I cant comment on modern third party lenses, but back in the 80's-90's the Tamron SP and Tokina AT-X series made a few real doozies in lengths /ranges / speeds that Pentax didnt. I wouldnt dismiss third parties altogether....
JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wide zoom (and not zoom) lenses redux I have to agree with Dave, since the days of the MX and LX there hax been little reason to use Pentax bodies other than the glass, which has always been reason enough IMHO. There are a few classic lenses that I use such as the Vivitar 70-210 S1 (version 2 & 3), and a couple of others but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to buy modern 3rd party lenses. If I was going to be satisfied by them I'd switch to Nikon. David Savage wrote: > I see no point in using Pentax bodies if you are just going to buy 3rd > party lenses. > > I have both the DA 16-45mm & the DA* 16-50mm. I was never a big fan of > the 16-45 & when the 16-50 became available I got one. I've never > regretted the decision. > > My other advice is quit reading lens review sites. They fuck with your > head & find faults that 99% of the time you will never notice. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > 2008/11/16 Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Hi! >> >> So here is the list of some lenses that I thought about recently and >> the considerations that may prevent me from buying them. >> >> 1. SMCP DA* 16-50/2.8 - serious distortions at wide end, quality >> control issues still there 2. SMCP DA 17-70/4 SDM - some say it is a >> sibling of SMCP DA 10-17 fish eye wide end distortion-wise. Perfect >> otherwise. 3. SMCP DA 16-45/4 - slightly less distortions at wide >> end, basically ok, though the CAs could be a problem. >> 4. Tamron 17-50/2.8 - suffers from curvature of field, rather good otherwise >> 5. Sigma 18-50/2.8 - well, I just don't quite like Sigma, and certain people >> call Sigma really nasty names >> 6. SMCP DA 21/3.2 AL Limited - excellent lens, just not wide enough >> 7. Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 - covers full frame, but also suffers from curvature >> of field >> 8. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 - well, another Sigma >> 9. SMCP FA 20-35/4 - said to be excellent, but expensive and starting to >> become quite rare these days. >> >> No matter how strange this sounds, but it seems that there is no >> decidedly good lens in 16(17,18)-45(50, 70) range for modern Pentax >> DSLR. Each lens has some serious drawbacks. >> >> So here you have it - a short summary. Please don't kill the scribe. >> >> Boris >> >> P.S. I already have 21 ltd, it is listed here just for sake of >> completeness. >> >> P.P.S. I should watch for reviews of DA 17-70/4 and some sample shots >> as well. >> >> P.P.P.S. The price on (even brand new) DA 16-45/4 has gone down >> considerably now... >> >> 4P.1S. I have placed an order for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I may still >> buy one for lack of better alternative due to its speed and >> sharpness. Having excellent sample of Tamron 28-75/2.8 has its impact >> on my reasoning... >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. --Al Capone. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
