[mgvh]

What would you do if you were starting from scratch and building your lens collection? You are also on a budget, so you are probably working with a K-S2 or K-50 or used K-5 II(s), or, in my case, a K-x and later a K-30. If I knew then what I know now, this is the order in which I would buy my lenses so that I could get maximum shooting options and maximum value and wouldn’t waste money buying stuff I’d end up not using. (Yes, it would be wonderful simply to buy the three amigos and the *lenses and the D FA 150-450, but that’s simply not feasible. I’m still learning how to shoot good pictures, so I doubt that class of lens really would help me anyway.) At this point, I’m not particularly concerned about full-frame. About a year ago, PF put out a guide “Building a Quality Lens Kit on a Budget,” but none of their suggested kits quite fit my needs, and new lenses and prices have come on the scene since then.

I’d start with these:

• All around: DA 18-135 or DA 16-85
  The 16-85 wasn’t available when I got my K-30. The 18-135 is a fine lens and now is available at a great price. I’d try to get the 16-85 mainly for the 16mm and better edges.)
• Long: DA/L 55-300
  I think these are such a great value lens, and it offers a really versatile range. Any version is fine, but I’d try to get the HD version for the WR.
• Fast: M50/A50 f1.7 or DA 50 f1.8 or SMC/Super Takumar 55 f1.8
  Can’t go wrong with any of these, and the M/A50s are a nice step into shooting manual. The Takumar would get you into the wonderful world of M42 lenses. These also are ready to go on full-frame.

Those three lenses would be an excellent foundation that would last a long time. The next lenses I’d get are starting to venture into more specialized areas. I don’t have a particular order for getting these, and it depends more on one's interests.

• Small prime: DA 40XS (or DA 35 or DA 21)
  The DA 40XS is close to the 50mm, so I might be inclined to get the DA 35 or DA 21, but the DA40XS is really small and delivers excellent results. The DA 21 is the most expensive, but I do get good use from mine.
• Ultrawide: DA 10-17 FE or Sigma 10-20 (or DA 15)
  I first bought the Sigma 10-20, and it’s a great value choice for an UWA rectilinear, but I think now I’d get the DA 10-17 FE first. It is a fun fisheye at 10-12mm, but, if you want, it’s correctable or nearly rectilinear from 13-17mm. Plus, the DA 10-17 FE is noticeably smaller and easier to carrry around. I don’t have the DA 15, but I’ve seen some wonderful results. The main drawback is its “value.” It’s rather more expensive and doesn’t have the versatility of a zoom.
• Macro: D FA 100 Macro (or Tamron 90 Macro or Sigma 70 Macro or D FA 50 Macro or DA 35 Macro . . .)
  When I needed to get a macro lens a few years ago, the Tamron 90 was the best value choice. Today, the D FA 100 Macro is much less expensive. The question here is whether you need 1:1 and how close you want to be to shoot 1:1. The longer focal lengths give you a bit more flexibility, but the others might be better for other uses. I did also end up getting an inexpensive K50 f4 Macro which is really nice.
• Telephoto: ?? or Brand X 500mm f8
  It’s very hard to beat the DA/L 55-300 without getting a really expensive *lens or something like the long and expensive Sigma or Pentax telephoto zooms. I’ve tried a bunch of long primes, and while something like the M200 f4 or the Super Takumar 300 f4 can get great shots, I can more consistently get good results with my DAL 55-300. If you need a long and fast prime, there are good options, but you are going to have to pay for it. The only long lens that I actually use that can get me better telephoto results than the 55-300 is a cheap Tou/Five Star 500mm f8, long tube lens.
• Fisheye: Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 8mm Fisheye
  If you get the DA 10-17 FE, there is less need for this, but I have a real fondness for this lens. It is even wider, and its fisheye projection is unique and very pleasing.

That’s 4+ years of lens accumulation for me, and I am at a good point of having a really versatile range of lenses. The next step for me would be getting really expensive lenses, but I have a long way to go learning the lenses I have before getting a better lens would make a difference.

So, what would you do?

