[jrpower10]

It does seem to fall outside the price range mentioned even with selling the other lenses which would not net a whole lot given what they are.

Yeah, just checked the exchange rate. Seen 12-24's for as little as $500 US, but that's 330 GBP at today's rate. 80 GBP is probably more than the 2 lenses can recoup.

[manntax]

For me there is only one lens that I would take - the Tokina 17mm f3.5.

[UncleVanya]

In looking over the winter and spring photos on the blog you linked I noticed that the vast majority were shot at 50mm or greater, very few are wide angle shots. I just realized you indicated the kit lens is wide enough, the others are not.

Also given the focal length it appears many of these were taken with the 50-200 which is known to be a lens with lower contrast and softness. You might see better results using the kit lens more and the 50-200 less. If you want a lens in that focal length that excels a bit more the 55-300 DAL, DA, and WR versions are all optically essentially the same as each other and all have quite a bit better reputation than the DA 50-200. I own both lenses but I haven't shot them back to back since I have loaned my dad my 50-200 and only recently acquired the 55-300. I have noticed that the 55-300 does nice pseudo macro shots at 300mm minimum focus distance which might be what you are doing with the 200mm in some of the photos.

Given the lack of wide angle shots I would think the 18-135 might be the next logical step for you. It covers a lot of the range you have been using - though not quite as long - and it's a sharp contrasty lens that gives great results. It's not a premium lens and it is not fast, but it works well. If you got this lens you could try to unload the kit lens and possibly the 50-200 for a small amount of money towards the next purchase.

In the end - it's your money and your photos. Keep telling us more about what you like and dislike and post links to more specific pics.

---------- Post added 01-20-15 at 12:52 PM ----------

Since it appears price might be involved ?
And you seem OK shooting Manual lenses ? Look hard at a 28mm , 24mm , or 35mm.... all primes.
You should be able to pick up easily a Ricoh , Sears , for less than $40 each.
In your description you seem to have a lot of tele....dut not much Normal or wide ?
I f I were you....Get a 28mm 3.5 of "something".... manual and cheap price from Ebay.

Those are fun but not very versatile or fast enough to work in some of the conditions he seems to enjoy - manual focus in lower light conditions can be challenging.

[ChristianRock]

If budget is an issue, i would keep your 50mm and 135mm and sell everything else. Seriously!

With the money you have plus the proceeds from selling the lenses (which won't be all that much) I would get a 16-45 as mentioned previously, or a Tokina 19-35 (I have it and for daylight use when you can stop down to f8 it's an incredibly sharp lens for the money).
For the longer end, my SMC Pentax-A 70-210mm f4 is a very nice lens. It's reasonably fast and sharp even wide open, very sharp at f5.6. It usually costs around 60 dollars, and it's much nicer than either one of your tele lenses. Manual focus, but very easy to focus, so for me it has never been an issue and the keeper rate is very high.
After that I would swing for the DA 35 2.4, I find that f2.4 is fast enough for low light with the Pentax SR IBIS which lets me take sharp pictures even at 1/15s.

Other suggestions like the Tamron 17-50 are also good suggestions, there's a lot out there, but you'll probably have to let go of some lenses to get something better!

[northcoastgreg]

In short of the ~$300 and under range, my top two choices for general purpose lens would be used copies of the Pentax DA 17-70 or the Tamron 17-50. The 17-70 gives you the Pentax color rendition, while the Tamron gives you f2.8.

If those two lenses are too expensive, a cheaper alternative is a used DA 16-45. CAs are not a serious issue with this lens, as they clean up pretty easily in Lightroom.

[Dlanor Sekao]

.

Given the lack of wide angle shots I would think the 18-135 might be the next logical step for you.

---------- Post added 01-20-15 at 12:52 PM ----------



Those are fun but not very versatile or fast enough to work in some of the conditions he seems to enjoy - manual focus in lower light conditions can be challenging.

Being a landscape guy I just assumed that everyone needs a couple of those. , but yes , they are a challenge in Low light and uses at times. The 18-135 WR might be better suited to
your shooting style

[UncleVanya]

Being a landscape guy I just assumed that everyone needs a couple of those. , but yes , they are a challenge in Low light and uses at times. The 18-135 WR might be better suited to
your shooting style

I have the DA 15 Limited for my WIDE shots...

[a96agli]

In looking over the winter and spring photos on the blog you linked I noticed that the vast majority were shot at 50mm or greater, very few are wide angle shots. I just realized you indicated the kit lens is wide enough, the others are not.

Also given the focal length it appears many of these were taken with the 50-200 which is known to be a lens with lower contrast and softness. You might see better results using the kit lens more and the 50-200 less. If you want a lens in that focal length that excels a bit more the 55-300 DAL, DA, and WR versions are all optically essentially the same as each other and all have quite a bit better reputation than the DA 50-200. I own both lenses but I haven't shot them back to back since I have loaned my dad my 50-200 and only recently acquired the 55-300. I have noticed that the 55-300 does nice pseudo macro shots at 300mm minimum focus distance which might be what you are doing with the 200mm in some of the photos.

Given the lack of wide angle shots I would think the 18-135 might be the next logical step for you. It covers a lot of the range you have been using - though not quite as long - and it's a sharp contrasty lens that gives great results. It's not a premium lens and it is not fast, but it works well. If you got this lens you could try to unload the kit lens and possibly the 50-200 for a small amount of money towards the next purchase.

In the end - it's your money and your photos. Keep telling us more about what you like and dislike and post links to more specific pics.

---------- Post added 01-20-15 at 12:52 PM ----------



Those are fun but not very versatile or fast enough to work in some of the conditions he seems to enjoy - manual focus in lower light conditions can be challenging.

On a sidenote, she, not he Thanks, a very insightful post - there have been so many replies I'm confused! Selling some of my stuff seems like a reasonable thing to do, as I never use the 40-80 (got lots of use of it with the K1000 though), and haven't touched the 35-80 for couple of years. I browsed my blog, and picked some of my favourite photos - the lens I use the most appears to be the 50mm, followed by the 50-200. The IQ of the 50-200 is not great, but it's useful for the shots I tend to want to take - pseudo macro, as you say. The 50mm seems to have a special quality about it I instantly recognise. The Oxford winter scene was taken with the 35-80, which would suggest it has more scope than I remember.

Based on all the recommendations, I think I'll save towards the Tamron 17-50 (or Pentax 17-70, if at the time I can get one second-hand) and also finally replace the 50-200 with a 55-300.

Again, sorry about the mega-size photos...

[UncleVanya]

Sorry for the confusion on gender I didn't mean to assume.

Your choice of lenses makes a lot of sense and I think you will be quite pleased. If you tend to shoot macro another option might be to get the Raynox 150 and 250 close up lenses and try those - they seem to produce great results.