[Greenneck]

So being relativly new I am still working my k50 with the two kit lenses it comes with. I also picked up a 10-17 f3.5-4.5 ed fisheye lens on craigslist this week.

Right now I really only use my 18-55 lens because I like shooting many of my shots in the 20-40mm range as well as its the lens i bought the expensive polarizer for. There are not a lot of intances I feel I need a telephoto lens and the few times I use my 55-200 I am normally disappointed by the quality.


Anyways I am at a point I want to start buying more filters like ND filters, but when they average 50+ I dont want to make the mistake of spending large sums on a filter size for my kit lens then decide I want to buy nicer lenses. How would everyone recommend I proceed? Should I just wait untill I spring for a higher quality general purpose lens such as the 18-135 wr because that lens would fit most of my needs I think. The whole buy a filter in a large size and adapt it all the way down to the 52mm on my 18-55 lens seems like it would get old fast and my 50-200 lens is even smaller at 49

Here is a link to my flickr anyone with advice about what to do in the way of filters and lenses would be appreciated. Im not sure if my shots are good enough to even warrant 300+ lenes. I mean the 18-55 lens has an average rating of 7.6. Im sorry if this post is starting to go all over the place.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127287074@N05/

[Madaboutpix]

No need to be so shy about your photographs, I think. Photography is a journey, and no one starts out as an Ansel Adams. And if you are genuinely beginning to feel the limitations of your kit lenses, why not think of more serious glass? How are you otherwise supposed to develop? And yes, being a little picky about filter quality makes perfect sense if you don't want to compromise the IQ of your lenses, whatever they are.

You might want to look into the DA Limiteds, of which the DA21 and the DA40 or DA35 Macro would be within your preferred FL range, all of which (as far as I remember) have filter size 49. The same holds for the DA15, the DA70, and the de-facto Limited quality DFA100 Macro WR. Just to show you some possibilities - I'm not suggesting getting them all at once. That would help you to keep filter costs manageable for the time being. Later, assuming you got more interested in telephoto, you would likely need much larger filters, but could then decide on supplementing your filter kit as need arises.

This is not meant as a patent remedy; it's just the road I have taken.

[officiousbystander]

There's some really nice shots here. They're definitely good enough to justify investment in more equipment. Maybe you could pick up a quality prime. Considering you look to favour wide angle a 21mm Ltd might hit the spot. Check out the reviews on this site. It'll make the K50 tiny. Go lenses before filters. And if you become a Ltd addict 49mm covers a few in the range.

[max_pyne]

Go lenses before filters. And if you become a Ltd addict 49mm covers a few in the range.

Yes i bought some expensive filters for my kit lens and I'm not using it anymore, after i bought all the ldt and a lot of other lenses...:-)
If you are going to upgrade to the 18-135 anyway you will not be using the 18-55 anymore so no need for a filter. But it seems you are mastering the kit lens and it is capable of producing outstanding images with the right technique and a capable photographer behind the lens/camera...
in the end it depends on your needs if you have to bridge the time until you can invest into the new lens and if you need the POL/UV/ND go and get them.
B&W is producing high quality filters - they are more expensive - but the effect on IQ is from my experience the lowest (means best image quality)

[Greenneck]

There's some really nice shots here. They're definitely good enough to justify investment in more equipment. Maybe you could pick up a quality prime. Considering you look to favour wide angle a 21mm Ltd might hit the spot. Check out the reviews on this site. It'll make the K50 tiny. Go lenses before filters. And if you become a Ltd addict 49mm covers a few in the range.

I greatly appreciate that compliment.
After spending a few hours here bouncing around looking at lens options Im heavily considering buying the 18-135 and the 55-300 lenses.
I had the chance to pick up a SMC Pentax DA 21 mm F3.2 AL for 300 used from the guy who sold me the fisheye lens

[Des]

I agree with the others - don't sweat on the filters too much. Most of the time you can get by without them.