[Pande]

What would you do if you were starting from scratch and building your lens collection? You are also on a budget, so you are probably working with a K-S2 or K-50 or used K-5 II(s), or, in my case, a K-x and later a K-30. If I knew then what I know now, this is the order in which I would buy my lenses so that I could get maximum shooting options and maximum value and wouldn’t waste money buying stuff I’d end up not using. (Yes, it would be wonderful simply to buy the three amigos and the *lenses and the D FA 150-450, but that’s simply not feasible. I’m still learning how to shoot good pictures, so I doubt that class of lens really would help me anyway.) At this point, I’m not particularly concerned about full-frame. About a year ago, PF put out a guide “Building a Quality Lens Kit on a Budget,” but none of their suggested kits quite fit my needs, and new lenses and prices have come on the scene since then.

I’d start with these:

• All around: DA 18-135 or DA 16-85
  The 16-85 wasn’t available when I got my K-30. The 18-135 is a fine lens and now is available at a great price. I’d try to get the 16-85 mainly for the 16mm and better edges.)
• Long: DA/L 55-300
  I think these are such a great value lens, and it offers a really versatile range. Any version is fine, but I’d try to get the HD version for the WR.
• Fast: M50/A50 f1.7 or DA 50 f1.8 or SMC/Super Takumar 55 f1.8
  Can’t go wrong with any of these, and the M/A50s are a nice step into shooting manual. The Takumar would get you into the wonderful world of M42 lenses. These also are ready to go on full-frame.

Those three lenses would be an excellent foundation that would last a long time. The next lenses I’d get are starting to venture into more specialized areas. I don’t have a particular order for getting these, and it depends more on one's interests.

• Small prime: DA 40XS (or DA 35 or DA 21)
  The DA 40XS is close to the 50mm, so I might be inclined to get the DA 35 or DA 21, but the DA40XS is really small and delivers excellent results. The DA 21 is the most expensive, but I do get good use from mine.
• Ultrawide: DA 10-17 FE or Sigma 10-20 (or DA 15)
  I first bought the Sigma 10-20, and it’s a great value choice for an UWA rectilinear, but I think now I’d get the DA 10-17 FE first. It is a fun fisheye at 10-12mm, but, if you want, it’s correctable or nearly rectilinear from 13-17mm. Plus, the DA 10-17 FE is noticeably smaller and easier to carrry around. I don’t have the DA 15, but I’ve seen some wonderful results. The main drawback is its “value.” It’s rather more expensive and doesn’t have the versatility of a zoom.
• Macro: D FA 100 Macro (or Tamron 90 Macro or Sigma 70 Macro or D FA 50 Macro or DA 35 Macro . . .)
  When I needed to get a macro lens a few years ago, the Tamron 90 was the best value choice. Today, the D FA 100 Macro is much less expensive. The question here is whether you need 1:1 and how close you want to be to shoot 1:1. The longer focal lengths give you a bit more flexibility, but the others might be better for other uses. I did also end up getting an inexpensive K50 f4 Macro which is really nice.
• Telephoto: ?? or Brand X 500mm f8
  It’s very hard to beat the DA/L 55-300 without getting a really expensive *lens or something like the long and expensive Sigma or Pentax telephoto zooms. I’ve tried a bunch of long primes, and while something like the M200 f4 or the Super Takumar 300 f4 can get great shots, I can more consistently get good results with my DAL 55-300. If you need a long and fast prime, there are good options, but you are going to have to pay for it. The only long lens that I actually use that can get me better telephoto results than the 55-300 is a cheap Tou/Five Star 500mm f8, long tube lens.
• Fisheye: Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 8mm Fisheye
  If you get the DA 10-17 FE, there is less need for this, but I have a real fondness for this lens. It is even wider, and its fisheye projection is unique and very pleasing.

That’s 4+ years of lens accumulation for me, and I am at a good point of having a really versatile range of lenses. The next step for me would be getting really expensive lenses, but I have a long way to go learning the lenses I have before getting a better lens would make a difference.

So, what would you do?

The same as you:-)

[pathdoc]

It would depend very much on what was going out the door as "kit" - I wouldn't be badly off at all with either the 18-135 or the 18-55 + 50-200 as a package deal.

