[jerryleejr]

Ok I have had a couple years to experiment with my k5 and now want to get serious with my lenses. I have been fortunate that the only lens I purchased was my Pentax 10-17 fisheye it was on my short list and kinda right price right time deal. All my other lenses I've had and none are "top of the line" but gave me a good learning experience. So here is my plan in order. Haven't decided on HD or older variant but most are optically the same regardless. And I'm just a hobbyist doing family activities etc...but I really think this will cover my needs

JJ

Pentax 100mm macro WR
Pentax FA43 limited
Pentax FA77 limited
Pentax 55-300WR (already have 18-55WR)

Once I have these I will add
Pentax 60-250mm
Pentax FA31 limited
Pentax DA15 limited

[TER-OR]

That's a pretty good set, not cheap but good.

[jerryleejr]

That's a pretty good set, not cheap but good.

I haven't found a cheap hobby yet lol, but I wanted to know my list before wasting money by trial and error...
And it won't happen over night but should be a nice 5 year plan...

JJ

[Wired]

What about a decent "fast" normal zoom?

[jerryleejr]

What about a decent "fast" normal zoom?

I have a tamron 70-300 and an older Pentax 70-210...
Does that count?

JJ

[Wired]

I have a tamron 70-300 and an older Pentax 70-210...

Does that count?



JJ

Those are more on the tele end. I'm thinking something like the sigma 18-35mm f1.8 or the DA*16-50mm f2.8. The DA* is a fantastic lens, and in my opinion the SDM issues are embellished as I've had two copies without concerns.

[Heie]

Pentax 100mm macro WR
Pentax FA43 limited
Pentax FA77 limited
Pentax 55-300WR (already have 18-55WR)

Once I have these I will add
Pentax 60-250mm/HD 55-300 WR (pick one, not plan on both 'down the line' - that's dumb and a waste of money - comparative review will be posted within 12 hours)
Pentax FA31 limited
Pentax DA15 limited

I would rearrange as follows:

DA* 60-250
D FA 100mm Macro WR
FA 77
DA15 (smc version, not HD - for the 15 the smc is preferred because of the straight aperture blades - cleaner starbursts)

The rest worry about when new opportunities come about and new lenses arrive, possibly changing your priorities. But if I were you, and since I own (or have owned) most of the lenses you listed, that is what I would do.

The DA* is a fantastic lens, and in my opinion the SDM issues are embellished as I've had two copies without concerns.

Agreed, although not going to lie, I'm toying with replacing the DA* 16-50 with the Sigma 18-35 and the DA 20-40. One small weather sealed standard zoom for travel/hiking, and the other low light monster for event/indoor work. Of course I will wait until the 18-35 actually debuts in K mount to see the user reviews, but the 20-40 already has a very promising start amongst users. I haven't handled one yet.

-Heie

[jerryleejr]

Those are more on the tele end. I'm thinking something like the sigma 18-35mm f1.8 or the DA*16-50mm f2.8. The DA* is a fantastic lens, and in my opinion the SDM issues are embellished as I've had two copies without concerns.

Ah, those haven't crossed my radar yet but I will look into it...just went with lenses that matched the average FL of most of my photos...

JJ

[Kozlok]

I like your list, but you could add the Sigma 30/1.4 way ahead of the 31 because it is so much cheaper, and any blind comparison I've seen it is just as good as the 31 except in the very corners. I'm not a "corners" guy, so I don't care. It could fill in for the 43 for awhile, too.

[jerryleejr]

I would rearrange as follows:

DA* 60-250
D FA 100mm Macro WR
FA 77
DA15 (smc version, not HD - for the 15 the smc is preferred because of the straight aperture blades - cleaner starbursts)

The rest worry about when new opportunities come about and new lenses arrive, possibly changing your priorities. But if I were you, and since I own (or have owned) most of the lenses you listed, that is what I would do.



Agreed, although not going to lie, I'm toying with replacing the DA* 16-50 with the Sigma 18-35 and the DA 20-40. One small weather sealed standard zoom for travel/hiking, and the other low light monster for event/indoor work. Of course I will wait until the 18-35 actually debuts in K mount to see the user reviews, but the 20-40 already has a very promising start amongst users. I haven't handled one yet.

-Heie

I agree, however budget is dictating my list. Otherwise that would be the exact order but I've read so many great things on the 43 limited as well...

JJ

[Wired]

@jerryleejr The three FA Limiteds should never be overlooked. I love my 43. To be honest though, the DA 40 is just as good and a tad cheaper. I got both and I'm very torn on which one I enjoy better. I personally think the DA40 is sharper, FA43 has better contrast/color.

The 77 though is my favouritest lens ever of all time. I can never find a fault in it and its the focal length I "see" in so to speak. So if your more a medium-tele guy (which it seems like you are) then the 77 would be my top choice.

Regarding the normal zoom, if you find yourself in the normal-tele fields, then yes, delay your acquisition of a normal zoom. Seems like we have similar focal length preferences, and I can tell you while I find the DA*16-50 an invaluable tool, it's not a lens I reach for very often. The DA*50-135, FA 77, FA 43 can get me by in the majority of situations.

[DSims]

I agree that it's a good list. But I'd also change the order/options a little.

