzoom lens, even though I own the Pentax DA 18-250 f/3.5-6.3, because I don't like the IQ. If I'm going to have a dSLR, I'm going to have it for the IQ, the sensor size and ISO, in addition to aperture. I'm typically shooting either wide or tele, but not much between both. And when I do, I can use a two body solution, maximizing my IQ with smaller zooms (let alone primes).<br>

Because if I needed such reach, I'd carry a superzoom PnS. There are some great ones. Some even reach as low as f/2.8 at the wide angle, and don't cross f/5 at the tele. That means they are solid in all but lower light, so you don't have to bump them up beyond ISO 200 or 400 (where the small sensor sucks). Many have 1/2.5" or 1/2.33" sensors, but a few out there do offer 1/1.8" with a tad less reach and/or bigger bodies (a 1/1.8" sensor is 2x the area of 1/2.5").<br>

Just an idea, especially an older superzoom PnS of only 8-10MP that has probably dropped in price. You could continue to shoot with the DA* 16-50 f/2.8 on your dSLR, but also put the superzoom PnS around your neck without much issue. Just an idea.</p>

 

[jgredline]

<p>Todd, I agree with Michael E. For your type of shooting I would suggest the DA*50-135F/2.8 lens.<br>

While the super zooms are quite convenient, they are on the slow to focus side. You will probably want to avoid Macro lenses as those usually have longer throws making them slower to lock focus.</p>

[thebs]

<p>Here is a review of several models from about 15 months ago: </p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q109superzoomgroup/ </li>

</ul>

<p>They are now 27-31mm equiv 35mm (18-20mm APS-C) at the wide end to 414-560mm equiv 35mm (276-373mm APS-C) at the tele, From that starting article, one can look up newer and older model numbers of the same series, and prices, and possibly individual reviews.<br>

Guess I'm not finding any 1/1.8" sensors these days though. But the apertures are f/2.8-4.5 in many cases, possibly as low as f/4 or even f/3.5 at the equivalent 200mm in a APS-C. One Panasonic FZ even did f/3.7 at 420mm equivalent 35mm (280mm APS-C).</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Your shots present s very high quality. Nice work! A fair number of your shots are closeups. Also a fair number are in low lighting. If it were me, though I have the DA* 50-135mm, I would not recommend this fine lens for what you do. It is good in low lighting, but does not offer impressive close focus capabilites. It is great for portrait use if not shooting too close, great for mid-tele use. Your DA 55-300mm is of its best quality between the 55-200mm range and is there but about one stop aperture off from the DA* 50-135mm. I am not sure about its close focus quality.</p>

<p>There seems to be not a great amount of wide angle shots in your collection, but there are some. And planning for future interests is to be considered, since you already have the fine DA* 16-50mm, which has a considerable wide angle. It seems you do like scenery as an aspect of your shooting, so you are just one step away from wide angle shooting. But if you get into WA with archetechtural aspects, you will want to use such a lens not at its widest, due to distortion. The DA 12-2mmm, for instance, is excellent for low distortion from about 15mm upward, as is the DA 15mm f/4 Limited.</p>

<p>Except for a few shots such as the cat or something blowing in the wind, most of your shots are stationary, where fast focus would seem to be of lesser concern. I sometimes shoot sports and other action where it is of great concern, upon wich I employ my faster-focussing lenses. Otherwise, it iis generally not an issue.</p>

<p>The more I reflect on your shots, the more I believe you'd be happy with a short-to-mid length quality zoom with more reach than 50mm, and with some good close focus properties, combined with another very good mid-to-tele lens, or your already good DA 55-300mm preferably already mounted on a second body! I have a Sigma EX DG 24-60mm f/2.8 which has become one of my favorite and most used lenses. Got it for cheap on a closeout sale. Very high quality and fast focus.</p>

<p>The afore mentioned Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 has very good closeup properties for a zoom lens. The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is pretty good in that department as well, is a high-quality fast pro style zoom with good low-light f/2.8 aperture and sounds like a winner for you. I'd say get one of these two lenses, as they are of modest price, and see how it goes before selling the DA* 16-50mm. If you do finally sell it, who knows, you may wind up with a tiny DA 21mm in your pocket or on a small camera body to take care of any wide needs!!</p>

<p>The DA* 50-135mm is excellent as a short to mid tele lens, but not so much for closer work.</p>

<p>Good for this-</p><div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>But would not be able to capture this-</p><div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>And the 77mm Limited is not anywhere near a macro lens, but it can focus fairly close, and its close focus quality is excellent.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Michael,<br>

You are on to something there with that 77 LTD.</p>

[toddr]

<p>thanks again, great insights. funny, I was thinking I was doing street because I'm walking in the streets :) but you're right, I haven't been getting the people shots associated with street shooting.</p>

<p>Bryan, you're right on target. I shoot with the Panasonic Lumix FZ35 a lot because of the zoom range, small size and great image quality. Shooting RAW, there's not usually a heck of a lot of difference from the K20D. But lower dynamic range and of course low light is out. I'm actually happy with the quality - but not with the speed of the zoom (no manual twist control, just in/out toggle) and the speed of the focus (useless manual focus).</p>

<p>Michael, you nailed one of my issues with the close focus problem. That's also been a real problem with the 55-300 and I guess the 50-135 won't solve that. I'll check out the ones you mention and maybe carrying around a prime for those shots would be best...</p>

<p>I wonder too if my lack of getting the moving shots is simply practice...before all the fast zooms somehow Cartier Bresson was able to do it. :) Does anyone manually focus the 55-300 to get close then auto-focus? I'm going to play with that and manual focus too.</p>

<p>thanks for all the helpful info!</p>

[DWScott]

<p>You've already got lots of good advice. I read with interest, because I generally like two different focal lengths on my K20D -- around 28mm and around 90mm.<br>

Because of that, I gravitated towards the Sigma 24-135, which literally covers most of my needs. High points of this lens: the image quality is outstanding, and it is a bit faster than most superzooms (2.8 to 4.5, variable). The penalty is two fold -- it's a big heavy lens, and not the quickest focusing.<br>

Bonus for me is that it's a full frame lens, for use on a film body.</p>

<div></div>