As a rule of thumb, use a CP-L if the conditions are glary enough to require sunglasses, or if you want to see through a reflective surface like water. ND filters are more specialised - e.g. for waterfall shots. (You've already got good waterfall shots without one.) I've got CP-Ls in 3 sizes (49, 62 and 77mm) and that is more than enough. I have a 49mm ND but haven't used it yet. Kenko ones are rebadged Hoyas and good value.

Here's a list of filter sizes for Pentax lenses: http://www.robertstech.com/filters.htm You will see that a lot of compact lenses (many of the primes) use 49mm filters.

If you go with the 18-135 and 55-300 combination (a good choice BTW) you could get a 62mm filter (for the 18-135) and just use an adapter if you want to put it on the 55-300 occasionally.

As for lenses, @Normhead, one of the silverbacks around here, argues that the 18-135 is prime quality at around 20-28mm. It's only f3.5 at the wide end, but so is the DA 21; much of the time you need greater DOF rather than speed at the wide end anyway. Not to say that the DA 21 Ltd wouldn't be better, just that you could save the $300 and spend it elsewhere. DA 35 f2.4 or one of the many nifty 50s are popular and very affordable as starter primes, but ask yourself first whether they would be your preferred focal lengths.

I know you said you shoot most in the 20-40mm range, but looking at your Flickr shots gives me the feeling that a prime in the 70 - 100mm region (plenty of choices here) might suit you better. It is a range that is not only good for portraits, but also close ups and any shot where you want to pick out a subject. Personally I just love my FA 77 because it can make any subject special. The 100 Macro is great for that too. I think you have a good eye for a shot and you could do a lot with a good prime in this area. The wide and tele ends would be well covered with your zooms (at least until you really get bitten by the lens buying bug).

[TER-OR]

Find a nice A50 f1.7 if you're not following a lot of action - that gives you great quality at short tele range. The various "nifty fifties" are very fun to play with and really give good results. The DA 35 is probably more versatile, but there's no reason to avoid the 50mm vintage glass (just get a rubber hood for it).

I have a 21mm ltd, it's a great lens, with plenty of contrast and resolution. It might not be my first lens to buy, though. I found mine very inexpensively (underpriced, but he knew what he was doing) and couldn't resist buying it.

[Greenneck]

I agree with the others - don't sweat on the filters too much. Most of the time you can get by without them.

As a rule of thumb, use a CP-L if the conditions are glary enough to require sunglasses, or if you want to see through a reflective surface like water. ND filters are more specialised - e.g. for waterfall shots. (You've already got good waterfall shots without one.) I've got CP-Ls in 3 sizes (49, 62 and 77mm) and that is more than enough. I have a 49mm ND but haven't used it yet. Kenko ones are rebadged Hoyas and good value.

Here's a list of filter sizes for Pentax lenses: http://www.robertstech.com/filters.htm You will see that a lot of compact lenses (many of the primes) use 49mm filters.

If you go with the 18-135 and 55-300 combination (a good choice BTW) you could get a 62mm filter (for the 18-135) and just use an adapter if you want to put it on the 55-300 occasionally.

As for lenses, @Normhead, one of the silverbacks around here, argues that the 18-135 is prime quality at around 20-28mm. It's only f3.5 at the wide end, but so is the DA 21; much of the time you need greater DOF rather than speed at the wide end anyway. Not to say that the DA 21 Ltd wouldn't be better, just that you could save the $300 and spend it elsewhere. DA 35 f2.4 or one of the many nifty 50s are popular and very affordable as starter primes, but ask yourself first whether they would be your preferred focal lengths.

I know you said you shoot most in the 20-40mm range, but looking at your Flickr shots gives me the feeling that a prime in the 70 - 100mm region (plenty of choices here) might suit you better. It is a range that is not only good for portraits, but also close ups and any shot where you want to pick out a subject. Personally I just love my FA 77 because it can make any subject special. The 100 Macro is great for that too. I think you have a good eye for a shot and you could do a lot with a good prime in this area. The wide and tele ends would be well covered with your zooms (at least until you really get bitten by the lens buying bug).

