Replacement for K5 kit lens

[scott_paris4]

<p>There are lots of replace-my-kit-lens questions, but I didn't find any regarding the current alternatives.<br>

I have a K5, and several prime lenses, but I'd like a "standard" zoom for walking around. I have the 18-55 3.5-5.6; It's surprisingly good at some focal lengths and apertures, but kind of awful at others.<br>

I think my choice (sticking with Pentax products) is between the 16-45mm f4.0 and the 17-70mm f4.0. The f2.8 lenses are way out of my price range and not necessary for my purposes.<br>

Never having handled either lens, the 16-45 seems a little short at the long end, and the 17-70 looks a little big, maybe, but whatever.<br>

Anyone have experience with either or both of these lenses? Is there another manufacturer's product in this range that I should consider?<br>

Thanks for any suggestions.</p>

[andrei46]

<p>Hi!<br>

I had the same problem two years ago or something. I tested both lenses, I bought 16-45 and I'm very satisfied. I prefer a wider lens. For 45 it's not frustrating to crop a little.<br>

Success in your choice!</p>

[dorus]

<blockquote>

<p><em>necessary for my purposes</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What would they be, then ?</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I have both.</p>

<ul>

<li>The size of the two lenses is actually very close, though the 16-45 is a little bit lighter. The 17-70 is maybe *slightly* chunkier-feeling in your hand (I think this is a combination of the extra weight and slightly wider diameter zoom grip) but the filter size is the same and length very close.</li>

<li>The 16-45 construction isn't much better than the kit lens while the 17-70 has a more solid feel in terms of damped zoom action and how sturdy the extending tubes are at longer focal lengths. Actually quite good, somewhat like the 55-300 in this regard.</li>

<li>Optically they're competitive in the overlapping range, the 17-70 is probably a little better in terms of C/A, maybe *slightly* worse in terms of distortion but actually pretty-well controlled.</li>

<li>The 16-45 has 8 aperture blades, the 17-70 7-rounded. Not a big deal but can change the look of starburst highlights.</li>

<li>Autofocus is probably the biggest differentiator. The 17-70 is SDM so it's quiet and quick. I've had some problems with hunting on this lens, particularly at the longer focal lengths and am considering having Pentax take a look at my copy. If I let my finger add just a little friction to the focus ring during focusing it tends to do a better job locking focus. I don't think I'm the only one to observe this but some people have reviewed the lens without mentioning this so the issue is probably not universal. The short focal throw with basically no focus ring damping makes manual focus a bit touchy and is probably in part to blame for the hunting issues. This is the only thing that has bugged me about this lens which makes me hesitant to give it anything less than a very enthusiastic recommendation. (For what it's worth, the manual focus ring for FA 24-90 isn't so different but doesn't seem to hunt as much)</li>

<li>The 16-45's focusing works a bit better but it's noisier of course. It has a somewhat longer focus through into the close-focus range, maybe *slightly* better damped, but it's no 'limited' prime here either.</li>

<li>The 16-45 has a somewhat odd design where it extends at wide angles instead of the reverse which is more typical. This isn't a huge deal by itself but it does mean that the lens is somewhat less compatible with the built-in flash.</li>

<li>Both offer pretty close focusing, generally closer focusing than non-macro primes or older pre-internal focus zooms.</li>

<li>Both are better than the vignetted kit lens wide angle and the slow long end of the kit zoom.</li>

<li>If I carry the 17-70/4 hanging down with my BlackRapid strap, the zoom will eventually creep to full extension though not immediately. No problem shooting downwards or upwards though--there's plenty of damping for this. I imagine that a little friction on the zoom ring from my pants leg combined with the heavy glass help it gradually wiggle its way to more extended position. Even though they seem a little clunky (some Tamron and Sigma lenses have them), I sort of wish that Pentax had some sort of travel lock for this lens. I hate to mention this as a drawback because I think a lot of zoom lenses with a little more weight and larger front elements will do the same thing. I don't think this is as bad as the zoom creep I've seen on other people's DA18-250 where it can actually creep from gravity alone when pointed up or down. I've haven't carried the 16-45 like this but expect it might do the same thing. It's zoom is less damped but it's also a little less front-heavy so who knows... </li>

</ul>

<p>Other choices:</p>

<ul>

<li>FA24-90/3.5-4.5. Smaller and better optically than either of these lenses with the drawback of a more film-friendly focal range. </li>

<li>Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 HSM, 17-70/2.8-4.5 (two versions)- pretty close optically to these two DA's but a little heavier and faster albeit with variable max aperture. Most of my lenses are Pentax brand, so Sigma's zoom and focus rings that turn in the opposite direction irritate me. I've also found the Sigma lens caps and hoods a little more fiddly.</li>

<li>Sigma 18-50/2.8-4.5, haven't seen much info on this lens but appears to be a little boost in spec above the normal 3.5-5.6 kit lens.</li>

<li>Tamron 17-50/2.8 - this is probably the way to get f/2.8 at a price/size/weight that's not too far beyond the f/4 choices we're discussing.</li>

<li>DA 18-135/3.5-5.6 Not only is it weather sealed, but you get the extra reach as a bonus. Tests (like photozone.de) have shown long-end performance to be a little wanting but if you evaluate it in the 18-70 range it's probably a little better than the kit lens, with better construction and weather-sealing.</li>

</ul>

<p>The 16-45 is perhaps a safer and less expensive choice, plus gives you that valueable extra 1mm at the wide end but if you're like me you are also interested in the also significant 45-70/4 range which makes it more of a general-purpose one-zoom, better suited for things like portraits.</p>

[stb]

<p>I got the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM. I find it to be brilliant.</p>

[scott_paris4]

 

<p>Wow!<br>

Thanks to everyone for your quick responses, especially Andrew for your short novel :-)<br>

I'm thinking I'll probably go with the 17-70, since it pretty much covers the whole range that I'm likely to use much. If, as you say, Andrew, it's not really gigantic, I think it suits me better.</p>

 

<p>Dorus: I thought I had described that, but I see I didn't. Sorry. It's for shooting while walking around outdoors, in daylight. Pictures of people and architectural details, mostly. So light weight is a plus, and high speed is unnecessary. <br>

Again, thanks everybody.</p>

[laur1]

<p>+1 on Tamron SP 17-50/2.8 - it should be available at an affordable price. Tough choice - to get the 2.8 or the extra 20mm at long end.</p>