[Zephos]

Right now the only lenses I have that I would dare call "nice" are my 50mm f1.8 and my DA L 50-200 WR. They are not pro obviously but they can deliver good images. I also have a Quantaray 70-300 LD Macro but that has IQ problems.

I've been thinking that I will eventually replace my kit lens (18-55 WR)with something that gets at least 8.0 ratings (here) and that I will be satisfied with. What are some good options?

---

Last edited by photolady95; 02-19-2015 at 01:19 PM.

[photolady95]

I think the most important question the other members will ask is, what do you shoot?

[Adam]

The Sigma 17-70mm is a very good and affordable choice. You could also opt for the recently-launched Pentax 16-85mm, or the 18-135mm if you want more reach.

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 Contemporary Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
Pentax 16-85mm First Impressions Review - Previews and Reviews | PentaxForums.com

[AquaDome]

I have been dithering over the same question for almost a year. I was going to get the Sigma 18-35/1.8, but autofocus issues have moved it way down the list.

Currently on my short list are HD DA20-40/2.8-4 Limited, DA*16-50/2.8, Sigma 17-50/2.8, and Tamron 17-50/2.8.

I sold my DA18-55 six months ago in anticipation of getting one of these lenses. I have since purchased another DA18-55 to hold me over until I make up my mind.

[VoiceOfReason]

18-135 for WR, range, and good quality. It will blow your 50-200 away. If WR isn't necessary the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

[stevebrot]

The Sigma 17-70mm is a very good and affordable choice. You could also opt for the recently-launched Pentax 16-85mm, or the 18-135mm if you want more reach.

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 Contemporary Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
Pentax 16-85mm First Impressions Review - Previews and Reviews | PentaxForums.com

What he said...

I own the Sigma 17-70 (C) (Excellent value) and would seriously consider the new DA 16-85 if I were in the market today.


Steve

[loco]

I'm very pleased with the 18-135, but if i was looking for a kit lens replacement today, I would definitely look at the DA 16-85. Depends if you need the extra reach.

[jrpower10]

If you need a WR lens that covers that range, you only have 3 options; DA*16-50, DA18-135 and DA16-85. Any are an upgrade to the current kit lens. If you don't need WR, the 17-70 is good value. I owned one and really liked it, but ultimately needed WR so sold it to fund a 16-50.

[Lowell Goudge]

Right now the only lenses I have that I would dare call "nice" are my 50mm f1.8 and my DA L 50-200 WR. They are not pro obviously but they can deliver good images. I also have a Quantaray 70-300 LD Macro but that has IQ problems.

I've been thinking that I will eventually replace my kit lens (18-55 WR)with something that gets at least 8.0 ratings (here) and that I will be satisfied with. What are some good options?

I got my daughter a K50 and opted to go for something other than the kit lens, I got the 18-85 WR in stead

The 2mm wider field of view is significant, and the extra length makes it an ideal single lens walk around

Having played with the lens a little it is an excellent option

[Des]

I think the most important question the other members will ask is, what do you shoot?

Absolutely right. There are so many options in this range, you need to provide more information to narrow the choices.
1. What's your budget?
2. New, used or doesn't matter?
3. What do you shoot the most?
4. Do you shoot a lot indoors/low light?
5. Are weight and size major considerations?
6. How useful would WR be to you? Is no WR a deal-breaker? (This would make it easy.)
7. Do you want to use it for close focus shots?
8. What are you missing most in your current setup (e.g. speed, contrast, resolution, range)?
9. Do you shoot in RAW? If so, how much PP are you likely to do? (A lot can be extracted in PP, but some people prefer a lens that produces photos requiring little or no PP. You have the DA 50 f1.8 - I find it requires very little PP, whereas shots from the oft-praised 55-300 almost always benefit from some treatment.)

Unless you consider these questions, you will just come away more confused, with lots of conflicting recommendations. Seven lenses have been mentioned already, and others will probably come up. (No-one has mentioned superzooms yet.)