Haha great I had achance to pick up a da 70 2.4 something from the fish eye lens now i regret not buying all three of his lens set ups.

Really I wanted the ND filter because theres been a few times wether with the waterfalls, waterfronts or fountains i love to shoot where the highs are way too burned out to get the detail on the low end I would like to capture no mater how I work the raw file afterwards.

Im a little confused why youre recomending a 70-100 prime lens when I only have two shots about 70 and one is the moon... Im noticing that I always try to make my pictures look they way they do to my eyes and thats why Im mostly sub 35mm range. I do have a couple peices of glass from my k1000 but I havent figured out the manual mode well enough yet to take them out with me. As i understand their focal lengths relate to dslr differntly than to film?

I have pentax smc m 1:17 22 to 1.7 and 1:2 22 to 2.82
tamron 28-80 1:3.5-5.6 af aspheical
and a vivitar 70-210 1:4.5-5.6 macro focusing zoom lens.
I got all of these freshman year in highschool and have not pulled them out since and really dont understand what to use them for or how they relate to current lens options

[TER-OR]

ND filters are good for just the reasons you mention. Don't get a cheap one, but you don't need to spend a fortune.

M-series lenses can be used easily enough, though you will need to use them manually of course. The Catch-in-Focus feature makes them a bit easier to use, as does the stop-down metering function. You 'll need to read about how to do all this.

The 10-17 is essentially an ultra-wide at 17mm, not extremely fishy.

[emalvick]

First off... think about how you are choosing a lens. Are you avoiding the 50-200 because of the quality specifically? because if you wish you could shoot more telephoto shots, then that means you should consider a different lens. BUT, if you generally are not shooting telephoto, then I'd probably skip the 55-300 or another telephoto.

I think most of us start out with zooms (and even a kit one). The key is that after you get to using the zoom lens for a while, you can evaluate your needs:

1. Do you feel like you are pushing up to the limits of your zoom ranges?
2. Do you find yourself consistently at another point in your range?

If you are at the limits, then maybe you should get a different zoom lens or even a prime beyond those limits.
If you are specifically within the range, perhaps find a prime lens or even replace that zoom with a better one.

But, I wouldn't rush anything. I'm now about 8 years into using Pentax dSLRs. I started with a similar kit as you started. I got anxious and replaced both kit zooms with marginally better zooms. The 18-55 got replaced by a Tamron 17-50 (and an 18-135) and the telephoto got replaced with a 55-300. The problem is that those lenses are only slightly better than the kit lenses (actually the Tamron is quite good and the 18-135 is a nice one lens does all). I've in the past year moved to various limited primes (DA and FA) for the 15-77 range and I got the 60-250 for the telephoto end. If I look back, I spent way too much money, and the cheaper lenses don't really return on their investment like the limited and * lenses do.

What I'm getting at is it can actually be worth while (if you have the discipline to buy one or two top lenses now or even one of the better 16,17-50mm options) and focus on the focal lengths you use most and then slowly build up your collection. On the telephoto end, I really wish I would have just purchased a few manual primes in that range initially and then saved for the 60-250 and gotten it earlier than relying as heavily on the 55-300 as I did. The 55-300 seemed good at the time but as I've grown I find I am more and more disappointed in those older photos I took with that lens, especially in the 200-300 mm range. I wish I would have just stuck to using the 200 mm manual prime I had which is so much better. I've used it and a prime 135 I have a lot more recently and find that they focus quite quickly even though they are manual, and I can crop the 200 mm to a 300 mm field of view (and even enlarge the shot if needed) and still be as good as the 300 mm on the 55-300.


