[Mrs_K]

Hi,

I'm about to buy the K-3 and I'm not sure what lenses to buy with it. I have no equipment as of yet, so I basically need to buy everything. I'm not bothered about whether it is new or used, but most new cameras come with the choice of kit lenses so I'm not sure if I should just buy one (or two or three) or buy the body only and look for a used lense elsewhere.

The deal is with the following lenses:
18-55mm
50-200mm
50mm 1.8F
18-135mm - this is the most expensive deal

Or I can just buy the body and buy any other (even third party) lens. I need to consider the cost right now since I'm paying for the body and my pocket is not bottom-less. The best deal financially is to buy 18-55mm + 20-200mm, if I buy those together, I can get the 50mm f1.8 for only 50£. But don't want to fall into the trap of buying all possible 'kit' lenses, if there are better alternatives.

The photos I tend to shoot are street photography, portraits of people mainly, little bit of makro, occasional landscape.

Thank you.

[RAART]

I would skip that deal and go right away for this:

DA 20-40mm 2.8-4 Ltd WR
DA 50mm 1.8 or 55mm 1.4
HD DA 70mm 2.4 Ltd. or FA 77mm 1.8 Ltd
D FA 100mm 2.8 Macro WR

(DA 12-24mm F4 - depending on the funds or add later)
(Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 - depending on funds or later purchase)

YMMW

[lukas0303]

Hi,
When I bought my ones, I chose the 18-55 and 50-200. For the time I use them, I am a bit disapointed I didn't purchase the 18-135 instead as I am not using a zoom as much as I've planned to do so.

So if I was you, I would buy 18-135 now.

[beachgardener]

K3 with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a good start, gives you time to work out which lenses you need, old, used or new.

Lens Sample Photo Archive - PentaxForums.com

Lens Clubs - PentaxForums.com

[grispie]

I would skip that deal and go right away for this:

I guess the poster will have to indicate some kind of budget... :-)

anyhow,
on a budget, i'd go for a 2nd hand 16-45 and a DA 70...

[calsan]

Honestly, the 18-135 is what I would recommend. The auto focus is fast and QUIET, the build quality is good, it's weather sealed. The bokeh is quite nice and it's plenty sharp enough. I have more exotic glass, but this is what I leave on my camera 90% of the time these days. It's an excellent all rounder. It's also good value in a kit, whereas the other three lenses are cheaply available at any time. The 18-55 and 55-200 would get no use if you owned the 18-135. The 50 1.8 only get used for portraits. You would be better off saving for either a 50 or 100 macro to double up for portrait and macro use in one lens.

[grispie]

Honestly, the 18-135 is what I would recommend

Don't have it myself. So can't really recommend it. But i have heard nice things about it. especially when you buy it as kitlens, it would be value for money.
And with a wr camera goes at least one wr lens...

[bassek]

Go for the DA18-55 or the 18-135 (especially if you do not want to change lenses) . In addition consider the DA50/1.8, maybe even the DA35/2.4 if you like primes (where you like to change lenses). If you need long zooms go for the DA55-300 (not the DA50-200). Then look into all the used legacy lenses there are available on eBay etc. When you know what you want, go for the FA or DA limiteds.

Seb

[vrolok]

As a start, I would go for the general-purpose 18-135, which is also WR.

[AquaDome]

The DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 would be my first choice, but expensive.
The DA16-45 and DA55-300 together make a great team. Any Pentax 50mm prime would fit between them.
The Tamron 17-50/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are another option I wouldn't discount.
The DA18-135 conveniently gives you a whole lot of range in one zoom lens with an upgrade in quality over the kit lenses.
The "Plastic Fantastic" primes, DA35/2.4 and DA50/1.8, also shouldn't be discounted. You should have at least one prime in your bag.
The new DA16-85 might get you most of what you're looking for in one zoom, but it is too new to have a reputation yet.

[Adam]

Hi,

I'm about to buy the K-3 and I'm not sure what lenses to buy with it. I have no equipment as of yet, so I basically need to buy everything. I'm not bothered about whether it is new or used, but most new cameras come with the choice of kit lenses so I'm not sure if I should just buy one (or two or three) or buy the body only and look for a used lense elsewhere.

