You have exactly 1000 dollars,a k-30, and a 18-55 WR. What lenses...

yorik · 12-20-2013, 10:21 AM

I don't think that this has been mentioned here yet: you can rent some of the (newer) lenses that have been recommended here and see what they do for your photography. This way you can also begin to discover what focal lengths your prefer. Lens Rentals and Borrow Lenses both have Pentax lenses for rent, and have good reputations. I used Borrow Lenses because they are local (SF Bay Area) and I could pick up and drop off.

Jon · 12-20-2013, 10:22 AM

^Nailed it Yorik.

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

So he does not have to keep checking it. It won't move off focus. Been there, done that, with the M 28/3.5

Exactly. Its not so much for the aperture, since those click in place well on Pentax lenses. I was indeed referring to taping the focus ring so I doesn't shift.

Doundounba · 12-20-2013, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by spectamaniac

As I have a revankar 75$ tripod that is heavy, I have still managed to lug it around , even backpacking Alaska. I may start sniffing around for a lightweight travel tripod.

As I mentioned before... Sirui T-025X. There was a review done by PentaxForums. I know personally, I never lugged my super cheap, super heavy tripod around, so buying this was kind of a revelation. I also think if you do packpacking and enjoy landscapes, that you should look for an ultra-wide. That could be the DA15, a Sigma 10-20, a Tamron 10-24, or perhaps (especially if you're interested in astrophotography) the Samyang 14mm F/2.8 or their just-announced rectilinear 10mm F/2.8... My choice was the Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 because it's flexible (zoom), reputed fairly sharp, not too expensive, and not too heavy. I do still lust after an SMC DA15 though, for the size and the starbursts...

lesmore49 · 12-20-2013, 11:01 AM

I like my 55-300 as a very good, general purpose lens. Long enough to get that Great Horned Owl in the tree....and the rest of the range ...everything scenic in between. Get a WR version.

It complements your 18-55 WR.

Vintage lenses are fine...I got a few...even the famous 35-105 A Macro zoom.

But they're heavy....and they don't AF....if they're really vintage. Also not WR. If you're backpacking then light weight and WR are important factors.

starjedi · 12-20-2013, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Imageman

You have a good camera and a good lens already, you don't need anything else.
A good image is made in the mind and executed in the camera.
Upping your game happens in your head and better images flow from that.
Spend the money on studying the work of great photographers and travel to good locations near and far.
Remember good images are all around you.

fully agree

spectamaniac · 12-22-2013, 01:46 AM

Thanks again to everybody that participated in this thread!

nanhi · 12-22-2013, 09:05 AM

I'd sell the K-30 + the Kit lens. With the sale proceeds + $ 1000, I'd buy a K-5/II/IIs + the 18-135 WR + 55-300 WR. If I have any left over I'd buy some accessories.
Regards.

starbase218 · 12-22-2013, 11:24 AM

I backpacked for about 6 weeks with my K-5, 17-70, 55-300 and 35/2.4. The only thing I really missed was more wide-angle. I loved the 17-70 for its versatility, and the 35/2.4 was used on things like night markets. But like I said, I did miss wide-angle. A 10-17 fish-eye might fill that gap. It's still small and light, opens up new possibilities (the fish-eye effect) and the range is a perfect match for the 17-70. I do think this will break you budget somewhat though. If you go for the 18-135 instead of the 17-70, it is a bit cheaper and goes out to twice the length, at the expense of maximum aperture.

spectamaniac · 12-22-2013, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by starbase218

I backpacked for about 6 weeks with my K-5, 17-70, 55-300 and 35/2.4. The only thing I really missed was more wide-angle. I loved the 17-70 for its versatility, and the 35/2.4 was used on things like night markets. But like I said, I did miss wide-angle. A 10-17 fish-eye might fill that gap. It's still small and light, opens up new possibilities (the fish-eye effect) and the range is a perfect match for the 17-70. I do think this will break you budget somewhat though. If you go for the 18-135 instead of the 17-70, it is a bit cheaper and goes out to twice the length, at the expense of maximum aperture.

