[BigMackCam]

So this isn't a right / wrong or even definitive answer kind of question... I'm just interested in some thoughts and opinions

I recently sold some ham radio equipment, and it's my birthday (very) soon, so I'd like to treat myself to a new lens.

I use both a K3 and a K5. The K3 is my main camera, while the K5 has become my backup / experiment / beater camera (and usually has an M42 adaptor of some sort on it). For a long time, the only lenses I owned were the Pentax 18-55 WR and 50-200 WR, the Pentax 35mm f2.4 (which I love), and the Pentax 18-270mm. It was this latter lens that stayed on my camera most of the time as it gave OK results and was so versatile, but I was never that happy with IQ - especially the perceived sharpness / resolution. Then I started buying old manual lenses (of which I have several - such as the SMC 50mm f1.7) for silly low money and in many cases I was blown away by the IQ - so much so that my old kit zooms don't get used at all, and the 18-270mm only sees daylight when I'm being *very* lazy (in fact, I'm seriously thinking of selling it along with the WR kit glass). The 35mm f2.4 gets used regularly (great little lens), and a little while ago I splashed out on an HD 15mm f4 Limited (on special offer) which I have fallen in love with - it has become my favourite AF lens.

So... current state of play:

On my K3, I typically use the HD 15mm f4 Limited, the 35mm f2.4, and a handful of fully manual or A-type 28mm & 50mm lenses. The K5, more often than not, has a Helios 44m 2/58 attached (which I really like), or I use it to play with *cheap* old eBay finds. And I'm happy with this... but I'd like to treat myself to a special new lens

I'd particularly like another current AF Limited, given my experience with the 15mm... and I think I've narrowed the choice down to the HD 40mm f2.8, or the HD 20-40mm. I like the reviews and the current price of the 40mm, but really like the flexibility and WR of the 20-40mm, assuming it is as sharp as everyone says it is (I can live with it being a little slower). Then again, the HD 35mm f2.8 is also appealing, with its macro capability!!

But then, I also like the look of the 100mm WR macro. The only other prime I have in this general length is the Pentax-M 135mm f3.5, which is a nice little lens but a little too long for me. And the 100mm excels at macro, which would be a lot of fun. Plus, it seems like it's a Limited lens in everything but name, and has WR which is a big plus.

Lastly... the Sigma 150-500mm. Aside from the 18-270mm and a Tamron SP 60-300mm (neither of which have stellar IQ at the long end), I have absolutely nothing really long in my collection. It would be nice to be equipped for lunar and wildlife photography at some point (sports photography isn't of interest to me), and the Sigma seems like a good all-rounder - plus, right now, my favourite dealer has one heck of a deal going on this particular model.

All of the choices I've mentioned are within budget, although the HD 20-40mm and Sigma 150-500mm would be right at the upper limit of what I'm happy to spend (assuming I buy new).

.... OR (my curve-ball).... Given the fact that I love my K3 and don't lust after a K3ii or the forthcoming FF model, do I retire my K5, move my existing K3 to backup duty, and invest in a second new-lower-price K3 body??

As I said at the start, I'm just interested in thoughts and opinions (and hopefully some of those may be based on ownership of the lenses I mention).

Thanks all !

Mike

[hcc]

I would recommend you one of the three amigos: that is, one of the FA Limited. The FA Limited lenses are unique IMHO.

I may suggest the FA77mm Ltd. I love the FA31mm Ltd. But you have already the DA35mm. The FA77mm would nicely fit with your lens lineup. The FA77mm was also voted here the best PF Pentax lens.


As for a 2nd body, I would suggest to keep the K-5. It is good camera and there is nothing wrong with it. Myself I continue to use my K-7 and I love it as a 2nd body. At low ISO, it gives me great shots.

My 5 cents.

[MadMathMind]

You've managed to list half the lenses Pentax makes and didn't include a single FA limited. Too pricey or just not what you're looking for? They'll really change your perspective on photography, trust me. The word "pixie dust" is tossed about a bit too often around here, but there's just something subjective about the photos those lenses make that makes them so delectable.

