K10D Kit lens died.

saladin · 12-29-2012, 10:36 PM

my 18-55 from my K10D kit crapped out. I've obviously moved on to a K5 and am using some big glass on it (24-60 f2.8, 70-200 2.8, 150-500 etc etc). I also have some MF primes. But i'm thinking of getting another not overly expensive lens just to leave on the '10.

possible options (all brand new):

18-55 kit - $200
17-70 macro Siggy - $290.
16-45 f/4 pentax - $270
DA 35mm 2.4 - $ 200.

My first inclination was to go with the prime, because i want an AF prime anyway. But with the kit dying, i now have nothing wider than 24mm. Not that I shoot heaps at wider than that anyway. But the other three would at least give me the ability and double as that old "walk-about" lens at times. or do i just save up for longer and get a 10-20 or 10-24 and do the UWA thing properly? If i had 10mm, i'd probably experiment with it's effects a lot more than the relatively standard 17mm range. and either way it all upsets my plan to spend available funds on a FF compatible fast-50 sigma, which i'd still like to afford pretty soon.

I think I'd lean towards one of the two non-kit zooms. the 17-70 has always been a good lens and offers some quasi macro ability, but the f/4 pentax is supposedly a nice bit of glass too.

ahh, decisions, decisions.

SpecialK · 12-30-2012, 12:06 AM

I don't understand why you want to buy another lens for what amounts to a backup body.

Giklab · 12-30-2012, 12:18 AM

He wants to buy a wide lens for ALL his cameras.
I'd buy the 16-45. For that price there's no contest IMO.

snostorm · 12-30-2012, 01:53 AM

Hi Saladin,

There's something to be said for getting a DA 18-55 WR, just for the WR. It's nice to have the option of a fully WR body and lens to grab at times. My goto zoom for this range is usually the Sigma 17-70/ 2.8-4.5, but I recently picked up a used DA 18-55 WR for $100 just to have a sealed alternative.

Scott

SpecialK · 12-30-2012, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Giklab

He wants to buy a wide lens for ALL his cameras.

That's fine, but not what he posted :-)

In view of what the OP has, I'd go with the 12-24 (I know it's not on the list). It dramatically expands the focal lengths without duplicating what is already available. More than $250, though.

Giklab · 12-31-2012, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by SpecialK

That's fine, but not what he posted :-)

True, didn't read properly

Quote:

In view of what the OP has, I'd go with the 12-24 (I know it's not on the list). It dramatically expands the focal lengths without duplicating what is already available. More than $250, though.

That or maybe a used Sigma 10-20? Although I'd still recommend the 16-45.

12-29-2012, 10:36 PM	#1
saladin Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: outer eastern melbourne, australia Posts: 427	K10D Kit lens died. my 18-55 from my K10D kit crapped out. I've obviously moved on to a K5 and am using some big glass on it (24-60 f2.8, 70-200 2.8, 150-500 etc etc). I also have some MF primes. But i'm thinking of getting another not overly expensive lens just to leave on the '10. possible options (all brand new): 18-55 kit - $200 17-70 macro Siggy - $290. 16-45 f/4 pentax - $270 DA 35mm 2.4 - $ 200. My first inclination was to go with the prime, because i want an AF prime anyway. But with the kit dying, i now have nothing wider than 24mm. Not that I shoot heaps at wider than that anyway. But the other three would at least give me the ability and double as that old "walk-about" lens at times. or do i just save up for longer and get a 10-20 or 10-24 and do the UWA thing properly? If i had 10mm, i'd probably experiment with it's effects a lot more than the relatively standard 17mm range. and either way it all upsets my plan to spend available funds on a FF compatible fast-50 sigma, which i'd still like to afford pretty soon. I think I'd lean towards one of the two non-kit zooms. the 17-70 has always been a good lens and offers some quasi macro ability, but the f/4 pentax is supposedly a nice bit of glass too. ahh, decisions, decisions.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K10D + Kit Lens (US)	theokaluza	Sold Items	8	02-07-2011 12:40 AM
My K10D died, did it really die?	sundown	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	01-14-2011 06:33 PM
K10D Auto focus died	gmcotton	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	01-19-2009 09:49 PM

12-30-2012, 12:06 AM	#2
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	I don't understand why you want to buy another lens for what amounts to a backup body.

12-30-2012, 12:18 AM	#3
Giklab Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,182	He wants to buy a wide lens for ALL his cameras. I'd buy the 16-45. For that price there's no contest IMO.

12-30-2012, 01:53 AM	#4
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Hi Saladin, There's something to be said for getting a DA 18-55 WR, just for the WR. It's nice to have the option of a fully WR body and lens to grab at times. My goto zoom for this range is usually the Sigma 17-70/ 2.8-4.5, but I recently picked up a used DA 18-55 WR for $100 just to have a sealed alternative. Scott

12-30-2012, 07:06 PM	#5
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Originally posted by Giklab He wants to buy a wide lens for ALL his cameras. That's fine, but not what he posted :-) In view of what the OP has, I'd go with the 12-24 (I know it's not on the list). It dramatically expands the focal lengths without duplicating what is already available. More than $250, though.

12-31-2012, 02:40 AM	#6
Giklab Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,182	Originally posted by SpecialK That's fine, but not what he posted :-) True, didn't read properly Quote: In view of what the OP has, I'd go with the 12-24 (I know it's not on the list). It dramatically expands the focal lengths without duplicating what is already available. More than $250, though. That or maybe a used Sigma 10-20? Although I'd still recommend the 16-45.