[Irish Pride]

I have always been fasinated by photography but i am just now starting to jump into it. I have a K-r and am slowly seeing how crappy the kit lenses are. My question is what is the #1 lens i should have invested in first and why?

I know there is no perfect answer so i am really looking for personal opinions here.

-Chad

[kenafein]

I like the Tamron 28-75. It is a great kit lens replacement. It's sharp, fast and a handy set of focal lengths. Keep your kit lens for wider angle landscapes, it is quite excellent stopped down to f/8 - f/11. The kit lens really isn't that bad though, maybe the problem is that you need more practice, or to use it in appropriate situations.

[baro-nite]

You made the right choice with the kit lenses. While I was never particularly happy with my 50-200, the 18-55 is actually a solid performer. Nowadays I think the 55-300 is more usual as the longer zoom in a two-lens kit, and that one has a better reputation than the 50-200. Using the basic kit is a low-cost way to get your feet wet and figure out where your needs are.

[aurele]

if you thing the 18-55 is crappy, you should try the canon 18-85 (one of the worst kit lense ever)

Seriously, the Tamron 28-75 is very nice, but if you just want the same focal lenght go for either Tamron or Sigma 18-55 equivalent. Both are great.

[liukaitc]

actually I sometimes miss my 18-55 kit lens..
after I upgrade to 16-50...I find it is heavy..often time I just need a light lens like 18-55 kit lens....

[Marc Sabatella]

The lenses aren't particularly crappy. But they do have their disadvantages. It would help if you explained which disadvantages you were specifically bothered by, and what you'd be willing to give up in return to address them.

[eddie1960]

The lenses aren't particularly crappy. But they do have their disadvantages. It would help if you explained which disadvantages you were specifically bothered by, and what you'd be willing to give up in return to address them.

Plus one, without knowing what or how you shoot a recommendation is kind of useless. The kit lens is capable of pretty good performance but does have limitations. As said it's a heck of a lot better than the Canon (or for that matter Nikon) equivalent.
I keep my 18-55WR because it is decent, light, and WR , My Sigam 24-70 2.8 is better (it should be) but it's heavy and large and not WR.

see the kit lens club for examples of how good it can be. Sometimes it helps to develop your technique using a more basic lens like this as you have to work a little to ensure a good image

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/45425-kit-lens-club.html

5 shot hdr from the 18-55WR as an example of how it can be good



All that being said if you are looking for a good replacement for the kit without buying a DA* 16-50 WR then have a look at the Sigma 24-70 2.8 as well as the tamron 28-75 2.8 bot FF compatible for future proofing
the Pentax 17-70 f4.0 is also quite a decent alternative

[kaiserz]

I am also new, and I think the kit lens are "okay", I mostly use my camera at parties(night/crappy light), so I need a fast lens. what I did was got myself a prime 50mm 1.7 (for cheap) and fell in love with it. After falling inlove with the 50mm I got myself the cheap DA 35mm. i like it, but it's no where near the sharpness of the 50.

I would say get a 50mm prime just to get your feet wet, a 1.7 or a 1.4 would be awesome. You would see a HUGE difference in IQ and sharpness and the best thing is they're cheap also 50 primes are called the "portrait lens" almost all my serious photographer friends has a 50prime. And Browsing the lens review section of the forums will help you a lot too. BTW the cheap sharp ones are manual focus, I don't know if you would like that. But for the price and the fun factor I say go for it (;

[Davidw0815]

I prefer shooting with primes, so my recommendation would be a decent normal focal length like the F 28 mm f2.8. It's sharp, has great color retention and is cheaper than most zooms.
When I use my primes I tend to plan my images better and pay more attention to composition.

[kaiserz]

@Davidw0815 Oh WOW! you have the F 28mm F2.8. I WANT that lens so bad. I saw one at ebay but it was sold for $300 or something... how do you like yours? how does the M 28mm compare to the F? thanks (:

[baro-nite]

There were two versions of the M 28mm f/2.8. The later version (which looks more like an A-series lens than an M-series lens) is optically the same as the A and F versions. The FA version is different yet again. (Source: Pentax Wide-Angle Prime Lenses)

[bjake]

Get a 50mm M type lens which will help you learn a lot about controlling light and depth of field.There a lot of them floating around for $25 or so.This will also help learn the functions of your camera.
Jake

[Davidw0815]

I got the more common first version of the M28. But to be honest: I can't really compare this two lenses because rarely used the M28. I bought this lens and couldn't resist when somebody offered the F28 on a german dslr forum several days later. Since then I only used the M28 a few times - and found manual focusing hard, much harder than with the K24. As much fun manual focusing can be, in some situations it's great to have autofocus. The F28 is now my "got-to-get-this-shot" lens. I'm not much of pixel peeper so my verdict about this lens is purely based on subjective impressions.
Regarding the price - this depends on how badly you want this lens. 300 $ is more than I paid (170 €/$ 230), but IMO not an insane price (like 200 € for a F 35-70).

[SpecialK]

The Pentax 12-24 is a nice ultrawide.
The Tamron 28-75 would make a nice complement to that, but I find it is not wide enough to be a single lens option.
A 17-70 may make a good casual single-lens, i.e., "walk-around" option.
The Pentax 55-300 is a decent and reasonably-priced performer though not particularly fast. A Sigma or Tamron 70-200 has better IQ and speed, at 2-3X the cost.
The 10-17 fisheye can be fun and creative.
Never bonded with the 50/f1.4 though many swear by it.
Primes are nice for IQ but involve lens swapping - perhaps at inopportune times. Some are small, some are fast, but not usually both.

Depends on your style.

[Docrwm]

The recommendation for a 50mm with a good f (like a 1.7 or 1.4) is a solid one IMHO. The manual focus models are not very expensive, are resellable if you don't like them, and are very sharp in low light. I also happen to think, as do many others, that the DA35/2.4 is a terrific autofocus prime that performs FAR better than its $169 price tag would lead anyone to believe.