The trouble is that once you get one, you will have to get another.

[condor27596]

I was going to say the fa 77 as well.

[jatrax]

Given what you posted my vote would be the 20-40 limited. I don't have it but it seems to be well regarded and fits into your line up. The 150-500 would also be of interest. I guess you need to decide which one you would use the most, 20-40 or 150-500?

[MadMathMind]

I was going to say the fa 77 as well.

I wasn't going to suggest which FA Limited, but given that it is my avatar, I also endorse the FA77.

[robthebloke]

DA70 or FA77. The fa is something magical, but the da isn't too far behind. The 15/35/77 would be a formidable 3 lens kit. (The 15/35/70 wouldn't be too far behind!)

[condor27596]

Everyone that has the 77 says it is magical. Should be noted lol

[Des]

So you have:
DA 15 Ltd
DA 18-55 WR
DA 18-270
Tokina 28mm f2.8
DA 35 f2.4
M-50 f1.7
M-135 f3.5

And the options being considered are:
DA 20-40 Ltd
DA 35 f2.8 Ltd
DA 40
DFA 100 WR
Sigma 150-500
Another K-3 body

You haven't said what your budget is, but we can guess from this list.

These are all good options, so it really comes down to your preferred focal length(s). That in turn depends on what you want to shoot, which you haven't said.

I can't see a strong argument for a DA 40 if you are happy with your 28, 35 and 50.

While replacing the DA 35 f2.4 with the DA 35 f2.8 Ltd would be a worthwhile upgrade, you might be better to fill in gaps instead.

The 20-40 would be useful at the wider end, and it's WR. Alternatively you might consider a DA 21 or one of the better 24s.

But the bigger gaps seem to be above 50mm, especially if you are dissatisfied with the 18-270.

The DFA 100 is a stellar lens, and macro is great fun. But if you are only likely to dabble in macro, a Tamron 90 or Sigma 105 would give you similar IQ for less money (or, to put it another way, change with which to buy something else!).

If you want something really special in the medium tele class, get the FA 77 Ltd. There are several sharp contrasty lenses that produce beautiful colour and bokeh, and the 77 does all that. But the 77 gives a remarkable 3D effect that makes ordinary things extraordinary. Look at some samples and see what I mean. It really does have pixie dust.

Going to the 150-500 is something completely different. It produces fine photos, but it's a beast of a lens (nearly 2kg). You have to be pretty committed to carry it around. If you are a casual shooter of birds and wildlife the DA 55-300 WR might be sufficient; the IQ will be noticeably better than the 18-270, and quite good enough for most people. But if you are now hooked on prime quality consider the DA*300 f4 - much lighter than the Sigma and it's sharp enough that images taken with the K-3 will withstand plenty of cropping. The quiet SDM AF won't scare the birds the way screw drive AF does.

As between lenses and body, go with lenses. You have two good cameras already. They will be cheaper next year, but a good lens won't.

[Edit: others posted while I was writing this. Glad to see others also suggesting the 77.]

[r0ckstarr]

No budget? I vote for DA 560.

[wizofoz]

As others have said- get the 77. Then next birthday get the 43, and then you will NEED the 31. These truly are uniquely special lenses, and one of the main/best reasons to be a Pentaxian. My old grandad used to say ' if you buy the best, you only buy it once' . This holds true for the trio amigo. These lenses are lifetime investments.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

[aoeu]

FA* 85. make sure you get the hood. You can pick up the padded case later.

[Na Horuk]

I would nominate DFA 100mm. WR, true 1:1 macro, QS, super sharp, flat field of focus.. just a great lens. Now, its a macro lens, so it doesn't have "character" like your Helios or maybe the FA limited lenses you are thinking about. No, instead it has laboratory precision, sharpness, full of detail. And it has decent AF (better than no AF at all, though you don't need it for actual macro photography)
It would fit in your lineup well. A great telephoto lens can open new fields for you, and the DFA 100mm is still very compact, so you don't get tired of carrying it around.

