[FoTom]

Hello everyone, it's been a long time since I came here. Work and school can be quite absorbing.

The thing is I need some help on deciding what would be my best bet for new glass. I don't have many lenses, that's kind of the problem. Now I'm considering several options.. I have a list that I'll be completing, but I gotta start somewhere, with one or two lenses. Let's say that I have ~$600 to spend at the moment.

My problem is that I see a lens and fall in love. I see another lens and fall in love again. Please bear with me hehe.. My current K-mount lenses are:

• Pentax 40mm f/2.8 XS
• Super Albinon 28mm f/2.8
• Gemini 80-200mm f/4 Macro
• Vivitar 50mm f/1.7
• Rokinon 85mm f/1.4

As you can see, all but the pancake are manual lenses. Also, none is WR. And I'm lacking in the wide end, and the tele end. With this in mind, I came up with a long list of lenses I lust for. WR is important, because after one or two lenses I'm getting my first ever WR body [I currently shoot with my beloved K-01 Pandatrooper] -a K5 IIs, until I can afford getting a K-3 or K-3 II.
Another thing important-ish is autofocus, because I feel I kinda need that, even if I'm not dependent on AF it's nice to have as I'd like to have a few lenses that are more useful/"easy mode" for photoshoot sessions. These are my options and reasons for each lens:

Pentax 18-135 WR $300 - Pros: Versatile lens, autofocus, WR, price. Cons: Not fast.
Pentax DA* 55mm 1.4 $560 - Pros: Fast, AF, WR, fantastic IQ. Cons: Price [could only get this one lens ATM].
Opteka 500mm f/8 $100 - Pros: looooong reach and super cheap. Cons: I don't really need it right now.
Rokinon 8mm 3.5 $250 - Pros: Fisheye. Cons: Manual lens although I prefer MF and at 8mm focusing shouldn't be an issue.
Venus 60mm f/2.8 $380 - Pros: Fantastic macro, fast, can be used for portraits. Cons: Longish for regular use.
Pentax 55-300 WR $400 - Pros: WR, long reach, good IQ. Cons: Price. Dunno how useful in a fashion shoot.
Pentax 14mm 2.8 $650 - Pros: Wide. Fast. AF. Cons: Price, Rokinon has better IQ.
Rokinon 14mm 2.8 $300 - Pros: Wide. Fast. Price. IQ. Cons: MF
Pentax 35mm 2.8 $577 - Pros: Macro. IQ. Cons: Except for the macro, my current 40mm is better than this.
Sigma 17-50 2.8 $355 - Pros: Versatile zoom, WR. fast lens. Cons: IQ vs Pentax/Tamron.
Pentax da* 16-50 2.8 $800 - Pros: Versatile zoom, WR, IQ, fast lens. Cons: Price, size.


So I know I can't have a single lens that happens to be a fast zoom, with prime-like IQ that ranges from fisheye to long tele haha, so compromises have to be made. I just can't decide where to start, what lens to get, taking into account my next WR body and the sessions I take to get money for gear. My very personal photography is street, fine art, and nature/contemplative photography, and I do that with my current lenses and other cameras, but of course what I get next will also be used for those purposes, not just photoshoots and events [which are what I have to do to get gear money]. I've shot in the streets with the 80-200mm for example -I use all and any lens for my shots! =]

So what do you think? Please help me decide with your knowledge and if possible, photo examples!


Kind regards from Mexico,
Tom

[normhead]

None of the above, -Tamron 17-50.

[filoxophy]

18-135 for the WR and DC autofocus motor. Then a DA21 or DA70 with the balance.

K-01 with 21 and 40? Killer combo!

[FoTom]

None of the above, -Tamron 17-50.

Why is it that better than the Sigma?

---------- Post added 06-07-15 at 03:38 PM ----------

18-135 for the WR and DC autofocus motor. Then a DA21 or DA70 with the balance.

K-01 with 21 and 40? Killer combo!

So you agree with the 18-135mm. That's reassuring =] I should still be able to get away with some portraits at the tele end, right?

Hmm the DA21 I had not considered because it's a bit slow and not WR, so I don't like its $500 price tag. Anyway, I'll play with the idea a bit more and search for photos taken with this lens =]

The 70mm fares better at f/2.4 though.

[normhead]

There are quite a few of us that like it more.

