Originally posted by photochimp Get a flash...? That response surprises me a little.
Shouldn't I be able to take low light shots with a k-r and fast lens without needing flash?
Sure, but the flash will probably do it cheaper, especially for a moving subject.
Quote: I've pretty much accepted that whatever I get will be manual... that's fine by me.
I see many people here and other places finding lenses for under $100... some under $50... some even lower.
I'd really like to know what the chances are of finding deals like that.
I got some good deals a few years ago and learned a lot, but spent a lot of time on it too - like a part-time job. Today, it might not be worth the time. You might find a lens that does your task for $300 to $700. Yep, pretty close to the cost of your kit, for just one lens. But it's new, with a warranty, caps, hood, AF, maybe a silent motor, good coatings, etc. It works in all modes, works with the flash, works with SR, just plain works. If you chose the right lens, it will do what it's designed for. And you can get it within a week.
I am cheap so I know it is tempting to go the cheap way. I got a Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro lens for $22 including shipping, with a 62mm filter. It's 1:1 without tubes, manual focus, made by Komine. But it had a Canon FD mount, so I had to convert it to Pentax (several hours). Now it has a slightly greater than 1:1 magnification but doesn't focus to infinity, and the aperture ring is a little weird. Compare that to this Sigma, $300 from B&H:
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Pentax 346109 If I count my time as valuable, the new lens starts to look a lot better, and is easier to use and more capable.