[Frogfish]

Let's see. $425 or so for a 18-135 with WR or $849 for the 16-50 + $949 for the 50-135 = $1798! Wow. Oh, and where are there "cheap extended warranties"? At Amazon the 50-135 has about a $150 price tag for the warranty, so if you add $150 for it and $120 for the 16-50 you now are up to $2068!!! Jikes!

So ? Let's look at exactly what the OP said shall we ?

My budget is open and not really limited, if I need to save a bit more before getting the lens, then so be it.

So exactly as I said the choice is quality or a slight improvement, the OP can make that call. After going through several rungs of the ladder to get where I am now with the quality of the lenses I have, then my advice would be to get the 18-55 / 55-300 etc. to start off with but instead of then going up in quality in steps just save up and get Pro-level lenses, at least Pentax's are not prohibitively priced. It works out cheaper in the end !

Cheap extended warranties - no not US$150. I forget the name of the company but some of the American posters on here will know which ones I mean, I forget the actual price, US$30-50 or thereabouts depends on what you need the warranty for ? In that ballpark. Start a thread and someone will tell you who, how and how much.

[cbope]

Let's see. $425 or so for a 18-135 with WR or $849 for the 16-50 + $949 for the 50-135 = $1798! Wow. Oh, and where are there "cheap extended warranties"? At Amazon the 50-135 has about a $150 price tag for the warranty, so if you add $150 for it and $120 for the 16-50 you now are up to $2068!!! Jikes!

Well, the 18-135 where I live is roughly 615€ (multiply by 1.33 for USD), and the 16-50 is a bit over 900€, so the price jump is just under 50%. Obviously in the states the 18-135 is much cheaper so the price gap is much larger to upgrade to the 16-50.

You guys are NOT making my LBA any easier

Actually, if I pick up the 16-50 in the US and take advantage of the stronger euro to USD exchange rate, that puts the 16-50 only about 30-35€ above the 18-135 bought here. Now this is getting complicated, or have I now justified that I have to get the 16-50?

[DogLover]

Well, the 18-135 where I live is roughly 615€ (multiply by 1.33 for USD), and the 16-50 is a bit over 900€, so the price jump is just under 50%. Obviously in the states the 18-135 is much cheaper so the price gap is much larger to upgrade to the 16-50.

You guys are NOT making my LBA any easier

Actually, if I pick up the 16-50 in the US and take advantage of the stronger euro to USD exchange rate, that puts the 16-50 only about 30-35€ above the 18-135 bought here. Now this is getting complicated, or have I now justified that I have to get the 16-50?

I'm sure this is not news to you, but it just comes down to whether you want top quality IQ with less range, or decent IQ with more range.

[Docrwm]

I stand by the comparison. 4 times as much to cover the same range plus two real drawbacks - having to change lenses at 50mm and the genuinely poor reliability of the SDM motors. Is the IQ better for those two lenses - lets just say yes. If you are THAT focused on IQ then use primes.

[DogLover]

I stand by the comparison. 4 times as much to cover the same range plus two real drawbacks - having to change lenses at 50mm and the genuinely poor reliability of the SDM motors. Is the IQ better for those two lenses - lets just say yes. If you are THAT focused on IQ then use primes.

Of course the IQ is better with those 2 lenses. The 16-50 is better than the rap it gets and absolutely excels at event-type shooting, and the 18-135 can't even carry the 50-135's jock strap. Seriously, that lens has prime-level IQ at pretty much any FL. It's also not a done deal that SDM will ever give you a problem. There are lots of us that have several SDM lenses and have never been let down by it. Yes, I said it, lots of us. I wish they'd replace it, though, just so we wouldn't have to read about how much it sucks in every other thread here.

[Docrwm]

Of course the IQ is better with those 2 lenses. The 16-50 is better than the rap it gets and absolutely excels at event-type shooting, and the 18-135 can't even carry the 50-135's jock strap. Seriously, that lens has prime-level IQ at pretty much any FL. It's also not a done deal that SDM will ever give you a problem. There are lots of us that have several SDM lenses and have never been let down by it. Yes, I said it, lots of us. I wish they'd replace it, though, just so we wouldn't have to read about how much it sucks in every other thread here.

Whatever gets you through the day.

[Frogfish]

I stand by the comparison. 4 times as much to cover the same range plus two real drawbacks - having to change lenses at 50mm and the genuinely poor reliability of the SDM motors. Is the IQ better for those two lenses - lets just say yes. If you are THAT focused on IQ then use primes.

SDM - care to give us some stats ? Thought not, since they've never been published. Yes the failure rate is likely higher than the industry norm (5%) but more than likely, judging from the statistics that are available from rental companies and on forums like this one, still very low as an actual percentage of units sold.

I'd say that the vast majority of people on this forum are most definitely focused on IQ - and the 50-135 definitely gives you that. Personally I prefer the Sigma 50-150/2.8 for it's faster focusing speed however there is no doubting that the 50-135 gives you prime quality and personally if I didn't have the Sigma I'd have bought the Pentax (and I prefer primes). Some people want that IQ in the form of a zoom, which few zooms can deliver, but the 50-135 is one that can. Some would say the 16-50 too although I'm definitely on the fence on that one.

The lens changing at 50mm is a real concern for some people (with one camera). Others are just not fussed that a lens change is necessary.

[MagusAku]

In terms of versatility as a walk around lens, its a shoot out between the 17-70 and the 18-135.
I would personally opt for the 18-135mm but the questions that I would ask is/are:-

How important is WR?
Is 70mm long enough reach?
Internal vs external zoom? Some people for whatever reason aren't always comfortable walking around with their fully extended lens.

[slartibartfast]

I am thinking about exact the same lens upgrade right now- I am not quite sure how much will I need the WR option, so I am looking at some third party lenses as well-
for less than the price of the DA* 6-50 plus 50-135 I would get the Tamron Af 17-50 2,8 DI and the Tamron AF 70-200 and even the Sigma 10-20 F 3,5 EX DC HSM which as far as I can determine from reviews give me the same (or very close) optical quality as the DA* solution.

Any thoughts about that? Maybe some alternatives? Of course, as mentioned, if you already have a WR camera as the K-5 you should probably use WR lenses?

thanks for your help!

[Frogfish]

I am thinking about exact the same lens upgrade right now- I am not quite sure how much will I need the WR option, so I am looking at some third party lenses as well-
for less than the price of the DA* 6-50 plus 50-135 I would get the Tamron Af 17-50 2,8 DI and the Tamron AF 70-200 and even the Sigma 10-20 F 3,5 EX DC HSM which as far as I can determine from reviews give me the same (or very close) optical quality as the DA* solution.

Any thoughts about that? Maybe some alternatives? Of course, as mentioned, if you already have a WR camera as the K-5 you should probably use WR lenses?

thanks for your help!

I think this thread has pretty well covered it already.

I have the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 10-20 and the Tamron 70-200 is a great lens on my radar. However if it is the best IQ you want then don't look beyond primes (or maybe the 50-135).

WR - works very well on a K5 & DA*300 from my experience, but I can't say I actually need it, plastic bags and rubber bands will keep rain out. If you are down in the mud, wading through streams and waterfalls, working in the desert, safari, beaches or living out in the woods/wild for any length of time then YMMV.