As for filters. I've found over time that as I built up my collection certain filter sizes become common and a theme. Right now most of my lenses are 49 mm or 67 mm. This has let me get away with focusing on a couple of sizes (I do have a few lenses in between). I've ended up with CPLs for those two common sizes and rely on a step down ring for the couple of 62 mm thread sizes I have. For ND filters I purchased a couple of quite expensive ones for 77 mm because I have one very wide-angled zoom that I had for a trip to Iceland a few years ago. CPL's are not good for very wide shots because of the physics, but the ND filters were necessary (one was 2 stop and the other 5 stops I think). I then purchased more step down rings so that I could use those two on a 62, 67, and 49 mm thread. I do think the ND and CPL's are about the only filters we need in a digital world (a grad ND can also be good, but I don't own any); I used to have so many filters for film, and I'm thankful that I don't need those anymore (for black and white).

[Des]

Really I wanted the ND filter because theres been a few times wether with the waterfalls, waterfronts or fountains i love to shoot where the highs are way too burned out to get the detail on the low end I would like to capture no mater how I work the raw file afterwards.

Yep, it's worth getting an ND for this. As @Ter-or says, get a decent one.

Im a little confused why youre recomending a 70-100 prime lens when I only have two shots about 70 and one is the moon... Im noticing that I always try to make my pictures look they way they do to my eyes and thats why Im mostly sub 35mm range.

Because you have a lot of shots of detail in things: like the tree trunk, wall plaque, pistol, memorials, signs, graffiti, power transformer, etc (not to mention the ducks). You could take those with longer focal lengths than the kit lens and have the option of more subject isolation, so the subject stands out a little more (even at the same aperture). No doubt I am projecting my own preferences, but even with the option of a number of good lenses in the wide-normal range (12-24, 35, 43, and two 50s) I would prefer to use the 77 or 100 for that kind of shot, assuming there was scope for necessary "zooming with my feet". You could try the 50-200 in that range for a while and see whether it works for you. If it doesn't you'll still have learnt something.

---------- Post added 03-07-15 at 09:41 AM ----------

I do have a couple peices of glass from my k1000 but I havent figured out the manual mode well enough yet to take them out with me.

How to Use Manual Lenses on Pentax DSLRs - Tutorial Videos | PentaxForums.com

As i understand their focal lengths relate to dslr differntly than to film?

Lenses designed for film cameras can and do work beautifully on Pentax DSLRs. It is one of the great things about Pentax: thousands and thousands of legacy lenses out there.

The FA 31, 43 and 77 Limiteds, for example, are the Holy Grail for many Pentaxians. You just get a narrower field of view. For example the 43mm lens works as a normal lens (ie normal field of view) on film. On a DSLR with an APS-C (ie crop) sensor it works as a moderate tele lens.

The Crop Factor Explained: An Animation - Tutorial Videos | PentaxForums.com

---------- Post added 03-07-15 at 10:08 AM ----------

I have pentax smc m 1:17 22 to 1.7 and 1:2 22 to 2.82

Not sure what lens(es) you are describing here? You should be able to find it (them) in these lists:
Pentax M Prime Lenses - Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
Pentax M Zoom Lenses - Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

If not, post a photo in this thread and someone will identify it/them for you.

[Scorpio71GR]

I have the DA 18-135 and I really like it. It is extremely versatile, light and surprisingly sharp. I also have the Da*16-50 which is beyond sharp but still goto the DA 18-135 when I only want to take one or a few lens. I do not think you can go wrong with the 18-135. The DA 55-300 is a handy lens to have. It is lightweight and small for its focal range. Stopped down a little the 55-300 is sharp. If I am out on a hike or walk and do not want a lot of weight, the 18-135 and 55-300 are the lens I take. For waterfalls and slowing down waves a ND filter is extremely handy. CP's are better for bright sunny days and stopping reflections in glass or water. You have some extremely nice photos there and you have a nice eye for detail. This definitely warrants something better than a kit lens. Many people graduate to zooms and then better quality zooms. Others find they favor certain focal ranges and switch to primes for the better IQ you get in a prime. This is something that only the photographer can decide.

[Greenneck]

Yep, it's worth getting an ND for this. As @Ter-or says, get a decent one.