[btnapa]

So this isn't a right / wrong or even definitive answer kind of question... I'm just interested in some thoughts and opinions

I recently sold some ham radio equipment, and it's my birthday (very) soon, so I'd like to treat myself to a new lens.

I use both a K3 and a K5. The K3 is my main camera, while the K5 has become my backup / experiment / beater camera (and usually has an M42 adaptor of some sort on it). For a long time, the only lenses I owned were the Pentax 18-55 WR and 50-200 WR, the Pentax 35mm f2.4 (which I love), and the Pentax 18-270mm. It was this latter lens that stayed on my camera most of the time as it gave OK results and was so versatile, but I was never that happy with IQ - especially the perceived sharpness / resolution. Then I started buying old manual lenses (of which I have several - such as the SMC 50mm f1.7) for silly low money and in many cases I was blown away by the IQ - so much so that my old kit zooms don't get used at all, and the 18-270mm only sees daylight when I'm being *very* lazy (in fact, I'm seriously thinking of selling it along with the WR kit glass). The 35mm f2.4 gets used regularly (great little lens), and a little while ago I splashed out on an HD 15mm f4 Limited (on special offer) which I have fallen in love with - it has become my favourite AF lens.

So... current state of play:

On my K3, I typically use the HD 15mm f4 Limited, the 35mm f2.4, and a handful of fully manual or A-type 28mm & 50mm lenses. The K5, more often than not, has a Helios 44m 2/58 attached (which I really like), or I use it to play with *cheap* old eBay finds. And I'm happy with this... but I'd like to treat myself to a special new lens

I'd particularly like another current AF Limited, given my experience with the 15mm... and I think I've narrowed the choice down to the HD 40mm f2.8, or the HD 20-40mm. I like the reviews and the current price of the 40mm, but really like the flexibility and WR of the 20-40mm, assuming it is as sharp as everyone says it is (I can live with it being a little slower). Then again, the HD 35mm f2.8 is also appealing, with its macro capability!!

But then, I also like the look of the 100mm WR macro. The only other prime I have in this general length is the Pentax-M 135mm f3.5, which is a nice little lens but a little too long for me. And the 100mm excels at macro, which would be a lot of fun. Plus, it seems like it's a Limited lens in everything but name, and has WR which is a big plus.

Lastly... the Sigma 150-500mm. Aside from the 18-270mm and a Tamron SP 60-300mm (neither of which have stellar IQ at the long end), I have absolutely nothing really long in my collection. It would be nice to be equipped for lunar and wildlife photography at some point (sports photography isn't of interest to me), and the Sigma seems like a good all-rounder - plus, right now, my favourite dealer has one heck of a deal going on this particular model.

All of the choices I've mentioned are within budget, although the HD 20-40mm and Sigma 150-500mm would be right at the upper limit of what I'm happy to spend (assuming I buy new).

.... OR (my curve-ball).... Given the fact that I love my K3 and don't lust after a K3ii or the forthcoming FF model, do I retire my K5, move my existing K3 to backup duty, and invest in a second new-lower-price K3 body??

As I said at the start, I'm just interested in thoughts and opinions (and hopefully some of those may be based on ownership of the lenses I mention).

Thanks all !

Mike

I have the three amigos and love and have used them for assignments. The one that surprisingly ended up being my absolute go to lens for most of my shoots, has been the 43mm. I love all three but sometimes I long for one lens that would be an all arounder that also gives me flexibility. As a result I have been thinking about the 20-40. It is also has WR which non of my current lenses have. My vote would be for the 20-40. Perhaps for your next birthday, you should treat yourself to the three amigos. They truly are in a league of their own.

BTW, a thumbs up for adding the new K3II.

[Des]

My old grandad used to say ' if you buy the best, you only buy it once' . This holds true for the trio amigo. These lenses are lifetime investments.

Or as Henry Royce said, "The quality is remembered after the price is forgotten".