[spinacz_nyc]

hi, im reading around for 2 weeks trying to decide which lens to go for, and simply i have no idea <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



so, i have k-x with DAL 18-55mm ( yeah the cheap one) DAL 55-300mm ( another cheap one) and FA50mm f1.4



im looking for something to replace that DAL 18-55mm and options are killing me, especially anywhere ive asked im getting different responses and within any reviews i have good and bad ones.



i like shooting pics with low light and i dont enjoy photos with flash.



so ive options ( within 500 dollars range)



pentax DA* 16-50mm f2.8 ( 900 bucks but if its much better than the rest ill go for it, butif it is, cause 400 tamron sounds 1/2 price)

pentax 16-45mm f4 ( but seems litle short)

pentax 17-70mm f4 ( range is great, great reviews, just not sure if f4 is sufficient)

pentax 18-135mm ( just ok, i think its not as good as 17-70 but i may be wrong plz tell me)





sigma 17-50mm f2.8 ( much cheaper than pentax but is it good as pentax ? for a $ difference ?)

sigma 18-125mm ( same as pentax but nice price tag, dunno about this one)



tamron 17-50 f2.8 ( same as sigma, good price but i want the good one not the cheapest option)



i think thats the all available option in this price range for a walk around lenses, i want a good, not the cheapest ( that i can do myself to find cheap one)i want one which is worth buying ( dunno if it sounds sane) in addition im looking to go for K-5 in near future so opinions between those lenses, which one, and why not the other ?



tnx

[arvydas]

There is no one answer for your question. Every lens you listed is good and with some limitations (including Sigma 17 - 70mm). BTW there is no such 15 - 50mm lens on Pentax land. Tamron and Pentax 16-45 are considered as having good performance/price ratio. Kit lens has the best performance/price ratio <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. For low light fast prime/tripod/external flash might be more useful than even f2.8 zoom (at least you need zoom <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />).



A.

[spinacz_nyc]

ok fixed that 15-50



so how to choose ? trust me 2 weeks reading and reading, and if i could get every single of them and thy myself ( and in few situations ) i would know, but ive no option like this, would be helpful if someone could say spending 900$ on pentax f2.8 is pointless cause of 1/2 price sigma is so close in performance, or that pentax 17-70 f4 is quicker in low light than this after market f2.8s, if you had any of two would really, other way ill just pick one, like i did worth FA50mm which im unhappy with cause 50mm is useless, i should buy something 24mm wide or less and 85mm macro to to cover most needs ( i know the differ but i dont do no spec pics, regular as most of photographers) so anyone else ?



based on all ive read, im thinking either tamron 17-50f2.8 or pentax 17-70 f4 at least any help comparing those especially in low light situations and picture quality.

[arvydas]

Someone that spends 900USD for Pentax lens knows why he spent these money. Some people spend 2000USD for Nikkor prime and gets optical performance similar to 540USD Samyang lens (just kidding, sorry ).

IMHO the main question you should answer yourself - what is wrong with your kit lens and where it limits you. How fast lens you need? Try kit at 18mm f3.5 or f4 at the low light you shoot and you will see, would any f4 zoom fit to you or not. f2.8 is not far from 3.5 - push ISO one stop and you will know speed. f2.8 zoom will be sharper at f4 than f4 zoom wide open. And f2.8 yet doesn't mean that you will stop action under low light. Sometimes cheapest external flash could improve your photo better than expensive fast lens. But you have to know that, and only you can respond.

My advice - if you do not know what you need - do not buy. Stop reading reviews (seems they drive you crazy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />), relax and go shooting. If you want to read - get a book about photography, or find info online (on this site, or at luminous-lanscape.com or cambridgeincolour.com). The answer will come by itself one day, and you will have money to buy what you need <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



A.

[spinacz_nyc]

im back from a store i went wiith my k-x and i tried pentax 17-70mm f4 and tamron 17-50mm f2.8 i think i like tamrons better, i think focus was more accurate and more colorfull pictures ive got, on other hand pentax gave me few so shapr pictures im amazed, but it was small % from all taken. still confused <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> but im more towards tamron



edit, waaa just read another tamron vs sigma f2.8 now i think sigma would be lil better, oh no call ambulance !

[spinacz_nyc]

me again, down to 2 choices, sigma 17-50 and tamron 17-50, 200 bucks difference, any1 had both ?