[Volker76]

Tamron 17-50 it is at least as good as the Sigma but costs less.

[dave2k]

I recently compared the Tamron 17-50 versus the Sigma 17-50 using information found on this site, including the many reviews and ratings, and concluded the Sigma was slightly favored. In any case, I'm very happy with mine. I don't think you could go wrong with either one, unless you want WR.

[Sorver]

A good deal of us suffer from lens addictiction

The two lenses that live on my camera are

Sigma 24-60 f2.8
Sigma 50-500

Both of these lenses cover my wildlife and portrait photography but if you want something super fast perhaps a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 second hand perhaps.

[FoTom]

There are quite a few of us that like it more.

Thanks. I'll look for more comparisons between the two =]

Tamron 17-50 it is at least as good as the Sigma but costs less.

I thought it was more expensive :O I remember there was a macro difference somewhere.. or one is constant 2.8? I guess I'll read more haha.

I recently compared the Tamron 17-50 versus the Sigma 17-50 using information found on this site, including the many reviews and ratings, and concluded the Sigma was slightly favored. In any case, I'm very happy with mine. I don't think you could go wrong with either one, unless you want WR.

I do want WR but that could be covered with other lenses, like the 18-135mm or the DA* when I can afford it.

A good deal of us suffer from lens addictiction

The two lenses that live on my camera are

Sigma 24-60 f2.8
Sigma 50-500

Both of these lenses cover my wildlife and portrait photography but if you want something super fast perhaps a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 second hand perhaps.

Hahaha no joke!
I've never heard/read of the Sigma 24-60. Seems kind of limited and by the focal length span I'm thinking it's designed for full frame cameras, no? I'll take a look. The 50-500mm sounds.. like it's quite big haha so I'll pass on that one =P The 500mm I currently want is appealing to me because it's a mirror lens, so it's quite small.

[furryurry]

I have Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, F50/1.7 for auto focus, Kiron 28mm/2, Adaptall 17/3.5, 35-80/2.8-3.8, 90/2.5 Macro, 70-210/4-5.6, Pentax A50mm/1.4. I'd like to have an auto focus 17-50/2.8 for it's versatility one day and if I were to buy one it would be the Sigma if I had an extra cash because the review here says it's slightly sharper, is silent and has the same 77mm filter thread that my 10-20 sigma has; and it would be Tamron 17-50 if I didn't have extra cash because people say it's same as Sigma in sharpness, noisy (like all screw driven lenses), has 67mm filter thread that none of my other lenses have. Both Tamron and Sigma 17-50 have 7 aperture blades which I like. Unlike my 10-20/4-5.6 Sigma which has 6 blades.
You don't have a wide angle lens so maybe you should buy one.

I'd sell the DA40XS and invest in something else.

Perfect lens collection for me (you don't have to read that):
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 (yes it has 6 blades, but the f/3.5 version has 82mm filter thread which is too big and non of my other lenses has it)
Sigma 17-50/2.8
Sigma or Tamron 70-200/2.8. Sigma has HSM version which is silent. I had Tamron and the image quality was good enough for me but needed money so I had to sell it. Tamron also has 77mm thread. Never shot with Sigma so can't compare the two.
All three zooms have good image quality, same 77mm filter thread.
Pentax 31mm Limited
Pentax A 50mm f/1.2
Pentax 100mm f/2.8 Macro.
Possibly:
Pentax 15mm Limited
Pentax A 24mm f/2.8
Pentax 77mm Limited

Lenses from your list that I wouldn't buy:
Pentax 18-135mm. I don't need a WR lens like that... and some of the range will be covered by 17-50 which I will get one day.
Pentax 35mm f/2.8 Macro, I don't think I would shoot macro that close and that focal length will be covered by the Sigma 17-50/2.8. Probably not the same image quality but good enough for me. Maybe one day when I decide to have all primes then I'll get one.
Venus 60mm f/2.8 Macro. I rather get an Adaptall 90mm f/2.8. It's a good macro lens from what I read and is good for portraits too.
Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8, because by that time I will already have a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Unless you find one with broken SDM for like $150 or less You also need a WR lens so maybe this is a better choice for you (Sigma and Tamron doesn't have that as far as I know).
I've had Pentax 14mm f/2.8 before and I don't think I need f/2.8 that much. Sigma does all I want, except nice star bursts. But you won't get those with DA14 either.
Opteka 500mm. I don't think you'll be impressed with the image quality.


