I've been eying a DA 17-70 to complement my F 70-210. The Sigma is
intriguing, but it still says "Sigma" on it and nothing says Significant
Malfunctions like SigMa. (Yea, I know Sigma has improved a lot in the
past decade, but I'm old and have a long memory).
I did a little research on 18-135mm lenses a while ago for a friend, and
the only one that seemed to be worth owning by all accounts was the
Nikon. Remember the 18-135 is the same class, on APS-C digital, as the
28-200, on 35mm film, with pretty much the same image quality. The
Pentax/Tamron 28-200 wasn't great on film but was pretty good on APS-C
digital, (the center portion of the frame was pretty sharp at all
apertures), at least my copy was, until I beat the hell out of it enough
to case what looks like a decentering problem.
Personally I'd go for the Pentax 17-70.
On 7/23/2013 7:40 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
Hey all.
This last week at the plow demo got me thinking again about my short
zoom, the 16-45. Normally i take two cameras, the D2H with re 70-200
VR f2.8 and the D200 with the 18-70. I use the 18-70 for the closer
shots when the teams come at me. This year i took the K-5 and used the
16-45. It performed fine, but at 45 at the long end just does not get
what i want before i switch back to the longer zoom.
So
Im thinking something along the lines of the Pentax or Sigma 17-70 ish
lenses, and i think i saw on Henrys site an 18-135???
I know these have come up before just looking for opinions.
Also the 55-30 is still on my list, although the sales person at
Henreys showed me the Sigma version, a bit cheaper and now i'm humming
on that one.
Comments about the short zooms or the Sigma 55-300 appreciated,
Dave
--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive
failure, and those that will.
--
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.
