Pentax Lens Question

[WVDisGeek]

I am leaving for the World in 32 days and I would like to upgrade my "walk-around" lens from the 18-55 kit lens and my 18-250 zoom.

My internal debate is between the 16-45, the newer 17-70 and the weathersealed 16-50. The reviews I have read put the IQ for all three lens in a pretty narrow band. They all seem to have strong points and some drawbacks.

Any Pentaxians out there have any first hand experience with any or all of them that can help a confused guy out?

I appreciate the help!

 

[gokenin]

I had the 16-45 but sold it as the range didnt feel right for me I have the Sigma 17-70 as my walkaround lens. I think that the image it gives me on my K200 is as good as any zoom that I have had from Pentax. The Pentax is a constant F4 through the range so that may intrest you. I know Groucho has the 16-50 so am sure he will be along to comment on it. Just back from Disney and the majority of my shots were with the Sigma.

 

[Groucho]

I've heard a lot of good things about the 16-45mm but never seriously considered it since it's a little slow. Of course, it's about half the price of the 16-50mm!

If you're on a budget and don't mind losing an extra stop of speed, the 16-45 is probably decent enough. If your wallet can handle it, though, I would lean towards the 16-50: you get an extra stop of speed plus it's weathersealed, which on your weathersealed K200D will mean that you can shoot in the driving rain with no worries.

If you can give up weathersealing and want to save some bucks, the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 is supposed to be pretty nice, too - probably not quite as nice, but not bad at all. ...actually, that's going for a little more than I thought... but still a bit cheaper than the OEM lens.

 

[WVDisGeek]

I've heard a lot of good things about the 16-45mm but never seriously considered it since it's a little slow. Of course, it's about half the price of the 16-50mm!

If you're on a budget and don't mind losing an extra stop of speed, the 16-45 is probably decent enough. If your wallet can handle it, though, I would lean towards the 16-50: you get an extra stop of speed plus it's weathersealed, which on your weathersealed K200D will mean that you can shoot in the driving rain with no worries.

I had the 16-45 but sold it as the range didnt feel right for me I have the Sigma 17-70 as my walkaround lens. I think that the image it gives me on my K200 is as good as any zoom that I have had from Pentax. Just back from Disney and the majority of my shots were with the Sigma.

Not exactly on a budget, but I wasn't sure the 16-50 was worth double the price of the 16-45. The weathersealing would be nice, expecially for the occasional afternoon thunderstorm at Disney or on my occasional hikes in the mountains, but it isn't a deal breaker.

The Sigma wasn't even really on my radar, but if you say it is as good as any Pentax zoom (and you seem to have a lot!) I will look into that one as well.

I have the 18-250 and I love it for the main reason that you have pretty much any focal length covered, but especially on the long end, it is not the sharpest lens out there. I love the sharpness of my 50 f/1.4, but would like a little wider as a walk around.

I am walking to the local camera shop at lunch. They don't have a huge selection of Pentax stuff, but maybe inspiration will strike!

 

[Groucho]

Well, the 16-50 is a good chunk more $$$, but that extra stop of light is definitely a big difference! Of course, it comes with a price - it is a bit bigger and heavier and takes big 77mm filters!

One thing is that the 16-50mm will almost certainly retain almost 100% of its value (it may have even come up since I bought mine) - the 16-45mm will probably continue to do well but maybe not quite as well. Actually, if I was in the market for a 16-45mm, I'd probably keep an eye on used ones, too. Check the Marketplace section over at the Pentax forums site, there's a ton of lenses that go through there and you can sometimes find some very good deals.