[VoiceOfReason]

So, what is the best WR lens to compliment my DA* 60-250? I have the DA 18-135 WR, but I am open to suggestions for the best one to go with a DA*, maybe the best two. Thanks.

[bertwert]

DA* 16-50? Or DA Ltd 20-40?

[jatrax]

Da*16-50 is the best choice.

Da 16-85 maybe but not sure that is enough of an upgrade over the 18-135

[K57XR]

Agreed with the 16-50 suggestion above. I've used this combo for my kid's school camping trip on two bodies and never missed the 50-60mm gap.
16-85 - agreed with Jatrax on this one.
20-40 - may not be wide enough (YMMV) and a gap between 40mm-60mm
24-70 - may not be wide enough (YMMV) and a 10mm overlap

[atcoombs]

In a recent trip to Madagascar the 60-250 and the 20-40 combination worked well for me. Most of what I shot was with those two. Also used the DA 15 and the 100 macro. The 60-250 did very well for lemur shots.

[timb64]

Da*16-50 is the best choice.

Da 16-85 maybe but not sure that is enough of an upgrade over the 18-135

Having owned both lenses I would say the 16-85 is a significant improvement over the 18-135 also a bit lighter than and 2/3 the cost of the 16-50.

[normhead]

I go out all the time with the DA 18-135 and DA*60-250. I have no issues with the 18-135. The 16-85 gives you more range at the wide end and more lens changes at the long end. The area where the 18-135 is edge soft is covered by the 60-250 so it's not really a problem.

The issue here is WR. You've eliminated most of the decent lenses.

Your choice is 16-85, 20-40 ltd., 16-50, 18-135, 18-55WR, Did I miss something?

MY standard set of lenses is Sigma 8-16, DA 18-135, DA* 60-250, Sigma 70 macro. HD DA 1.4 TC, and 21 ltd and 40XS. I bring along the FA 50 ƒ1.7 if theres a chance its going to get dark. I'd like something WR in the wide end, but alas, there's nothing in that category. While I appreciate the 16mm of the 16-85, it''s a lot more money than a 18-135 and I frequently shoot below 16mm, so it's not an end of the line kind of lens for me. If it's not your end of the line, then it makes more sense buying over the 18-135 just for the extra 2mm, given that it's going to cost you a pile of lens changes from 85-135mm.

The largest single number of images taken with my 18-135, are taken at 18mm and 135mm, and many of those are getting close to a lens change. Cutting that back to 85mmm, at least for me is inconceivable, but avoiding a few changes to the Sigma 8-16 would also be nice. It's six of one half dozen of the other.

The DA*16-50 is ƒ2.8. That could also be important.

You're going to have to make a decision based on what's best for you.

---

Last edited by normhead; 12-10-2015 at 05:04 PM.

[VoiceOfReason]

I go out all the time with the DA 18-135 and DA*60-250. I have no issues with the 18-135. The 16-85 gives you more range at the wide end and more lens changes at the long end. The area where the 18-135 is edge soft is covered by the 60-250 so it's not really a problem.

The issue here is WR. You've eliminated most of the decent lenses.

Your choice is 16-85, 20-40 ltd., 16-50, 18-135, 18-55WR, Did I miss something?

MY standard set of lenses is Sigma 8-16, DA 18-135, DA* 60-250, Sigma 70 macro. HD DA 1.4 TC, and 21 ltd and 40XS. I bring along the FA 50 ƒ1.7 if theres a chance its going to get dark. I'd like something WR in the wide end, but alas, there's nothing in that category. While I appreciate the 16mm of the 16-85, it''s a lot more money than a 18-135 and I frequently shoot below 16mm, so it's not an end of the line kind of lens for me. If it's not your end of the line, then it makes more sense buying over the 18-135 just for the extra 2mm, given that it's going to cost you a pile of lens changes from 85-135mm.

The largest single number of images taken with my 18-135, are taken at 18mm and 135mm, and many of those are getting close to a lens change. Cutting that back to 85mmm, at least for me is inconceivable, but avoiding a few changes to the Sigma 8-16 would also be nice. It's six of one half dozen of the other.

The DA*16-50 is ƒ2.8. That could also be important.

You're going to have to make a decision based on what's best for you.

Here's what I already have:

Pentax DA 18-135WR
Pentax DA* 60-250 f/4
Pentax DA 40xs f/2.8
Pentax F 50 f/1.7
Takumar F 70-210 f/4-5.6
Pentax F 28-80 f/3.5-4.5
Pentax HD 1.4 AW teleconverter
Pentax 1.7 AF adapter
Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6
Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 HSM
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 HSM Art
Sigma 24-70 HSM f/2.8
Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6
Sigma 100-300 f/4
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

And the 150-450 will be on the way when they finish processing the order.

I have good lenses that aren't WR, but was looking to round out a good WR kit for my trip to the desert with its powder fine dust.

[noelpolar]

Simple.... you have way to much now and don't need to get anything ........ voice of reason.

[VoiceOfReason]

If only such a beast as a 12-60 f/2.8 WR existed...

[bertwert]

If only such a beast as a 12-60 f/2.8 WR existed...

If only...

[clackers]

If only such a beast as a 12-60 f/2.8 WR existed...

Nuh, you don't want a 5x zoom range. Too many compromises to the design.

Nikon pros use the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8, Canon pros the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 on FF to cover a range.

Yep, lots of cash needed, but Pentax look like they're going the same way - exciting prospect if they rebadge the Tamron 15-30.

[noelpolar]

y - exciting prospect if they rebadge the Tamron 15-30.

good as done......

[VoiceOfReason]

DA* 16-50 f/2.8 is on the way.

Now I should be completely done buying any lenses.

[normhead]

DA* 16-50 f/2.8 is on the way.

Now I should be completely done buying any lenses.

<Cough (non-sense) cough.>

Most of us won't stop buying lenses until the credit card company won't give us another cent.