[tomtor]

I am considering buying a k3ii and wonder if I should combine it with either the 18-50 or the 16-85 (because of the kit discount) or buy just the body.

Currently I have a k-x (which I love but I want the astrotracer and lower noise for astro photography) and I have some good glass: eg Samyang 14, da12-24, da35 macro, tamron 28-75, fa77, sigma105 macro and da50-135. My da18-250 is also a very good copy.

The only thing missing is a wide/standard WR lens, but to be honest I have not really missed WR capability.
Silent focussing could be a potential advantage too.

The original plan was to wait for a future Pentax FF with probably a 24-105/4 WR kit lens (at least wait for the detailed specs), but the k3ii prices are very reasonable. The hypothetical 24-105 would also be nice on a k3, so I tend to go for just a k3ii body.

What do you think, would the silent WR 18-50 kit lens be a waste of money? I already have two 18-55 non WR kits on my shelve.

I would like the 16-85, but that would mean that my primes and da50-135 see less usage. It is also not a FF lens

Thoughts from the forum members would surely help in the decision process.

-- edit --

Just discovered that the k3ii is only available with the old 18-55WR kit, or the 18-135 or the 16-85.

So the silent 18-50 is not a cheap option
I guess that makes my choice easier

---

Last edited by tomtor; 06-14-2015 at 11:48 AM. Reason: 18-50 NOT available in kit

[xabolcs]

I purchase body only...

[Venom3300]

Body only

[AtitG]

The 18-50mm WR RE lens is cheap enough bundled as a kit and small enough to bring "just in case" you need WR. I'd think that its also easy to dispose just in case you dont want it. Its the smallest and cheapest WR zoom lens . Good enough optics. But the handling was definitely sacrificed to maintain the small size.

---

Last edited by AtitG; 06-14-2015 at 10:05 AM.

[Driline]

body only

[mixberry]

Body Only, save your money to buy FF lens/ flash/ tripod for astro photography

[normhead]

I'm a little unclear about the following paragraph....

Exceptional Image Rendition
Incorporating super-low dispersion glass elements and aspherical elements in its 11-element/eight-group optics, this lens effectively compensates various aberrations for high-contrast, high-resolution, fine-detailed images with minimal color bleeding.

I guess it's just Pentax hype.

I like the "you can put it in your pocket thing... but I'd seriously like it to be rated higher than a 7 on the user sharpness index here on the forum. The 18-135 is rated at 8.1, the DA 16-85 is rated at 8.9, and 17-70 at 8.6. It's hard to make a case for this lens compared to the other options you might want to try with it, especially since the 18-135 can often be found as part of a kit. I don't mind it being more cheaply constructed, like my DA 35 2.4, but I still want it to be good. After all my DA 35 2,4 is rated 9.2 on the sharpness scale,the 40s is rated 9.2 and the DA 50- is rated at 9.4. When looking at DA*, FA* and F* lenses, I generally look at lenses rated over 9.5. A rating of 7 just means I'm asking myself "can I actually use that." I think it's safe to say with a lens with rating of over 9 I'll use it, if it's cheap enough. With a rating of 7, same as the old 18-55, I'm not going to use it. I haven't used one of my two 18-55s as more than a body cap for years, and I gave one away. I have way to many much better options.

My F 70-210 is rated about 8.5 for sharpness.... and my 18-135 while rated 8.1 for overall sharpness is better than lenses rated much higher than it at some focal lengths. SO just from experience I'll use 8.5 if it has something else going for it.

My DA* 60-250 is rated at 9.5 for sharpness, and that makes me happy. As a big dollar purchase, my Sigma 120-400 didn't make me happy even though it was rated at 9.14 it went back. Sometimes you can get away with a little less image quality in a cheaper lens... but it has to be useful for something.

Looking at the current Pentax line up, there are 10 lenses rate 9.5 or higher, without going into blasts from the past, and 10 FA*s and probably a lot more F*s, A*s etc. if you really want to dig into it.
If I was aiming for something, it would be those lenses.

Maybe you can't get lenses like that right now, most of us can't. but if you understand where you're headed, and you pick up stuff along the way that will still be useful when you get where you're going.... from the sound of it the 18-50 is going to be a lens you use, until you get something better.

Save yourself some time get something better. DA 35 2.4, DA 50, 1.8 or 40 XS. They may not be the greatest, but they're good enough to always have a place in your bag.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-14-2015 at 11:16 AM.

[mixberry]

I'm a little unclear about the following paragraph....



I guess it's just Pentax hype.

I like the "you can put it in your pocket thing... but I'd seriously like it to be rated higher than a 7 on the user sharpness index here on the forum. The 18-135 is rated at 8.1, the DA 16-85 is rated at 8.9, and 17-70 at 8.6. It's hard to make a case for this lens compared to the other options you might want to try with it, especially since the 18-135 can often be found as part of a kit.

wrong post answer?

[robthebloke]

Body only. The difference between the k-x and k-3 is huge. You'll find your current lenses have been given a new lease of life, and you'll be having too much fun getting to know them all over again to bother with another lens....

[normhead]

wrong post answer?

That a quote about the 18-50 I lifted foreman of the review sites. It's clearly written by someone at Pentax.

[hcc]

Body only.

I never bought a Pentax body without a kit lens. In fact I bought my first lens (DA18-250mm) before I bought my first Pentax body (K-7). The lens is extremely important IMO and its selection is critical. Personally I value high quality lenses over newer body.

[mixberry]

That a quote about the 18-50 I lifted foreman of the review sites. It's clearly written by someone at Pentax.

Okay,Sorry to think you write on wrong thread :P

[normhead]

Okay, i think you write on wrong thread :P

I am considering buying a k3ii and wonder if I should combine it with either the 18-50 or the 16-85 (because of the kit discount) or buy just the body.

And I think not...

[tomtor]

Thanks for all the feedback!

Just ordered the K3-II body. Think I'll really enjoy using it!

[normhead]

Thanks for all the feedback!

Just ordered the K3-II body. Think I'll really enjoy using it!

With those lenses you're in for a world of wonder.