Nice, I think what I may do is sell 18--55 and pick up the 18-135....but a nice wiiiide angle is really what I want, but a nice telephotowould be awesome too, because I am also an animal lover

starbase218 · 12-22-2013, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by spectamaniac

Nice, I think what I may do is sell 18--55 and pick up the 18-135....but a nice wiiiide angle is really what I want, but a nice telephotowould be awesome too, because I am also an animal lover

In that case, you could go for the 55-300 and add either a fast standard lens like a 17-50/2.8 (if the 16-50/2.8 is within budget, go for that, since 1mm makes a lot of difference for landscapes) or the 35/2.4 and a wideangle like the Sigma 10-20 (the Pentax 12-24 would be better in terms of range, but it would probably break your budget).

Speaking of which, your initial question was "you have 1000 dollars, what do you do with it?" I would look at used lenses first. I bought half of my lenses used. This will save you money.

I actually contemplated taking the 12-24, 35/2.4 and 55-300 when I went backpacking. But the 17-70 was just a great walkaround range. I really came to appreciate that lens.

Choices, choices. At a certain point, I think you just have to decide what to do. Every combination of lenses has advantages and drawbacks. But only you know what you shoot best.

spectamaniac · 12-24-2013, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by starbase218

In that case, you could go for the 55-300 and add either a fast standard lens like a 17-50/2.8 (if the 16-50/2.8 is within budget, go for that, since 1mm makes a lot of difference for landscapes) or the 35/2.4 and a wideangle like the Sigma 10-20 (the Pentax 12-24 would be better in terms of range, but it would probably break your budget).

Speaking of which, your initial question was "you have 1000 dollars, what do you do with it?" I would look at used lenses first. I bought half of my lenses used. This will save you money.

I actually contemplated taking the 12-24, 35/2.4 and 55-300 when I went backpacking. But the 17-70 was just a great walkaround range. I really came to appreciate that lens.

Choices, choices. At a certain point, I think you just have to decide what to do. Every combination of lenses has advantages and drawbacks. But only you know what you shoot best.

Choices choices indeed! I have seen several pictures from the sigma 10-20, and I really enjoy them, If I buy a wide angle it may be this. This camera will not break my bank, and It will give me the wideness I really want. The new 55-300 WR lloks awesome ( the WR thing sells me) ,however I realize at this time I have no idea if I even like shooting with telephoto because I have never really shot with anything other than 18-55 Kit , and a couple of random vintage 50 and 28 primes.As I'm typing this I realized that I KNOW I love wide angles, and I KNOW I want way wider than my 18...so a sigma 10-20 to starting to sound awesome.... and I can worry about the telephoto when summer rolls around! ANYBODY HAVE A SIGMA 10-20 TO SELL( to a broke biology grad student...well, not broke, but ...you know...cheap)????

cahudson42 · 12-24-2013, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by spectamaniac

and I can worry about the telephoto when summer rolls around!

Not to beat it to death, but you can of course telephoto experience now with an inexpensive manual focus M42. Something like my Vivitar 135mm (200mm equiv.) Komine (28xxx s/n) is light, has good contrast (in part as its only 4-element), seems sharp enough - and can be had for $30 or so. (I paid $45 for mine - and not sorry that I did). Then 'upgrade' if you like it, later.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-135mm-f-2-8-auto-telephoto.html (Some apparently available in K-mount for a bit more...)

nanhi · 12-24-2013, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by spectamaniac

Choices choices indeed! I have seen several pictures from the sigma 10-20, and I really enjoy them, If I buy a wide angle it may be this. This camera will not break my bank, and It will give me the wideness I really want. The new 55-300 WR lloks awesome ( the WR thing sells me) ,however I realize at this time I have no idea if I even like shooting with telephoto because I have never really shot with anything other than 18-55 Kit , and a couple of random vintage 50 and 28 primes.As I'm typing this I realized that I KNOW I love wide angles, and I KNOW I want way wider than my 18...so a sigma 10-20 to starting to sound awesome.... and I can worry about the telephoto when summer rolls around! ANYBODY HAVE A SIGMA 10-20 TO SELL( to a broke biology grad student...well, not broke, but ...you know...cheap)????