Next would be the 50/1.8 and the 35/2.4 in whatever order I most wanted wide vs fast.

If I forever found myself bumping against the tight end of my zooms, I'd look next for the 55-300 HD WR as either a supplement for the 18-135 or a replacement for the 50-200.

After that, a slow accumulation of the DA Limiteds in whatever order my focal length tastes dictated.

All this of course is with an eye firmly on APS-C. What I would do in the coming full-frame era is quite another matter!

[jimr-pdx]

Keep an eye on Amazon's Warehouse of Used Magic, I grabbed the HD 55-300 last month for $220ish. While I like the DAs 35 and 50mm I prefer a manual trio of fast 50, a 24 or 28 and either the M85/2 or cheaper M100/2.8.

[DougieD]

I don't know whether it qualifies as budget stuff or not, but at the long end an ED telescope with a T-ring to attach your camera is hard to beat for image quality. I have a Vixen ED80sf 600/F7.5 that I often use with a 0.8X reducer to give me 480/F6 and a Sky-Watcher Equinox 66 400/F6 that I often use with the reducer for 320/F4.8. You can't shoot hand-held unless you have three arms, though. But they have very little CA and they're sharp wide open (which is good, because they don't have aperture controls!). With a Pentax they're even stabilized!

[soti]

I would do more or less the same. Although, the journey of understaning what one actually wants/needs can be interesting as well.

I used to have an inexpensive F 70-210mm zoom. Besides the relatively poor image quality at the long end, I never really liked the photos themselves (framing, the pictures always seemed to be "flat"). I sold it after I bought the 18-135. In this respect I wouldn't buy the 55-300, 'cause I know I don't really like long focal lengths. I ended up buying the M 200 f/4, but that was very cheap and I just enjoy using the M lenses

On the macro side, I'd go with bellows and/or reversing rings. One soon discovers that a good macro photo is not so easy to achieve, so it might be cheaper way to realise that one doesn't really like macro

In summary, I think that the cheap "introductory" lenses/techniques allow one to explore a territory of photography, and once one likes it, then they can buy the proper tools for it. This will be more expensive on the long run, but also one can cheaply explore!

[mgvh]

@soti: Good points. I have a whole bunch of cheap lenses I need to get around to selling, but they all were a cheap way of helping me learn how to shoot and what I like to shoot.
Re:macro: Extension tubes are a great cheap way to do macro. So, following my list, get that fast fifty as the M/A 50 f1.7. Put it on extension tubes, and it's a cheap and easy way to get high quality 1:2 or 1:1 (depending on tubes) macro.

[pathdoc]

@soti: Good points. I have a whole bunch of cheap lenses I need to get around to selling, but they all were a cheap way of helping me learn how to shoot and what I like to shoot.
Re:macro: Extension tubes are a great cheap way to do macro. So, following my list, get that fast fifty as the M/A 50 f1.7. Put it on extension tubes, and it's a cheap and easy way to get high quality 1:2 or 1:1 (depending on tubes) macro.

My experience with a reversing ring AND macro tubes on a 35mm Takumar suggests that the ring is as powerful in magnification terms as all three tubes put together. Granted, this depends very much on the lenses you use and is less flexible in many respects (among other things, you need either one for each filter thread or a series of step-up collars). But if you're in a position not to be picky about exactly how close you get or how much you magnify - if getting close is all that matters to you - it's a very simple, compact and portable solution. In fact, I think tomorrow I'll mount the DA15 on my Spotmatic with the reversal ring and take a macro shot with it (with the aperture lever held manually full-open) just to be able to say:

"Picture taken at f/4 and such-and-such speed with DA15 on a Honeywell Spotmatic."

[Des]

Lots of sound advice in the first post.

I have a whole bunch of cheap lenses I need to get around to selling, but they all were a cheap way of helping me learn how to shoot and what I like to shoot.

This is a good point.

Most people start out without knowing which specialities will draw them most. Which is why I'd suggest to most people that they start out with one or two wide-ranging zooms - e.g. the kit lenses, or (for one step up and greater convenience) a decent superzoom like the Sigma/Tamron/Pentax 18-250, or (one more step up in IQ) the pair you suggested, 18-135 + 55-300.

