[IsaacT]

A part of me wants to pick up the 18-55 WR lens since right now it is less than half the price of new. I wish I had the funds to buy a FA31 ltd but I don't and I am thinking it might be best to get a cheaper fill in and save for the good lens.

The tamron and sigma both have mixed reviews in the 17-50mm f/2.8 range so I am starting to become wary of that option.

[gmans]

16-45 smc is cheap option, pretty good IQ

[IsaacT]

Actually, I just saw the reviews of the 18-55 WR. That isn't happening. Everything got mediocre scoring :/

[Digitalis]

sthing like sigma 30 1.4

He's looking for a quality lens, not a second rate substitute for a lensbaby.

[grispie]

He's looking for a quality lens, not a second rate substitute for a lensbaby.

i think it's a fine lens

16-45 smc is cheap option, pretty good IQ

& this is a very fine lens as well if you don't require 2.8 & want to go for a zoom.
available second hand.

[mecrox]

A zoom covering somewhere around 16-70mm and a couple of primes, perhaps, chosen according to your pocket? That's pretty well what I do. It does depend, however, on whether you prefer zooms over primes or vice versa and on how much you are prepared to carry around. There are several zooms that don't cost big bucks - Pentax 16-45mm, 17-70mm Sigma or Pentax, for example, as well as the new Pentax 16-85mm though that is still quite expensive (sounds good, though I've yet to see an in-depth review). As for primes, the DA 35mm f2.4 is pretty hard not to consider. And for longer, my A series MF 50mm f1.4 is one of the best lenses I own and cost under 100 bucks.

As for f2.8, all I can say is that my DA*16-50mm isn't good enough at f2.8 and after a few experiments I don't use it wide open. Maybe other zooms are superior, but quite honestly I see zooms of this kind as good for f4 or F5.6 plus, the more open apertures being better served by primes. I usually shoot my zoom at f8-f11 since I mainly use it for landscapes and cityscapes.

As you can see, the choice of equipment is very much influenced by someone's personal style so it is pretty hard to make more than general points. A good outfit for me, if I changed around my lenses, would be the pentax 16-85mm and the DA 21mm and either the DA 70mm or my A series 50mm. But that could be more than someone wants to spend ...

I do find WR really useful. It depends on where you live, but here it is a godsend and often necessary. So WR is worth bearing in mind, too.

[audiobomber]

The tamron and sigma both have mixed reviews in the 17-50mm f/2.8 range so I am starting to become wary of that option.

Where did you see an unfavourable review of the Sigma 17-50? I just did extensive research on that lens and saw nothing but encouraging verdicts. It is sharper below f5.6 than the Tamron 17-50, and better built. You always need to be concerned about auto-focus with third party lenses, but the Sigma is more reliable there too according to my readings. I wasn't sure about Sigma colours, but it looks good to me, and exposure is more accurate than my 16-45mm. I do have to dial in +5 AF Adjust, but that's a small issue. I've had to do that with several Pentax lenses as well. Like all f2.8 zooms, it is a bit of a chunk, but it fits into the same bags where I formerly carried the 16-45. My only complaint are the zoom and focus rings that turn in the wrong direction, and no quick-shift focus. It's an amazing lens for $500 and I have no regrets about buying it.

[UncleVanya]

If you don't need speed as I mentioned and a couple others said, the 16-85 Pentax looks really nice. It is also WR.
If you need speed & WR then the 16-50.
If you need cheaper then the 17-50 as suggested.
If you want light and easy to carry then the new 18-50 collapsible lens - have not seen reviews yet however.
If you want primes I suggested the DA 21, the DA 35 f/2.4, and the DA 50 f/1.8 - all three together if you buy used on the DA 21 should be well under your budget and they are light and small.

[IsaacT]

Any opinions on the DA 40 XS Limited? I know there have to be some sort of tradeoffs for such a small lens, but everyone seems to like it and I think the low profile would be handy when carrying it for everyday stuff.

As for the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, I looked at the reviews on the forum a second time and I think I may have looked at the wrong one originally. Not bad at all!

[grispie]

I wonder if you should be looking for something FF compatible?
All your other lenses are...
Even if you don't plan to buy FF in near future.

Just thinking out loud here..

[audiobomber]

Any opinions on the DA 40 XS Limited? I know there have to be some sort of tradeoffs for such a small lens, but everyone seems to like it and I think the low profile would be handy when carrying it for everyday stuff

Not everyone likes it. Too much purple fringe for me, and the size advantage is lost when you add a lens hood, which I always do. The DA 35mm f2.4 and DA 40mm Limited are better lenses for not much more dosh.

I owned both 40mm's, sold the XS. I don't own a 35mm f2.4, but I own the similar FA 35mm f2. It is my most used prime; very sharp, and the wider aperture is both useable and useful.

[rrstuff]

for my photography, my 16 and my 70-200 will handle most things, but sometimes i want a lens i can carry with me in case i see a picture while i am out and about.

I think a zoom will be the best option because i might need a wide angle, might need a normal, don't know. On the other hand that 43 ltd sounds awesome. It's tough to say

16-45da

[Imp]

can be had super cheap right now too

really? from where?

[VoiceOfReason]

really? from where?

Gray market from Japan, and cheap because of the exchange rate.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-PENTAX-Digital/dp/B0013DFZNK...n+17-50+Pentax

[Cambo]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/272000-sal...m-28-70mm.html

Big, heavy, not very wide, but MAGNIFICENT.

Also, the 18-55 and the 55-300 pair, weatherproof, fabulous for the money.

Cheers,
Cameron