'Standard' zoom - Something better than the kit one

[marcosgt]

I've been thinking of replacing the 18-55mm zoom lens that came with my Pentax iST, now that I have a better model (still a Pentax - I THINK it's a K30 - I should check ).

Anyway, I've seen that Tamron and Sigma both make a 17-50mm lens, which seem good on paper and aren't too horribly expensive (I'm not a 'serious' photographer, so I don't want to spend a fortune).

Any thoughts on Tamron's and Sigma's 17-50mm zooms? Reviews seem to suggest you can't go too wrong with either, so I'd be interested in experiences rather than preferences for one brand over another.

M.

[tinoproductions]

As an alternative, have you considered a prime. At this price range most zooms will be pretty shoddy. For the same money you could get a VERY fast 50mm lens, and it would be so much sharper than the zooms.
Just an idea..


Sigma and Tamron make some fine lenses too...

[Oxygen2k10]

I went with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (vibration compensation) and I’m very pleased with it. It’s a nice handling lens for the money. A little soft wide open but still a big step up from the (Canon) kit lens. Oh and it can be purchased rather cheaply from www.procamerashop.co.uk (which where I got mine from, good price and good service. They are ‘grey imports’ mind so you don’t get the Tamron UK 5 year warranty but the store themselves offer a 1 year warranty and you do save a bundle). I haven’t had it long so haven’t built up too much of a portfolio but have a quick look at my flickr, everything after the rugby shots were taken with the Tamron:

www.flickr.com/amatravers

I know that PGDesigns on here also uses the Tamron albeit the none VC version. I’m not sure if you can get the VC model for Pentax but in a nut shell; the none VC is cheaper, lighter and a tad sharper whereas the VC model feels a tad more solid and has VC (obviously) which is very good for low light stuff (providing you’re the only one moving and not the thing you’re trying to photograph!).

I don’t have much experience with the Sigma but generally there aren’t much between them. You can mostly ignore the ‘brand snobs’ these days as the third party manufacturers have really upped their game over recent years.

As the chap mentioned above, for the same sort of money you could get a decent prime which would almost certainly have a larger aperture and improved image quality but you would lose flexibility. Don’t get me wrong I love primes but I personally prefer zooms. I like to play around with different focal lengths and angles etc so I find primes a little restrictive. You’ve got to think about what you want to photograph (i.e. you’re aren’t going to be doing too many landscapes with a 50mm prime as it will be too long), decide what features mean most to you and then weigh up your options.

Hope that helps somewhat.

[marcosgt]

Oxygen2k10 said:

I went with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (vibration compensation) and I’m very pleased with it...
Hope that helps somewhat.

Thanks.

The K30 has vibration compensation built into the camera (most Pentax SLRs do), so the cheaper lens will work fine - I didn't realise this option existed, so it's a plus for me.

I don't take enough photos to justify a 'prime' and like you I like the flexibility of a zoom lens, but I'm finding the existing lens (never praised for its performance) is really showing its limitations with the higher res.

Does anyone know of a good source in the US? I'm making a trip there next month (I think...) and would like to take advantage of the better prices if I can.

M.

[Simpo Two]

marcosgt said:

Does anyone know of a good source in the US? I'm making a trip there next month (I think...) and would like to take advantage of the better prices if I can.

I think THE place to buy in the US is www.bhphotovideo.com

[nickcowen]

I have the tamron 28-75 sp on my sony and it produces really sharp images so the 17-55 would probably be a good option I would just look at test images before buying or test it if you can. I say this because I have a tamron 70-300 cheapo and it is just mush most the time. The sp range looks mostly good though I'm going to be upgrading to the 70-300 sp soon.

[marcosgt]

Interestingly, the UK prices (with a 5 year warranty) are barely any more than the US ones...

Thanks for the responses.

M.

[Mr Will]

marcosgt said:

...I don't take enough photos to justify a 'prime'...

I'm not disagreeing with wanting the flexibility of a zoom, but I'm wondering why you think you need to take lots of photos to "justify" a prime.

Smaller, lighter, faster, sharper and cheaper - surely that's enough justification in itself?

[marcosgt]

Mr Will said:

marcosgt said:

...I don't take enough photos to justify a 'prime'...

I'm not disagreeing with wanting the flexibility of a zoom, but I'm wondering why you think you need to take lots of photos to "justify" a prime.

Smaller, lighter, faster, sharper and cheaper - surely that's enough justification in itself?

You'll need a wide angle prime, a 'standard' prime and a short telephoto prime - No matter what brand you buy that's going to cost more than a 'decent' (if not stunning) zoom.

It's, for me, a cost justification. I don't suggest it will be the same for anyone else.

M

[Mr Will]

marcosgt said:

Mr Will said:

marcosgt said:

...I don't take enough photos to justify a 'prime'...

I'm not disagreeing with wanting the flexibility of a zoom, but I'm wondering why you think you need to take lots of photos to "justify" a prime.

Smaller, lighter, faster, sharper and cheaper - surely that's enough justification in itself?

You'll need a wide angle prime, a 'standard' prime and a short telephoto prime - No matter what brand you buy that's going to cost more than a 'decent' (if not stunning) zoom.

It's, for me, a cost justification. I don't suggest it will be the same for anyone else.

M

I disagree that you need three. IME a single prime within the "Normal" range can do the job 90% of the time if you don't mind moving forwards and backwards a bit. Keep your kit lens for the rare occasions that you are not able to move far enough.

[marcosgt]

Mr Will said:

I disagree that you need three. IME a single prime within the "Normal" range can do the job 90% of the time if you don't mind moving forwards and backwards a bit. Keep your kit lens for the rare occasions that you are not able to move far enough.

Fair enough, but I'm not convinced

I can think of numerous occasions where moving back or forward with the 'wrong' length lens wouldn't have been an option.

M.

[Mr Will]

marcosgt said:

Mr Will said:

I disagree that you need three. IME a single prime within the "Normal" range can do the job 90% of the time if you don't mind moving forwards and backwards a bit. Keep your kit lens for the rare occasions that you are not able to move far enough.

Fair enough, but I'm not convinced

I can think of numerous occasions where moving back or forward with the 'wrong' length lens wouldn't have been an option.

M.

No worries. Always interesting to see the other side of things!

[nick heppinstall]

I also have the Tamron with my Pentax K5. It's a nice lens and the 2.8 appature comes in handy when shooting in poor light.

However don't discount your 18-55 kit lens ! I think you will find if you do a little research that it is a very well thought of Lens.

If I hadn't really needed the 2.8 of the Tamron then I would certainly have not replaced it.....

Edit to say : This is if your kit lens is either the DA or DAL 18-55

[marcosgt]

nick heppinstall said:

I also have the Tamron with my Pentax K5. It's a nice lens and the 2.8 appature comes in handy when shooting in poor light.

However don't discount your 18-55 kit lens ! I think you will find if you do a little research that it is a very well thought of Lens.

If I hadn't really needed the 2.8 of the Tamron then I would certainly have not replaced it.....

Edit to say : This is if your kit lens is either the DA or DAL 18-55

Mmmm - Interesting. You seem to be correct now I've done some research (as you suggested).

Maybe I'll be wasting my money and a good prime might be a better bet after all! I just assumed all 'kit' zooms were rubbish as people condemn the Canon and Nikon ones so comprehensively.

Thanks for the input everyone.

M.

[Otispunkmeyer]

I had the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 without VC. Was probably one of the sharpest lenses I owned. Recommended.

Having since used a Carl Zeiss 24-70 F2.8 I have now spoilt my life. You could cut your self on some of the images that thing can produce.