After a while you will bump up against particular limitations. If you are often shooting wide, look for an ultrawide. If you are shooting a lot at the longest focal length, look at telephoto options. If you are frustrated at having to use a flash or high ISO a lot, look at something faster. If you are drawn to small things, try macro. If the image quality isn't quite what you'd like at your particular preferred focal length (e.g. portraits at 50-85mm), look for a better lens for that function. If you find your setup too bulky or obtrusive for street shots, consider a small prime.

When using a zoom, try to take note of what focal length you are using. This will help you to learn to compose a shot for a particular focal length - which is valuable knowledge if you later get a prime, or a zoom with a short focal range. It will also help you identify your preferences and future needs better.

The free program Exposure Plot is handy too. It can read the photos in a particular location on your computer and provide detailed analysis of the focal length, aperture, shutter speed and ISO of those photos. The results can be surprising. For example, if you find that 60% of all your photos are taken between 24 and 35mm at close to the maximum aperture, start looking for a prime (or f2.8 zoom) in that region.

Here's my experience.

I started with a Tamron 18-250 superzoom as my only lens. I loved the versatility (especially after constantly changing between two zooms on my old film SLR), and I was generaly happy with the IQ. For nature photography I found myself shooting often at either 18 or 250. So I went for both an ultrawide (DA 12-24, which is a fine lens, and I got it for a good price) and a long zoom (Sigma 170-500) for birds and wildlife. Both involved a learning curve - you need to develop extra skills for shooting either very long or very wide (handling in the former, and composition in the latter). And I got a nifty 50 (A 50 f1.7, then DA 50 f1.8) and a DA 35 f2.4 for low light, portraits, short DOF and general sharpness.

I could have stopped there and had quite a satisfactory and relatively inexpensive kit, covering 12-500mm.

But I got frustrated with the 170-500, which was a hit-and-miss lens. About the same time I scored a Kenko 1.5x tc and a Sigma 400mm f5.6 tele macro, each for an excellent price. So the 170-500 went to a new home. I also got a DA-L 55-300 as a light-weight versatile long zoom with significantly more reach and better IQ at the long end than the Tamron 18-250. By this time I had developed a taste for the extra sparkle of a really really good lens, so I have picked up DFA 100 f2.8 Macro, FA 43 f1.9 and FA 77 f1.8. And when a secondhand K-3 came with a DA 18-135, it was time for 18-250 also to find a new home.

Some things I've learned:
1. Move up to the best lenses you can afford as early as you can - once you know what you like to shoot and in what conditions you shoot most. Most of us can't afford a bag full of Limiteds or star lenses - go for a small number of premium lenses (whether zooms or primes) in you main area(s) of interest. They don't need to be expensive - plenty of bargains particularly if you can live with manual focus. For autofocus, the plastic fantastics, for example, are great value. And if you watch the secondhand market carefully, or look for sales, some bargains will turn up even amongst Limited and * lenses: for example, I got my FA 43 on ebay for $A400 (about $US270 at today's rate), and it's a thrill every time I use it.
2. Post-processing is worth learning. Shoot RAW (or RAW+jpg) from the outset if possible, even if you haven't learned post-processing yet. You can come back and work on your best photos later. You can squeeze a lot more out of your shots with some judicious PP - in fact shots taken with less-than-stellar lenses often have more scope for improvement in PP (e.g. correcting distortion and increasing contrast and vibrancy). Yes, RAW files are big, but storage is cheap.
3. There is no free lunch with long lenses. The 55-300 is good, but the step up from there to something longer, faster and/or sharper costs plenty (e.g. $US1200 for the DA*300 f4) and generally involves a lot more weight and bulk (e.g. the "Bigma" 50-500 at 2kg). Everyone is chasing something better than the 55-300 but not too heavy and not too expensive - and there aren't many options. (My dream would be a re-release of the wonderful F*300 f4.5 at less than 900g, with a DC autofocus motor, HD coatings and WR seals for about $US800 - but it ain't gonna happen.) A more affordable solution is to try to improve the available light (e.g. with a flash extender, like this - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/22-pentax-camera-field-accessories/256288...-extender.html ), so that you can use the 55-300 at f8-f11 where it performs best, without having to boost ISO to excessive levels (or use unduly slow shutter speeds).
4. Get to know your kit. That will help you get the most from what you have. Some people find the "Single in [month]" challenges (using the same lens every day for a month) a good way to do this. Test the AF accuracy of each lens and use the fine adjustment feature in your camera if necessary. For each lens, work out the conditions, the aperture and (in the case of a zoom) the focal length in which the lens performs best, and what its limitations are. Detailed reviews are a good start, but you need to determine for yourself, with your copy of the lens mounted on your camera. When is it sharpest in the centre? When is it sharpest at the edges? Do you need to stop down to avoid vignetting? When does diffraction cut in? What do you need to do to avoid (or use) flare? When are you likely to get bad CA? What is the bokeh like in various conditions? Can it produce pleasant starbursts? And so on.
5. Keep your kit under review - it's never really finalised. Your needs and interests change, more suitable lenses come along, and you want high quality in the areas you use most. But be warned: a review is not an excuse for lens buying addiction (LBA). Unless money is no object, be realistic about what you are using and what you aren't. If you are not using a lens and are not likely to use it, sell it - with the exception of rare and special lenses, lenses generally just depreciate more the longer you keep them. Unless you are a collector or a trader (each of which requires skill and commitment), there is a limit to the number of lenses you really need. That number will depend on whether you are a hobbyist or pro, how wide ranging your interests are, and how often you shoot. For me, as a reasonably enthusiastic hobbyist with a bias toward nature photography, I'd say the number is about 10, tops. (See my signature for the current kit - 8 lenses plus a TC.)