Spectamania Sir, the Sigma 10-20 is the way to go. The f4-5.6 EX DC should be the cheapest of the (4) versions Sigma makes. Do note you will need to "master" this lens because of the huge expanse of sky and land it can pull in, including your feet if you are not careful. Even a slight tilt - it is how you hold the camera - will cause your verticals to go crazy.
And beware of buying someone's reject, as earlier versions had quality problems. Make sure your purchase is returnable. A good copy should cost you no more than $ 300.
And here is a tip on buying a good Sigma 70-300 DL Macro for $ 45 from KEH - the perfect student lens. Great to play around with and learn. My "Bargain" lens looked like new. Do not buy the DL Super version. The DL Macro is rated better than the costlier DG & DG APO version by this forum.
Regards.

pentaxk10duser · 12-24-2013, 01:21 PM

I would sell the camera you have get the k-3 keep the lens you have .use the money you get for the camera to help buy the k-3 and start saving from there to get another lens .

RonHendriks1966 · 12-24-2013, 01:34 PM

I would suggest getting the FA31mm and start saving from scratch for your next purchase.

12-20-2013, 10:23 AM	#48
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	Originally posted by spectamaniac As I have a revankar 75$ tripod that is heavy, I have still managed to lug it around , even backpacking Alaska. I may start sniffing around for a lightweight travel tripod. As I mentioned before... Sirui T-025X. There was a review done by PentaxForums. I know personally, I never lugged my super cheap, super heavy tripod around, so buying this was kind of a revelation. I also think if you do packpacking and enjoy landscapes, that you should look for an ultra-wide. That could be the DA15, a Sigma 10-20, a Tamron 10-24, or perhaps (especially if you're interested in astrophotography) the Samyang 14mm F/2.8 or their just-announced rectilinear 10mm F/2.8... My choice was the Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 because it's flexible (zoom), reputed fairly sharp, not too expensive, and not too heavy. I do still lust after an SMC DA15 though, for the size and the starbursts... Last edited by Doundounba; 12-20-2013 at 10:27 AM. Reason: typos

12-22-2013, 03:36 PM	#55
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	Originally posted by spectamaniac Nice, I think what I may do is sell 18--55 and pick up the 18-135....but a nice wiiiide angle is really what I want, but a nice telephotowould be awesome too, because I am also an animal lover In that case, you could go for the 55-300 and add either a fast standard lens like a 17-50/2.8 (if the 16-50/2.8 is within budget, go for that, since 1mm makes a lot of difference for landscapes) or the 35/2.4 and a wideangle like the Sigma 10-20 (the Pentax 12-24 would be better in terms of range, but it would probably break your budget). Speaking of which, your initial question was "you have 1000 dollars, what do you do with it?" I would look at used lenses first. I bought half of my lenses used. This will save you money. I actually contemplated taking the 12-24, 35/2.4 and 55-300 when I went backpacking. But the 17-70 was just a great walkaround range. I really came to appreciate that lens. Choices, choices. At a certain point, I think you just have to decide what to do. Every combination of lenses has advantages and drawbacks. But only you know what you shoot best. Last edited by starbase218; 12-22-2013 at 03:51 PM.

