[BruceBanner]

Can someone recommend a decent Zoom lens for the K-50? Budget around $200-300AUD.

I have the stock lens, and a few old manual lenses (including the excellent SMC Pentax-A 1:1.7 50mm), I feel I have portrait pics covered etc, what's really missing is Zoom ability and I'm not sure where to start. Something that would get the equivalent of 10x optical Zoom (or higher) would be neat =)

Cheers,

Bruce

[bassek]

The Pentax DA18-250 is the only real option (>10x) for you in that price range.
But consider if you need wide or tele and buy a zoom accordingly.
You might get a better bang for your money.

Seb

[Adam]

The Pentax DA18-250 is the only real option (>10x) for you in that price range.
But consider if you need wide or tele and buy a zoom accordingly.
You might get a better bang for your money.

Seb

Sounds like you might be looking for some telephoto reach. I'd recommend the DA 55-300mm, either the HD DA version or the DA L, which would be more cost-effective.

Another great replacement for the kit lens would be the 18-135mm, or Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.

[BigMackCam]

Hi Bruce. Do you really need a zoom lens to cover 10x or more focal length? The reason I ask is that the optical quality and, typically, the light gathering capability of such lenses tends to fall below that of shorter range zooms. If convenience is the most important factor, you could get a Sigma or Tamron 18-200 - both decent enough lenses for what they are. If good image quality is more important, you'd do better to keep your kit lens (I assume you have the 18-50 or 18-55?) and get one of the Pentax DA55-300 variants to go with it. The 55-300 is a superb lens for the money, and will generally outperform any of the so-called "superzoom" lenses. Of course, you'll need to think a little about which lens to use for various situations, but you shouldn't have to change them over too often.

[Na Horuk]

Hey, welcome! Looks like you have some nice lenses already.
Zoom range just means the lens is capable of going from a certain minimum #mm (wide angle) to a higher, telephoto #mm. The bigger the factor of this range, the lower the image quality generally is. These days you can get some high end zoom lenses, but they don't come cheap. However, telephoto focal lengths are not the same as zoom. You can have a 300mm lens that will really bring far things very very close, but it has no zoom at all (no range, its field of view is locked).

So the question is whether you want a superzoom lens, one with a wide range; or a telephoto lens, one that will bring you far away things very close.
Superzoom lenses will have image quality similar or lower than the 18-55mm, but I doubt you can find any that are significantly better. They just have bigger range. Sigma makes some, and there are Pentax superzooms, as well: SMC Pentax-DA 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF] Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
SMC Pentax-DA 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 ED SDM Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
A more popular, higher quality zoom with a relatively large range is here: SMC Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

But if you want telephoto, then try one of the 55-300mm lenses: SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Cheapest telephoto zoom is probably the Pentax DA L 50-200mm. Its image quality is not super high, but its not terrible, either.

[jatrax]

Do you mean zoom as used in dslr cameras which is a range of focal lengths or as used in point & shoot cameras which is sometimes used to describe a telephoto lens?

I suspect the latter and if so the da 55-300 in one of it's variations might be a good choice.

[pres589]

EDIT: I missed the part about the camera coming with a "stock" kit lens. In that case, you can spend $300 AUD on a single lens, I'm with the group on getting a 55-300.

---

Last edited by pres589; 03-21-2016 at 02:43 PM.

[normhead]

As is often the case, I'm with Adam... save your money for a 55-300 or even get a used one from the market place. Right now Ive been reduced to using my old Sigma 70-300 for reach, and it's just not sharp enough in the long end. And any 18-250 type lens will be the same. The 55-300 is a no brainer. I wish it had been available when I bought my 70-300. The kit lens will do you for now in the wide end. to me, that's the way to get the most for your money, and get a lens that's good enough you won't feel like you don't have good enough equipment posting in clubs like the 300 plus club. It's images hold up nicely with the best in the hands of a decent photographer.

[robgski]

Another vote for the 55-300. It was the first lens I bought after I purchased the K-5 with the 18-55 lens and I like the sharpness and quick AF. 300mm is a good magnification for most situations, and being as wide as 55mm gives you a nice FOV otherwise

[timb64]

Yet another vote for the 55-300,then when you know your way round the camera and can afford it upgrade the kit lens with the 18-135 or 16-85.

[jddwoods]

The HD 55-300 is selling at the lowest prices ever. I would go for it, It is a really nice lens, especially for the price.

[Cee Cee]

just in case your still not sure DA55-300, (you can check the sample photo data base)

[HudsonShooter]

If weight is not an issue go 55-300
you get a basically 4.5 lens from 55 to just past 200
50-200 is good outdoors and light weight. but not as good as the 55-300

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

There's also the sigma DL/DG/DC 70-300 and 75-300 range zooms (highly affordable used, in many cases under $100).

[BruceBanner]

Thank you once again everyone, it's a lot to take in when starting out in photography. Perhaps outlining my purpose will provide some info as to what would suit me best?

I have only had the Pentax 6 months or so, but already I am getting a little bummed out over carrying multiple lenses, perhaps ideally I want to replace the stock one (18-55mm) with a overall better lens, one that can also 'zoom' in further (I don't know what the exact correct terminology is for this, but basically with the stock lens it stops short of 'zooming in power' for my liking). But I am aware that the more u zoom in the more pixelated, noisey and naff the quality is, for sure I would rather take a x6 zoom that is of higher quality over a x10-12 zoom that (at maximum) results in a shot that really isn't worth keeping. So basically quality over distance is preferable.

Currently I have The stock lens (which tbh I rarely use now), the SMC Pentax-A 1:1.7 50mm (which is usually always fixed to the camera body as it's my 'go to' for most shots), a 'macro' lens (Sigma Super-Wide 1:2.8 f=24mm) and a 'wide' lens (Tokina 28mm 1:2.8)?

I do mixed photography, some Lego 'art' (useful with a macro lens), some portrait pics (with the SMC Pentax-A) , and living in Australia I like to take some wildlife pics (stock lens mostly). The latter reason is what I want to improve upon. That last pic is of a Crimson Rosella, and they're really hard to get close to, unlike this guy here that I managed to get quite close to with stock lens. Then there are other interesting animals in Australia that 'scuttle away' (lizards) or are too dangerous to get close to (snakes) but are still fascinating to 'shoot'.

But I am also getting a bit sick and tired of swapping lenses (and its been only 6 months). The aforementioned lenses are all hand me downs from my pa, they are all manual focus, and I seem to be getting better at it, but really if there was a lens that could take a similar level of quality to the SMC Pentax-A 1:1.7 yet have auto focus and zoom past a perceived depth that the stock can manage... then that's prolly more up my street than just a 'zoom' lens.

So yeh, sorry for confusion. Does this new information suggest any alternatives y'all might have?