Here's an illustration of the last point. At present, I have two parts of my kit under review:
- I'm thinking about replacing the DA 35 f2.4 with something wider, because I don't use it so much since I got my FA 43 f1.9. I am trying to resist the FA 31 because (as fine as it is, and as nice as it would be to have the three princesses) I think I wouldn't use it enough to justify the high price. I don't find any of the 28s or 30s or the DA 20-40 Ltd very appealing, my 12-24 is very good at 24, and I'm pleasantly surprised at how well the 18-135 does at about 24-35mm.
- I'm thinking about replacing the DA-L 55-300 with a DA*60-250 f4 or DA*300 f4 (and using either with my TC if necessary). I'm leaning to the DA*300, because in truth I mainly use the 55-300 at 250mm or longer, it's often a stop too slow, and although the IQ is good it isn't up to the standard of the * lenses. The Sigma 400 f5.6 give me extra quality and reach - but it too is only f5.6, and sometimes it's too long. I'd find the Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 or the DFA 150-450 too heavy at about 2kg each, especially since I like to shoot handheld. The weight of the DA*300 is about the limit. Trouble is, the * lenses are very expensive, with the $A in decline. I'm wary about buying used because of concerns about SDM. The 55-300 has the virtues of being portable, lightweight and versatile - ideal for a walk. So in the end, I'll probably stay with what I've got for a while.

[reeftool]

I think the best way to start out is with a 2 lens kit like the DA 18-55 and DA 55-300. You can substitute the 18-55 with the 16-85 or 18-135 but regardless, you are well covered with just about anything you will want to shoot. From that point, your photography will develop a little more and you will have a much better handle on buying the lenses you will actually use and no be wasting money on expensive glass that will collect dust.

A very large percentage of my MF lens collection has come from garage sales. Prices like $10 for a box of lenses and filters somebody thinks are useless.

[mgvh]

@Des: Lots of good observations. In particular, I want to highlight your recommendation to shoot in RAW and learn how to process shots. Especially with my K-x, I wish I had shot everything in RAW, even though SD storage was somewhat more expensive 4-5 years ago. This isn't a matter of what lens you get but getting the most out of any lens.
Learning how to use Lightroom was also a big step up for me in appreciating what each lens can fully do. In addition to buying lenses, then, getting and learning how to use something like Lightroom is important.