I've been thinking that I will eventually replace my kit lens (18-55 WR)with something that gets at least 8.0 ratings (here) and that I will be satisfied with.

Very different lenses can get high ratings, depending on how they meet the needs of the user, how much weight people give to the various criteria like price, CA, handling, resolution, contrast, bokeh, etc. The fact that a lens gets a high rating doesn't necessarily mean it's right for you.

[Zephos]

Absolutely right. There are so many options in this range, you need to provide more information to narrow the choices.
1. What's your budget?
2. New, used or doesn't matter?
3. What do you shoot the most?
4. Do you shoot a lot indoors/low light?
5. Are weight and size major considerations?
6. How useful would WR be to you? Is no WR a deal-breaker? (This would make it easy.)
7. Do you want to use it for close focus shots?
8. What are you missing most in your current setup (e.g. speed, contrast, resolution, range)?
9. Do you shoot in RAW? If so, how much PP are you likely to do? (A lot can be extracted in PP, but some people prefer a lens that produces photos requiring little or no PP. You have the DA 50 f1.8 - I find it requires very little PP, whereas shots from the oft-praised 55-300 almost always benefit from some treatment.)

Unless you consider these questions, you will just come away more confused, with lots of conflicting recommendations. Seven lenses have been mentioned already, and others will probably come up. (No-one has mentioned superzooms yet.)


Very different lenses can get high ratings, depending on how they meet the needs of the user, how much weight people give to the various criteria like price, CA, handling, resolution, contrast, bokeh, etc. The fact that a lens gets a high rating doesn't necessarily mean it's right for you.

Okay, I guess my main concern is sharpness and color. Speed Would be my third priority. WR is a nice perk, but I typically don't need it. As I'm trying to replace a zoom, speed and bokeh aren't really important because I can use primes for that.

Here's another thought... do I really need to replace my kit lens? Maybe I'm a bit premature in asking all this because I want nice lenses but I really haven't used my kit lens much, and maybe I'd be just fine with it? Why do people seem to not like the kit lenses so much anyway? I was surprised that people suggests the 18-135 which is also a kit lens, is it not?

[VoiceOfReason]

The 18-135 is sold as part of a kit at times, but is definitely a complete upgrade to the kit lens. It is silent and fast focusing, WR, sharp, and has good color rendering. It is a definite step up from a kit lens.

[sterretje]

Here's another thought... do I really need to replace my kit lens? Maybe I'm a bit premature in asking all this because I want nice lenses but I really haven't used my kit lens much, and maybe I'd be just fine with it? Why do people seem to not like the kit lenses so much anyway? I was surprised that people suggests the 18-135 which is also a kit lens, is it not?

Why not just try your 18-55. People don't like it because it has the label 'cheap'; it's not the perfect lens but you can get nice pictures with it. Judge for yourself at https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/45425-kit-lens-club.html
The 18-135 is not really a kit lens if you consider its stand-alone price.

[robjmitchell]

Don't forget the recently discontinued 16-45/4 if your on a tight budget and like pentax colours.

[atupdate]

Here's another thought... do I really need to replace my kit lens? Maybe I'm a bit premature in asking all this because I want nice lenses but I really haven't used my kit lens much, and maybe I'd be just fine with it?

Why not just try your 18-55. People don't like it because it has the label 'cheap'; it's not the perfect lens but you can get nice pictures with it.

+1 to sterretje's comment. The kit lens does a very nice job. I have several 11"x14" prints on my wall using that lens and my lowly 6 MP ist DS. See post#2 in the Kit Lens Club thread. The first and fourth photos are both on my wall.

Currently I'm shooting with a $40 Promaster 28-200mm superzoom (Older version with 72mm filter size made by Tamron). I picked up this lens because I was shooting a lot between the 40mm and 100mm range and was tired of switching lenses outdoors.



What I found is that if you want to get the most out of these "cheaper" lenses, you need to be willing to post process the pictures to get the color, saturation, and sharpness you want. With the high ISO capabilities of the newer cameras, I'm not afraid of the slowness of the lens, as it is easy to bump the ISO.

Tim