I don't have a Fish Eye lens and not really sure if I need one. Sigma 10-20 is enough for me.


So in short if I were you I'd sell DA40XS and buy Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 and Sigma 17-50/2.8. Both used ofc because you won't be able to buy both new for ~$700.

[FoTom]

I have Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, F50/1.7 for auto focus, Kiron 28mm/2, Adaptall 17/3.5, 35-80/2.8-3.8, 90/2.5 Macro, 70-210/4-5.6, Pentax A50mm/1.4. I'd like to have an auto focus 17-50/2.8 for it's versatility one day and if I were to buy one it would be the Sigma if I had an extra cash because the review here says it's slightly sharper, is silent and has the same 77mm filter thread that my 10-20 sigma has; and it would be Tamron 17-50 if I didn't have extra cash because people say it's same as Sigma in sharpness, noisy (like all screw driven lenses), has 67mm filter thread that none of my other lenses have. Both Tamron and Sigma 17-50 have 7 aperture blades which I like. Unlike my 10-20/4-5.6 Sigma which has 6 blades.
You don't have a wide angle lens so maybe you should buy one.

Many thanks for the insight between the Tamron and Sigma 17-50s. I guess I'm going for the Sigma! That should cover my lack of wide-angledness and AF.

I'd sell the DA40XS and invest in something else.

Perfect lens collection for me (you don't have to read that):
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 (yes it has 6 blades, but the f/3.5 version has 82mm filter thread which is too big and non of my other lenses has it)
Sigma 17-50/2.8
Sigma or Tamron 70-200/2.8. Sigma has HSM version which is silent. I had Tamron and the image quality was good enough for me but needed money so I had to sell it. Tamron also has 77mm thread. Never shot with Sigma so can't compare the two.
All three zooms have good image quality, same 77mm filter thread.
Pentax 31mm Limited
Pentax A 50mm f/1.2
Pentax 100mm f/2.8 Macro.
Possibly:
Pentax 15mm Limited
Pentax A 24mm f/2.8
Pentax 77mm Limited

Nice list. I'm interested in some of those lenses too, like the 50mm 1.2, but that will have to come later. I don't really use filters much, other than an ND or CPL here and there, so ring size isn't much of a concern to me. Since it is for you, I suggest using step-up/down adapters, that's cheaper than buying filters in all sizes.

Lenses from your list that I wouldn't buy:
Pentax 18-135mm. I don't need a WR lens like that... and some of the range will be covered by 17-50 which I will get one day.
Pentax 35mm f/2.8 Macro, I don't think I would shoot macro that close and that focal length will be covered by the Sigma 17-50/2.8. Probably not the same image quality but good enough for me. Maybe one day when I decide to have all primes then I'll get one.
Venus 60mm f/2.8 Macro. I rather get an Adaptall 90mm f/2.8. It's a good macro lens from what I read and is good for portraits too.
Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8, because by that time I will already have a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Unless you find one with broken SDM for like $150 or less You also need a WR lens so maybe this is a better choice for you (Sigma and Tamron doesn't have that as far as I know).
I've had Pentax 14mm f/2.8 before and I don't think I need f/2.8 that much. Sigma does all I want, except nice star bursts. But you won't get those with DA14 either.
Opteka 500mm. I don't think you'll be impressed with the image quality.

I don't have a Fish Eye lens and not really sure if I need one. Sigma 10-20 is enough for me.

So in short if I were you I'd sell DA40XS and buy Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 and Sigma 17-50/2.8. Both used ofc because you won't be able to buy both new for ~$700.

I wouldn't sell the 40mm because I like its compactness and how it pairs perfectly with my K-01. With this talk I'm now more inclined to that Sigma 17-50 and the 18-135, which I know some of the range is covered with the Sigma, but that would be particularly for WR.