[boriscleto]

3. There is no free lunch with long lenses. The 55-300 is good, but the step up from there costs plenty (e.g. $US1200 for the DA*300 f4) and generally involves a lot more weight and bulk (e.g. the Bigma at 2kg). Everyone is chasing something better than the 55-300 but not too heavy and not too expensive - and there aren't many options.

IMO no options.

[boriscleto]

Learning how to use Lightroom was also a big step up for me in appreciating what each lens can fully do. In addition to buying lenses, then, getting and learning how to use something like Lightroom is important.

Quick example.

Sigma 150-500 @ 500 F8. DNG straight out of camera.



Two minutes of editing in Lightroom...maybe not even that long...

[bpv_UW]

Start with a standard zoom. Probably one of the old Sigma 17-70 (which I owned several years ago), which have nice IQ and can be had fairly cheap these days. I never felt a need for anything longer than that when I was first leaning photography; YMMV. Once I had a better sense of what types of photography I enjoyed, my style, and where I liked to shoot focal length-wise, I'd sell the zoom and start building a prime collection (I'm a prime shooter at heart - I find it more artistically stimulating). We didn't define exactly what "budget" here means, but that aside I'd probably start with getting used copies of something like the following (in no specific order): Da 15 SMC version (cheaper), F28/2.8, F 50/1.7, Sigma 70 macro. That's a really solid prime line-up that can do a lot of things (landscape, low-light, portrait, macro, street, etc) well for probably $800-900 with a bit of diligence on the used market. If looking to cut costs even more one could replace F 28/2.8 with K 28/3.5, probably find a used Samyang 14 for cheaper than a used Da 15, and probably get a used Da 50/1.8 for less than F 50/1.7. That would cut off a couple hundred more bucks, and still leave a really strong kit. From there, I'd upgrade to higher-end lenses as I was able to and felt the "need". And eventually I'd expand on the long end (something I didn't really do until several years into photography), arriving at something like what I have today: Da 15, Fa 20, Fa 31, Da 55, Fa 77, Dfa 100 macro, F 300 (and counting...)

-Brandon

[Des]

with my K-x, I wish I had shot everything in RAW

I feel exactly the same about 6 years of jpgs taken with K100D Super. My main regret is not that I only had the superzoom lens, it's that I could have extracted so much more from these images if they had been shot in RAW..

At the time RAW meant PEF, and most PP software wouldn't touch images from that camera, but things have changed now.

The other point is that the software gets better over time, and you get better at using it. Even if you PP'd a RAW photo some years ago, you might be able to get more from it now.

IMO no options.

In late 2014, I got my like-new Sigma 400 f5.6 APO tele macro (the one with the 77mm filter size) for $A510 (about $US360 at today's exchange rate). It is a really good lens and quite usable handheld (1.3kg). But you couldn't bank on repeating a deal like that.

Some people have gone for all-manual lenses like the Takumar, K or M 300 f4 (or the hefty Tair 300 f4.5) as a budget telephoto option. These were top lenses in their day, and can still produce fine images. (They tend to be less corrected for chromatic aberrations than more modern lenses, but CA is usually fixable in PP.) Personally, for birding, the lack of autofocus and particularly the lack of auto exposure would put me off those options, but maybe I'm just soft. Generations of photographers have got great images with them.

The step up to auto-aperture/MF long tele lenses in the Pentax lineup (e.g. A 300 f4 or A 400 f5.6) involves a hefty premium.

New users might not realise that modern cameras offer "catch-in-focus" that can be a good way to shoot birds with manual focus lenses. Also the Pentax 1.7x teleconverter offers a measure of AF with MF lenses, but it is quite expensive and hard to find.

The next step up to auto-aperture and autofocus in Pentax lenses (e.g. F/FA*300 f4.5, FA*400 f5.6) brings another hefty premium - and here you are getting into the price of a new long zoom.

Third party AE/AF long tele lenses probably involve more bang for buck, especially if you can skip the first generation (e.g. Tokina 400, Sigma 400 with 72mm filter, Sigma 135-400, Sigma 170-500) and get a second-hand version of the more recent ones (e.g. Sigma 300 f4 APO tele macro, Sigma 120-400, Sigma 150-500). But you are still talking about a big jump in price, bulk and weight from the xx-300 consumer zooms.