12-24-2013, 06:39 AM	#57
cahudson42 Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 147	Cheap Prime Telephoto Originally posted by spectamaniac and I can worry about the telephoto when summer rolls around! Not to beat it to death, but you can of course telephoto experience now with an inexpensive manual focus M42. Something like my Vivitar 135mm (200mm equiv.) Komine (28xxx s/n) is light, has good contrast (in part as its only 4-element), seems sharp enough - and can be had for $30 or so. (I paid $45 for mine - and not sorry that I did). Then 'upgrade' if you like it, later. https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-135mm-f-2-8-auto-telephoto.html (Some apparently available in K-mount for a bit more...)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
buydig K-30 deal with 18-55 + 55-300 lenses	LightBug	Pentax Price Watch	7	12-19-2013 03:26 PM
Got a Pentax ME, have a K-30. I'm thinking FA lenses for both but don't know	Bootleg	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	12-03-2013 05:22 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 18-55 WR, DAL 55-300, and DA 18-135 WR lenses	Elliot	Sold Items	4	11-07-2013 02:46 AM
My K-5 got wet with a 18-55 WR lens!	PacoX8	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	45	02-03-2013 11:48 PM
K-30 with 18-55 kit lens A$899	raider	Pentax K-30 & K-50	15	07-18-2012 10:25 PM

12-20-2013, 10:21 AM	#46
yorik Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Scotts Valley, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 991	I don't think that this has been mentioned here yet: you can rent some of the (newer) lenses that have been recommended here and see what they do for your photography. This way you can also begin to discover what focal lengths your prefer. Lens Rentals and Borrow Lenses both have Pentax lenses for rent, and have good reputations. I used Borrow Lenses because they are local (SF Bay Area) and I could pick up and drop off.

12-20-2013, 10:22 AM	#47
Jon Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Goodyear, AZ Posts: 145	^Nailed it Yorik. Originally posted by Canada_Rockies So he does not have to keep checking it. It won't move off focus. Been there, done that, with the M 28/3.5 Exactly. Its not so much for the aperture, since those click in place well on Pentax lenses. I was indeed referring to taping the focus ring so I doesn't shift.

12-20-2013, 11:01 AM	#49
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,344	I like my 55-300 as a very good, general purpose lens. Long enough to get that Great Horned Owl in the tree....and the rest of the range ...everything scenic in between. Get a WR version. It complements your 18-55 WR. Vintage lenses are fine...I got a few...even the famous 35-105 A Macro zoom. But they're heavy....and they don't AF....if they're really vintage. Also not WR. If you're backpacking then light weight and WR are important factors.

12-20-2013, 08:31 PM	#50
starjedi Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: New Jersey Posts: 932	Originally posted by Imageman You have a good camera and a good lens already, you don't need anything else. A good image is made in the mind and executed in the camera. Upping your game happens in your head and better images flow from that. Spend the money on studying the work of great photographers and travel to good locations near and far. Remember good images are all around you. fully agree

12-22-2013, 01:46 AM	#51
spectamaniac Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 96 Original Poster	Thanks again to everybody that participated in this thread!

12-22-2013, 09:05 AM	#52
nanhi Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Bangalore, India Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 469	I'd sell the K-30 + the Kit lens. With the sale proceeds + $ 1000, I'd buy a K-5/II/IIs + the 18-135 WR + 55-300 WR. If I have any left over I'd buy some accessories. Regards.

12-22-2013, 11:24 AM	#53
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	I backpacked for about 6 weeks with my K-5, 17-70, 55-300 and 35/2.4. The only thing I really missed was more wide-angle. I loved the 17-70 for its versatility, and the 35/2.4 was used on things like night markets. But like I said, I did miss wide-angle. A 10-17 fish-eye might fill that gap. It's still small and light, opens up new possibilities (the fish-eye effect) and the range is a perfect match for the 17-70. I do think this will break you budget somewhat though. If you go for the 18-135 instead of the 17-70, it is a bit cheaper and goes out to twice the length, at the expense of maximum aperture.

