[boriscleto]

You might want to check out shopgoodwill. There is a F 50/1.7 listed at the moment.

[peterjcb]

....the FA28-105 is a also very much un-noticed lens with a very useful range and really nice image quality. I picked mine up for $105.00 on Ebay. It's well worth the money....also another FF lens incase Pentax comes out with a FF camera this year.... I'm not holding my breath though!

[Rondec]

Looks like these lenses made my list ahem(budget) The rating is in parenthesis.
1) 35mm f2.4 (9.14)
2) 50mm f1.8 (9.34)
3) 70mm f2.4 (9.3)
4) 16-45mm f4 (8.6)


Maybe by the time it gets cold I can get a nice WR lens even if its the 18-135m

I think that looks like a nice line up to start with. You can always sell/buy lenses down the road if you want to change things up a little down the road.

[TER-OR]

....the FA28-105 is a also very much un-noticed lens with a very useful range and really nice image quality. I picked mine up for $105.00 on Ebay. It's well worth the money....also another FF lens incase Pentax comes out with a FF camera this year.... I'm not holding my breath though!

I bought a Promaster 28-105 which is a lot better than I had thought it might be - it's quite sharp around 70, and focuses very quickly. Some of these older lenses are worth evaluating, for sure.

[mills]

Looks like these lenses made my list ahem(budget) The rating is in parenthesis.
1) 35mm f2.4 (9.14)
2) 50mm f1.8 (9.34)
3) 70mm f2.4 (9.3)
4) 16-45mm f4 (8.6)


Maybe by the time it gets cold I can get a nice WR lens even if its the 18-135m

Not sure what kind of weather you mean by cold, but I havent found cold and snow to be a problem for non-wr lenses. Unless the temperature is sitting right around freezing snow usually just brushes off.

No experience with any of those lenses, but i find the 18-135 to be pretty decent most of the time and good if theres lots of light. Huge thread dedicated to it on here that shows what it can do...

[audiobomber]

I used to think there was a Pentax look and Pentax colours. I could even identify it often when looking through photos taken by assorted cameras. I'm not sure I believe in a Pentax look any more. People process photos differently, use third party lenses, manufacturers share sensors.

Take Norm's photos for example. They're interesting but they've always looked foreign to me, like they were not shot with a Pentax. The colours are different, sharpening is heavier than any Pentax jpeg I've ever seen. If there's a Pentax look, it would have to be a jpeg shot with a standard Image Tone, or raw converted in Pentax software and not punched up or manipulated in any way.

[RonHendriks1966]

For the pentax look, I'd say DA 15 ltd. DA 21 Ltd. FA 31 ltd, FA 43 Ltd and FA 77 ltd.

If I were looking exclusively for "the look" I'd start with the 3 FA ltds.

If you can find one the FA*85mm/f1.4

[NitroDC]

You might want to check out shopgoodwill. There is a F 50/1.7 listed at the moment.

My favorite lens, highly recommend it

[6BQ5]

I agree with many here on their recommendations

+1 on the FA 28-105, especially the f/3.2 version.
+1 on the F 35-70mm.
+1 on DA 18-135mm. While not the epitome of the "look" I feel it comes pretty darn close.
+1 on the F/FA 50mm f/1.7.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned any of the older Takumars. That's going to back the roots of the "Pentax look".

I've been very happy with my copy of the D FA 50mm f/2.8 macro.

[Andi Lo]

I used to think there was a Pentax look and Pentax colours. I could even identify it often when looking through photos taken by assorted cameras. I'm not sure I believe in a Pentax look any more. People process photos differently, use third party lenses, manufacturers share sensors.

Take Norm's photos for example. They're interesting but they've always looked foreign to me, like they were not shot with a Pentax. The colours are different, sharpening is heavier than any Pentax jpeg I've ever seen. If there's a Pentax look, it would have to be a jpeg shot with a standard Image Tone, or raw converted in Pentax software and not punched up or manipulated in any way.

I think it's because it's really not there anymore. My last Pentax with the so called "Pentax look" was K20D.

It's not necessarily a bad thing though.

[Rondec]

It's hard to say. I really think the FA limiteds do have some special rendering, although it is hard to explain...

FA 31 limited



But the DA *55 does to me too.

[normhead]

Ya, that's what I was saying..... but your 31 image looks like one of my 21 images, while the DA*55 looks like a Sigma 70 macro image.... there's som subtle difference, it's not sharpness, it's something else.

[bassek]

Unless you need fast lenses, go for any F-series (not the 35-80 though) used.
Any limited or * lens is a safe bet, as well as the new DA35 and 50 (DA or the faster FA).
If you were happy with some Sigmas or Tamrons during your Canon era, go for the same then.
The hidden gems of Pentax are the old MF lenses.

