[farfisa]

The 50-135 is about the same length as your Minolta 200/2.8, and a bit lighter. The hood is more than half the length of the lens on top of that, so that's something to note when you whip it out

The 18-135 is much more compact, lighter, and focuses much closer (and faster, I hear--haven't owned the 18-135, but I've owned the others), but the 50-135 beats it in the overall IQ department.

The 12-24 has great IQ too, and is pretty light. It just has this massive filter diameter and hood. I preferred that lens to the 15/21 combo, just for versatility, but the 15 and 21 are great lenses too.

And the 43 is fantastic. 12-24, 43 and 50-135 would be a great go-everywhere kit!

[rightangle]

Sizes of FA (not older) 135 2.8 vs 50-135 is significant.
fa 135 - 375g,8cm
da 50-135 - 765g,13.6cm

With the 18-135 and a small bag of lenses you won't have lug that huge lens on your camera the majority of the time.

I thought the whole point was a small kit?

[1r0nh31d3]

Hi, I recently found myself in a similar situation as you and I also eventually took the question to the forum after much research and deliberation on my own. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/138747-startin...ight-foot.html

You may find something in there helpful.

The bottom line for me is that I decided just to get one lens and then decide from there. Don't try and plan out your entire kit from scratch it is too difficult and too much to take in at once. That being said I would try to find a rough starting point to go from. In the end I am pretty much decided on the 43 ltd, I am in the process of getting rid of a few old toys on ebay and then I will get one. And to be honest who knows where I will go from there.

I say start with a limited prime, either the 31 or the 43 I went 43 due to already stretched budget restraints (I had to clear out some of my sneaker collection to buy a lens!!! What am I going to do with 5 less pairs of sneakers sitting completely unworn in my my closet with tags and boxes in mint condition!! ) If I had a bigger budget or more sneakers to sell off maybe I would have went 31. I feel with either the 43 or the 31 you can build a collection and can't really go too wrong. But that was just my thought process I don't have my 43 yet and I am still using my A50mm 1.7 which is great but I'm looking forward to seeing what the 43 can do.

I'm talking about the K 135 SMC which is 500g. That's pretty close to the 50-135.

In addition, I rarely take lens hoods with me. If I really have to, I use my hand to block the light. And while I did state I want a smaller kit, I make the comparison to a big fat 70-200 2.8 which is twice the weight of the 50-135.

But I do appreciate the opinion and the questioning of my sanity! You still make a point. Thanks.

Sizes of FA (not older) 135 2.8 vs 50-135 is significant.
fa 135 - 375g,8cm
da 50-135 - 765g,13.6cm

With the 18-135 and a small bag of lenses you won't have lug that huge lens on your camera the majority of the time.

I thought the whole point was a small kit?

I also agree with 1r0nh31d3 (what mother would name her child that?) about keeping it simple. That said, I do occasionally do photographic gigs including events, and I do need to have the right gear for that. But my primary mission is to keep it simple and small. Your comments keep me accountable to that.

[Yamakasi]

And the 43 is fantastic. 12-24, 43 and 50-135 would be a great go-everywhere kit!

these 3 lenses are my go everywhere kit now..except sometimes i replace e 43 with FA35

[Spotmatic]

Small light kit: K5 and the DA Limiteds that float 'yer boat.

Don't get the 'big zooms' until you can handle them on the K5.

[jeffshaddix]

Option #2, if you want to stay small and keep IQ, get the DA 15, 40, 70 lineup. You really can't go wrong with those three. The 18-135 zoom has had mixed reviews, but I think it's worth getting as well and would serve your purposes just fine.

Good job picking out a winning lineup right off the bat!

Have fun with Pentax, and yes this forum is amazing, I doubt you could find someone who disagreed.

I'm leaning towards the 15 over the 12-24. I had a Sigma 10-20 for a while when I had an apsc a700, and I didn't really go for it. But then with full-frame I got a 20 (a little wider than the 15 on apsc) and I really enjoyed working with it. I found it a lot more workable for me because I could start to visualize what it would do; less complicated and less decisions. And the size of that 15..........

[Spotmatic]

I'm leaning towards the 15 over the 12-24. I had a Sigma 10-20 for a while when I had an apsc a700, and I didn't really go for it. But then with full-frame I got a 20 (a little wider than the 15 on apsc) and I really enjoyed working with it. I found it a lot more workable for me because I could start to visualize what it would do; less complicated and less decisions. And the size of that 15..........

I just sold the 12-24 and kept the DA 15 for the same reasons. The 12-24 was a very good lens though.

Well, thanks to alexeyga and a dyxum member who traded two Pentax for my Minolta 100/f2... I'm all set with a barely used system faster than you can say Jack Robinson. Here it is:
15, 21, 43, 50-135, 28-135 and a 540 flash, oh and a K5. Done. I will never look for another lens ever again. No, not ever. Well maybe not ever. At least not until next Thursday. Or Wednesday.