[unicorn]

I know they are different focal, but now I only have a 18-55 WR lens which I'm not satisfied with its sharpness. so I want buy a new lens that have better imaging then 18-55 WR.
DA 70 LTD is very good, but the price is enough for DA 35/2.4 + tamron A17 (or second-hand DAL 55-300 ).
I'm a little confused now, DA 70 LTD + 18-55 WR ? or sell the 18-50 WR, just keep DA 35/2.4 + tamron A17 (or second-hand DAL 55-300 ). and, any other suggestions?

[Pen-A]

My copy of the 18-55 WR is excellent, much sharper than my k-x kit lens. I was amazed!

You have to decide the important focal lenghts for YOU! I don´t own the Tamron but I do have da 70, da 35/2.4 and da 55-300. All are sharp wide open and really good performers.

Any other suggestions.. hmm. Maybe Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 if you find a good used copy! I own one and it´s my work horse if I´m lazy.. Sharp wide open that too .

[msatlas]

You might as well look at getting something that covers a similar focal length range to the 18-55 but an upgrade in IQ and max aperture. Options include:

Pentax DA 16-45/4
Pentax DA 17-70/4
Pentax DA* 16-50/2.8
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC
Sigma 18-50/2.8 macro
Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS
Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5
Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS

I have the regular, non-stabilized Tamron 17-50. It's really nice.

Personally I'd skip the stabilized versions of the third-party lenses. Their IS is redundant with the build-in sensor shift IS in the body, they weigh more, cost more, and in the case of the Tamron at least the non-stabilized version is sharper.

[unicorn]

thanks for your advice, how about keep the 18-55 WR, for the better IQ of portrait and macro, buy a sigma 70 2.8 macro (instead of DA 70 Ltd), then the focal length will be 18-55 + 70.
In fact, I wanna keep a wide focal for landscape and a 50~70 for portrait, but two new lenses are too expensive, so I wanna buy new one now that less than $500.

BR

[Gregory_51]

The 70 ltd is nice and sharp and tiny but doesn't focus very close but I still like it. I also have the Sigma 70 f2.8 macro very nice and sharp but large and heavy. The Tamron 90 f2.8 macro is also something to consider. Super sharp, light and usually less expensive than the other two but it's longer equivalent 135mm vs 105mm but OK for portraits. It depends on what you take photos of. If you're interested in close up or macro then a dedicated macro lens is the way to go. I also have a 35mm ltd macro very nice and sharp, life size and equivalent to about 52mm. It would be a good choice too but expensive unless you got one used. The 35mm ltd isn't one for portraits though, too short. You can pick up things cheaper if you are patient.