Seb

[hjoseph7]

Not sure what kind of weather you mean by cold, but I havent found cold and snow to be a problem for non-wr lenses. Unless the temperature is sitting right around freezing snow usually just brushes off.

No experience with any of those lenses, but i find the 18-135 to be pretty decent most of the time and good if theres lots of light. Huge thread dedicated to it on here that shows what it can do...

Up here in Minnesota during the winter season, I experienced weather in the -35 F range for several days. This only happens at night though, during the day it is -15F - 0.

---------- Post added 06-27-14 at 02:40 PM ----------

Not sure what kind of weather you mean by cold, but I havent found cold and snow to be a problem for non-wr lenses. Unless the temperature is sitting right around freezing snow usually just brushes off.

No experience with any of those lenses, but i find the 18-135 to be pretty decent most of the time and good if theres lots of light. Huge thread dedicated to it on here that shows what it can do...

I'll probably get that lens when winter comes around...

---------- Post added 06-27-14 at 02:42 PM ----------

If DA 35 is anything like FA 35, it's a great lens with great sharpness and colors, I just find the rendering is a bit "sterile." Nothing wrong with that though, with the K10D I actually find it produces very nice pastel colors. Not a big fan of the FA 35 with K20 or K-x though, but that's first world problems imo, as it's a great lens that I'd recommend to anyone.

I don't own any of the lenses normhead mentioned but my experience online browsing the lens clubs, his list is right on the money.

I'm seriously thinking about switching from the 35mm DA to the 35mm FA. I saw one on eBay going for less than 400 bucks.

---------- Post added 06-27-14 at 02:44 PM ----------

It's hard to say. I really think the FA limiteds do have some special rendering, although it is hard to explain...

FA 31 limited



But the DA *55 does to me too.

FA 31 limited is just AWESOME !

[Nicolas06]

This is a hard choice. So far I have spent 2 months trying to decide on a lens. Of course I don't have deep pockets so I'm trying to make my first purchase as satisfying as possible. Too bad there is not more of a choice when it comes to WR lenses. Some of these lenses sound good on paper until you read the entire review(s) and come up with Deal-Breakers. The 16-50mm and the 50-135mm have issues with the SDM motor, plus they are big and heavy. The 17-70mm f4 sounds pretty good until you read about outrageous softness in the 50-70mm range(according to some reviews). Personally I think the pancakes are too small and look dorky on the K5, sort like those tiny mirror-less cameras with HUGE lenses. The 20-40 is a beautiful lens but for the money I think 20-60mm/20-50mm would have been better. The 18-135mm which is weather resistant seems like a nice compromise, but it has so many issues that I would probably have to re-purchase a whole set of lenses that cover that range.

Oh well there is no such thing as the perfect lens, but the 16-45(non-WR) seems to be at the top of my list because of the extra wide angle which I like. Looks like a nice walk-around lens not too big not too small although I hear it is a little noisy.

I was like you always complaining of lenses problems. I just wasted my time. You know what? There not a single lens here that is perfect. And if it is, it likely more a Zeiss costing a few thousand $, full manual than anything else.

You don't buy gear to complain about its weaknesses, you learn to use gear so you get the best out of it.

From you specifics comments:

- New version of 17-70, 16-50 & 50-135 no longer have SDM problems. (I have a new DA*50-135 version).
- 17-70 has no softness problem @70mm. I have it and it does a good job. Maybe wide open the corners are not so good. But who really care? You shouldn't put the subject in the corner anyway! And for scenery where everything is shaprt, you suposed to use f/8, not f/4 so the problem is gone ! This comment is valid for all lenses: they are all soft at corner wide open and all zoom are better at some focal than other. This is normal and if you know how to take photo, you'll have no problem at all with that.
- I don't get your comment on pancakes? Are we really having a discussion on fashion applyed to a camera? Having a camera with you, a bulky and hugly black one with you, just make you look like a tourist, and remove most of you sex appeal and elegance you could have. Admit it! Getting something bigger may help to compensate on something else, true, but it will in practice be worse for all other people looking at you except maybe fellow photographs that also have something to compensate!
- 20-40 is small because of it's small range... If you want wider range, it will be bigger, and that's the 16-50 or it will be of less quality and this is 18-55... Honestly, with so many transtandard (DA17-70, DA*16-50, DA20-40 ltd, DA16-45, sigma/tamrom 17-50 f/2.8, sigma 24-70 f/2.8, tamrom 28-75 f/2.8, sigma 18-35 f/1.8, sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4...) to choose from nothing is missing, except maybe you to decide.