The deal is with the following lenses:
18-55mm
50-200mm
50mm 1.8F
18-135mm - this is the most expensive deal

Or I can just buy the body and buy any other (even third party) lens. I need to consider the cost right now since I'm paying for the body and my pocket is not bottom-less. The best deal financially is to buy 18-55mm + 20-200mm, if I buy those together, I can get the 50mm f1.8 for only 50£. But don't want to fall into the trap of buying all possible 'kit' lenses, if there are better alternatives.

The photos I tend to shoot are street photography, portraits of people mainly, little bit of makro, occasional landscape.

Thank you.

I would get the 18-135mm kit and then start building a collection of primes. The 18-55 and 50-200mm combo is noisy while focusing and less convenient, so it should really only be chosen if you can't justify the price of the 18-135mm.

[sterretje]

I would probably opt for a body only and a Sigma 17-70 Contemporary.

You might also want to consider a K5/IIs instead of K3; for your described usage, I think that the K5/IIs should be fine. Leaves more money for lenses, flash, tripod, bag etc.

[romay]

Is this your first DSLR? If not, just skip the rest of my post.

If it is, you're walking right into the trap of buying the latest body and cheap lenses with it.
In reality, lenses are always more important. Picture quality is mostly limited by lens abberations and to a lesser extent by the body/sensor.
An expensive body with a bad lens will give you sub-optimal pictures. A cheap body with a good lens takes great pictures. An expensive body with an good lens takes great pictures and has more features.

Whether a lens is bad or good does not solely depend on the price (the plastic fantastic 35mm 2.4 and 50mm 1.8 are cheap and great). However, especially in the area of high magnification zooms you may easily get into a situation where your (expensive) DSLR outresolves the cheaper super-zoom. This is where you wasted money on the camera that you could have invested in a better lens.

Short version:
The K-3 is probably overkill if you really plan on using those zoom lenses, as the sensor outresolves the lenses.
Try to go for a K5 II or even a K-50, they give you the same image quality.
You can upgrade the body later (that's what you will end up doing anyways).

The saved money can be invested in better glass.
For landscape, the SMC-DA 12-24mm would be good.
As a normal lens I highly recommend the 20-40mm limited.
For macro, the 100mm DFA is probably best.
If you really need long zoom ranges, have a look at the DA* line of lenses and/or wait for the new HD superzoom(s).

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood: Of course there's nothing wrong with buying those zoom lenses you mentioned, but they should never be the only lenses in your bag. If you buy the megapixels, then you need to buy some glass to feed them.

[alamo5000]

K3 with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a good start, gives you time to work out which lenses you need, old, used or new.

To the OP: You will get 100 different variations on what to buy based on other people's experiences and preferences as to how they shoot.

That said I am with beachgardener. The tamron 17-50 would be a fantastic place to start. I assume you don't have a lot of photography experience otherwise you would not have posted a 'which lens' thread

For me I started out wanting all zooms and I thought the bigger and longer the better. Fast forward after owning a few of those and I shoot all primes. Lens selection is a matter of 'the job' you want done and sheer personal preference. Preferences must be honed and learned through nothing but trial and error. No one can tell you the right answer for you, only that 'X lens is of good quality/sharp/cheap/best value' etc etc.

The 17-50 gives you a wide range in one package and it's a sharp lens. Later on once you've shot for 5 or 6 months you can see what you like and don't, or if you want to try primes (and of which focal length) and so on and so forth.

This is by far in my opinion the most economical way to start out. Otherwise if money's no object just buy a bunch of lenses and test them out, but I suspect that it would wiser to not do that.

[akshay869]

The 18-135mm combo is the deal I'd strongly suggest.

>The convenience of this lens and its handling is simply great.
>It works really good for the kind of photography you've mentioned.
>You wont feel the need to get any other lens for a year if you start with this.

With a good post processing software like dxo, you could squeeze out even more magic.