Because you have a lot of shots of detail in things: like the tree trunk, wall plaque, pistol, memorials, signs, graffiti, power transformer, etc (not to mention the ducks). You could take those with longer focal lengths than the kit lens and have the option of more subject isolation, so the subject stands out a little more (even at the same aperture). No doubt I am projecting my own preferences, but even with the option of a number of good lenses in the wide-normal range (12-24, 35, 43, and two 50s) I would prefer to use the 77 or 100 for that kind of shot, assuming there was scope for necessary "zooming with my feet". You could try the 50-200 in that range for a while and see whether it works for you. If it doesn't you'll still have learnt something.

---------- Post added 03-07-15 at 09:41 AM ----------


How to Use Manual Lenses on Pentax DSLRs - Tutorial Videos | PentaxForums.com


Lenses designed for film cameras can and do work beautifully on Pentax DSLRs. It is one of the great things about Pentax: thousands and thousands of legacy lenses out there.

The FA 31, 43 and 77 Limiteds, for example, are the Holy Grail for many Pentaxians. You just get a narrower field of view. For example the 43mm lens works as a normal lens (ie normal field of view) on film. On a DSLR with an APS-C (ie crop) sensor it works as a moderate tele lens.

The Crop Factor Explained: An Animation - Tutorial Videos | PentaxForums.com

---------- Post added 03-07-15 at 10:08 AM ----------


Not sure what lens(es) you are describing here? You should be able to find it (them) in these lists:
Pentax M Prime Lenses - Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
Pentax M Zoom Lenses - Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

If not, post a photo in this thread and someone will identify it/them for you.

I think i found the id for one of my glass peices from my film set up I think its the
SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.7 Any thoughts on what modern lens this would be most similar to?
The second one I didnt see in the prime list but it must be the SMC Pentax-M 50mm F2?


I really want to say thank you to everyone he is posting here today its all been a big help. Can anyone point me to some literature about ND filters?
Which reminds me of another question. I bought a Hoya HD cpl for my 18-55 are they supposed to work by warmng or cooling the image? If i warm it reflections get worse and cooling it many of them go away but thats not what I expected them to do I thought they cut through glare or something



Right now Im leaning to working with what I have maybe giving some of these older pieces a try as well as working the telephoto to see if I really want the 55-300 or If I should just get the 18-135. Im also debating on picking up a cheap prime just for the hell of it like the 35

[Des]

Find a nice A50 f1.7 if you're not following a lot of action - that gives you great quality at short tele range. The various "nifty fifties" are very fun to play with and really give good results. The DA 35 is probably more versatile, but there's no reason to avoid the 50mm vintage glass (just get a rubber hood for it).

Good suggestion Terry. And it turns out the OP already has two nifty 50s!

think i found the id for one of my glass peices from my film set up I think its the SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.7 Any thoughts on what modern lens this would be most similar to? The second one I didnt see in the prime list but it must be the SMC Pentax-M 50mm F2?

The photos show these are the lenses:
SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.7 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database - this is the ancestor of the DA 50 f1.8 (and the A-50 f1.7 mentioned above and several other 50s)
SMC Pentax-M 50mm F2 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

The writing that says 1:1.7 or 1:2 describes the maximum aperture (f1.7 or f2 in these examples).

You could have a heap of fun with these lenses. They can produce wonderful images.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/144599-50mm-lens-club.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/27739-m-club.html

With extension tubes or lens reversal they make a cheap entree into macro (lots of threads about this).

---------- Post added 03-07-15 at 03:03 PM ----------

Which reminds me of another question. I bought a Hoya HD cpl for my 18-55 are they supposed to work by warmng or cooling the image? If i warm it reflections get worse and cooling it many of them go away but thats not what I expected them to do I thought they cut through glare or something

More reading for you: Polarizing Filter Basics - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

[Greenneck]

So either I could pick up a 18-135 right now, or thanks to one of our awesome users in the buying section I could get a da 21 and 40 for about the same price as the one zoom lens. Now the race is on to make up my mind before one of those two is sold