The macros, yeah, I want the Venus because the mag ratio is 2:1!! That's quite the feat, considering it's also a good portrait lens.
I've not seen many photos taken with the Opteka, but I'm aware it's not going to give me the best image quality.. it is a cheap lens. I want it because 500mm,
And the fisheye, for astro shots and other artistic shots I want to take. I already have some ideas and can't shoot them!! But of course, I need money so I'll have to wait and go one lens at a time

[ramseybuckeye]

You have a lot of targets, I can comment on a few from your list

Pentax 18-135 WR $300 - Pros: Versatile lens, autofocus, WR, price. Cons: Not fast.
An extremely versatile lens and much better than a lot of people give it credit for.
A recent shot:


One of the strengths, shooting in the rain


Another I'm fond of:


Rokinon 8mm 3.5 $250 - Pros: Fisheye. Cons: Manual lens although I prefer MF and at 8mm focusing shouldn't be an issue.
I just got this and have no samples yet.

Pentax 55-300 WR $400 - Pros: WR, long reach, good IQ. Cons: Price. Dunno how useful in a fashion shoot.
I don't have the WR version but the optics are the same. I know longer have the lens, I replaced it withe a DA*300 since 90% of my use was at 300, my son has it now. The downside is the slow and noisy autofocus, I learned to manually get close with quickshift, then let the autofocus nail it. It also helps to have good light.
I was shooting wildlife when this scene developed, so this proves it's also good at 55mm:


A couple of birding shots:




I have top think the HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited DC WR would be an excellent fit, especially for street shooting, except for the price.

Hopefully Pentax will be coming out with some new faster WR zooms and primes.

[FoTom]

You have a lot of targets, I can comment on a few from your list

Pentax 18-135 WR $300 - Pros: Versatile lens, autofocus, WR, price. Cons: Not fast.
An extremely versatile lens and much better than a lot of people give it credit for.
A recent shot:
[img]

One of the strengths, shooting in the rain
[img]

Another I'm fond of:
[img]

Rokinon 8mm 3.5 $250 - Pros: Fisheye. Cons: Manual lens although I prefer MF and at 8mm focusing shouldn't be an issue.
I just got this and have no samples yet.

Pentax 55-300 WR $400 - Pros: WR, long reach, good IQ. Cons: Price. Dunno how useful in a fashion shoot.
I don't have the WR version but the optics are the same. I know longer have the lens, I replaced it withe a DA*300 since 90% of my use was at 300, my son has it now. The downside is the slow and noisy autofocus, I learned to manually get close with quickshift, then let the autofocus nail it. It also helps to have good light.
I was shooting wildlife when this scene developed, so this proves it's also good at 55mm:
[img]

A couple of birding shots:
[img]
[img]

I have top think the HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited DC WR would be an excellent fit, especially for street shooting, except for the price.

Hopefully Pentax will be coming out with some new faster WR zooms and primes.

Holy guacamole, what beautiful pictures! Thanks for sharing them! Shooting in the rain is something I have always dreamed of, and the very reason I switched to Pentax. But before getting a WR body, I needed to make the switch from Canon... which is kinda untrue, since I kept all my Canon gear. Therefore, I got my K-01 and began wandering in Pentax terrain. Now I can afford more lenses and the WR body is next. Thanks to your post, I now know that the 18-135mm is the 2rd lens I'll get after the Sigma 17-50mm, and only because my current camera is not sealed, so there wouldn't be much of a case. Afterwards, the 55-300 WR. And yes, the 20-40mm is quite steep for me at the moment hehe.

[Wild Mark]

Did anyone suggest the HD Pentax DA 16-85mm? Much improved over the 18-135 (miles ahead from reviews) and fits a nice range from WA to portrait to short tele.

This way, with this in the camera bag, you can save up for the 70-200/2.8 someday .....

[FoTom]

Did anyone suggest the HD Pentax DA 16-85mm? Much improved over the 18-135 (miles ahead from reviews) and fits a nice range from WA to portrait to short tele.

This way, with this in the camera bag, you can save up for the 70-200/2.8 someday .....

Nope, no one had until you brought it out, and to be honest, I didn't know that lens, thanks!!

Hmmm.. well that's.. interesting. What bugs me is the relatively slow aperture and the high price tag [~$640]. The WR makes up for it a little bit, but with the 18-135mm at less than half the price [~$300], it's questionable in my opinion.

I like its ultra-wideness though. Looks like I need to consider this one too, although at this point, I don't think I'd brush off the 18-135mm just because of the extra reach.. what do you think? Samples anyone?

Edit:
This would actually replace the Sigma/Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, not the 18-135. That being the case, it's weather sealing/longer reach vs fast aperture. This just got more interesting.