12-22-2013, 03:04 PM	#54
spectamaniac Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 96 Original Poster	Originally posted by starbase218 I backpacked for about 6 weeks with my K-5, 17-70, 55-300 and 35/2.4. The only thing I really missed was more wide-angle. I loved the 17-70 for its versatility, and the 35/2.4 was used on things like night markets. But like I said, I did miss wide-angle. A 10-17 fish-eye might fill that gap. It's still small and light, opens up new possibilities (the fish-eye effect) and the range is a perfect match for the 17-70. I do think this will break you budget somewhat though. If you go for the 18-135 instead of the 17-70, it is a bit cheaper and goes out to twice the length, at the expense of maximum aperture. Nice, I think what I may do is sell 18--55 and pick up the 18-135....but a nice wiiiide angle is really what I want, but a nice telephotowould be awesome too, because I am also an animal lover

12-24-2013, 01:45 AM	#56
spectamaniac Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 96 Original Poster	Originally posted by starbase218 In that case, you could go for the 55-300 and add either a fast standard lens like a 17-50/2.8 (if the 16-50/2.8 is within budget, go for that, since 1mm makes a lot of difference for landscapes) or the 35/2.4 and a wideangle like the Sigma 10-20 (the Pentax 12-24 would be better in terms of range, but it would probably break your budget). Speaking of which, your initial question was "you have 1000 dollars, what do you do with it?" I would look at used lenses first. I bought half of my lenses used. This will save you money. I actually contemplated taking the 12-24, 35/2.4 and 55-300 when I went backpacking. But the 17-70 was just a great walkaround range. I really came to appreciate that lens. Choices, choices. At a certain point, I think you just have to decide what to do. Every combination of lenses has advantages and drawbacks. But only you know what you shoot best. Choices choices indeed! I have seen several pictures from the sigma 10-20, and I really enjoy them, If I buy a wide angle it may be this. This camera will not break my bank, and It will give me the wideness I really want. The new 55-300 WR lloks awesome ( the WR thing sells me) ,however I realize at this time I have no idea if I even like shooting with telephoto because I have never really shot with anything other than 18-55 Kit , and a couple of random vintage 50 and 28 primes.As I'm typing this I realized that I KNOW I love wide angles, and I KNOW I want way wider than my 18...so a sigma 10-20 to starting to sound awesome.... and I can worry about the telephoto when summer rolls around! ANYBODY HAVE A SIGMA 10-20 TO SELL( to a broke biology grad student...well, not broke, but ...you know...cheap)????

12-24-2013, 07:40 AM	#58
nanhi Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Bangalore, India Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 469	Originally posted by spectamaniac Choices choices indeed! I have seen several pictures from the sigma 10-20, and I really enjoy them, If I buy a wide angle it may be this. This camera will not break my bank, and It will give me the wideness I really want. The new 55-300 WR lloks awesome ( the WR thing sells me) ,however I realize at this time I have no idea if I even like shooting with telephoto because I have never really shot with anything other than 18-55 Kit , and a couple of random vintage 50 and 28 primes.As I'm typing this I realized that I KNOW I love wide angles, and I KNOW I want way wider than my 18...so a sigma 10-20 to starting to sound awesome.... and I can worry about the telephoto when summer rolls around! ANYBODY HAVE A SIGMA 10-20 TO SELL( to a broke biology grad student...well, not broke, but ...you know...cheap)???? Spectamania Sir, the Sigma 10-20 is the way to go. The f4-5.6 EX DC should be the cheapest of the (4) versions Sigma makes. Do note you will need to "master" this lens because of the huge expanse of sky and land it can pull in, including your feet if you are not careful. Even a slight tilt - it is how you hold the camera - will cause your verticals to go crazy. And beware of buying someone's reject, as earlier versions had quality problems. Make sure your purchase is returnable. A good copy should cost you no more than $ 300. And here is a tip on buying a good Sigma 70-300 DL Macro for $ 45 from KEH - the perfect student lens. Great to play around with and learn. My "Bargain" lens looked like new. Do not buy the DL Super version. The DL Macro is rated better than the costlier DG & DG APO version by this forum. Regards.

12-24-2013, 01:21 PM	#59
pentaxk10duser Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Kentucky Photos: Albums Posts: 165	I would sell the camera you have get the k-3 keep the lens you have .use the money you get for the camera to help buy the k-3 and start saving from there to get another lens .

12-24-2013, 01:34 PM	#60
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	I would suggest getting the FA31mm and start saving from scratch for your next purchase.