Personally, I would (and did) get the DA*50-135 instead of the DA*60-250, then add the F/FA/DA*300 later (or possibly the FA/DA*200 or a fast MF 200). Alternately you could get the FA77 first. Either one will give you the greater benefit right away - dramatically better photos. And getting one (or both) of these lenses first will help clarify where you want to go next. This will save you time and money in the long run.


I really wouldn't ignore the benefit of getting the DA*16-50 + DA*50-135 first. They will cover the entire 16-135mm range with very good quality, and eliminate any urgent "need" to get primes in this range right away. Then fill in primes as desired.


I'd also get a cheaper macro for now - the Cosina 100/3.5 (available in AF too) is a great example. I have both it and the D FA 100 WR. I agree that the D FA 100 WR is eventually the one to get - best overall macro I know of, with a solid 9+ in every category I can think of, rather than a 10 in one aspect and then a 7 or 8 in another. Every other ~100mm macro lens in-between the price of these two was just a compromise that wasn't worth the extra money over the Cosina, so I sold all the rest of them.



The bottom line is that the IQ from the DA*50-135, FA77, and *300 lenses is so good that, in and of themselves, they will get you better photos. They are also suitable for most any type of photographer - even the 300, once you start using it. The rest are more subject to personal needs or preferences.

For me, the DA*16-50 fills the need for satisfying images whenever a zoom and/or WR is needed within that range. The 18-55 didn't do this for me. Others might be happy with the DA16-45 (my second choice), DA17-70, or Tamron 17-50/2.8, for example. But I do think it's very important to fill this range with a zoom lens you like soon. Nobody's ever created an outstanding DSLR lens in this range (for any mount), so get one you like and then fill in primes as needed.

[Wired]

another great macro is the Tamron 90mm 2.8 di. fantastic lens.

[geomez]

Have you considered 3rd. Party lenses? Like Wired said, the Tamron 90mm is a great macro lens and cheaper than the Pentax 100mm WR. Also the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a fast, sharp zoom and can be had at half the price of the DA* 16-50.

[jerryleejr]

@jerryleejr The three FA Limiteds should never be overlooked. I love my 43. To be honest though, the DA 40 is just as good and a tad cheaper. I got both and I'm very torn on which one I enjoy better. I personally think the DA40 is sharper, FA43 has better contrast/color.

The 77 though is my favouritest lens ever of all time. I can never find a fault in it and its the focal length I "see" in so to speak. So if your more a medium-tele guy (which it seems like you are) then the 77 would be my top choice.

Regarding the normal zoom, if you find yourself in the normal-tele fields, then yes, delay your acquisition of a normal zoom. Seems like we have similar focal length preferences, and I can tell you while I find the DA*16-50 an invaluable tool, it's not a lens I reach for very often. The DA*50-135, FA 77, FA 43 can get me by in the majority of situations.

For me it's a coin toss both the 43 and 77 are great! It's just the 43 covers a hole sooner and the 77 will do the same later down the line.

I agree that it's a good list. But I'd also change the order/options a little.
Personally, I would (and did) get the DA*50-135 instead of the DA*60-250, then add the F/FA/DA*300 later (or possibly the FA/DA*200 or a fast MF 200). Alternately you could get the FA77 first. Either one will give you the greater benefit right away - dramatically better photos. And getting one (or both) of these lenses first will help clarify where you want to go next. This will save you time and money in the long run.


I really wouldn't ignore the benefit of getting the DA*16-50 + DA*50-135 first. They will cover the entire 16-135mm range with very good quality, and eliminate any urgent "need" to get primes in this range right away. Then fill in primes as desired.


I'd also get a cheaper macro for now - the Cosina 100/3.5 (available in AF too) is a great example. I have both it and the D FA 100 WR. I agree that the D FA 100 WR is eventually the one to get - best overall macro I know of, with a solid 9+ in every category I can think of, rather than a 10 in one aspect and then a 7 or 8 in another. Every other ~100mm macro lens in-between the price of these two was just a compromise that wasn't worth the extra money over the Cosina, so I sold all the rest of them.



The bottom line is that the IQ from the DA*50-135, FA77, and *300 lenses is so good that, in and of themselves, they will get you better photos. They are also suitable for most any type of photographer - even the 300, once you start using it. The rest are more subject to personal needs or preferences.

For me, the DA*16-50 fills the need for satisfying images whenever a zoom and/or WR is needed within that range. The 18-55 didn't do this for me. Others might be happy with the DA16-45 (my second choice), DA17-70, or Tamron 17-50/2.8, for example. But I do think it's very important to fill this range with a zoom lens you like soon. Nobody's ever created an outstanding DSLR lens in this range (for any mount), so get one you like and then fill in primes as needed.

another great macro is the Tamron 90mm 2.8 di. fantastic lens.

I believe the tamron is a great lens just came down build on the Pentax...

Have you considered 3rd. Party lenses? Like Wired said, the Tamron 90mm is a great macro lens and cheaper than the Pentax 100mm WR. Also the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a fast, sharp zoom and can be had at half the price of the DA* 16-50.

I've usually had tamron over the years, and when I look at a FL that the tamron fits I have no issue going that route but for now OEM works. And I'm sure this list isn't all inclusive but need somewhat of a goal and time frame. I can always add to it GOD knows there is always room for one more lens

JJ