[hal55]

There are still a few new K50 bodies around at the very good price of $400 Australian, body only. I'm unsure about getting the kit lens in the bundle, which would be roughly another hundred dollars, or trying or an upgrade to something more versatile and capable. The Sigma 17-70 has impressed me for a while, despite some criticism of it's performance wide open, while SP or EX Tamrons or Sigma's are getting out of my budget. Any other lenses I should consider as an upgrade walk around lens without going too expensive? The 17-70 is about $330 on Ebay and I wouldn't want to go over this. Mainly I shoot with classic lenses, the main kit being:
Pentacon 30 F3.5
Rikenon 50mm F2
Rikenon 28-100 F4
Nikon 80-200 F4.5.

If anyone knows of any reason any these won't perform well on a K50 I'd appreciate the advice.

Hal55

[victormeldrew]

With my K-50 I went for the 18-135mm bundle, which wasn't that much extra. Really great lens in my opinion and very versatile.
I liked it so much I kept it when I upgraded my body and still use it often.

[pathdoc]

The 18-135 is nobody's DA* or Limited lens, and like all f-something-to-5.6 lenses it's a bit slow for late evenings at maximum zoom sometimes, but at least in daylight it can't be beaten for WR versatility in a single package. If it's walkaround you want, that's the one to go for...

UNLESS your zoom activities tend to cluster towards the wide end. Then the 16-85 possibly makes more sense, especially if you're in a big city with tall buildings and narrow streets or alleys, where the wider wide end is much more useful (I took the Limited primes to Melbourne recently, and there were times I really needed the DA15, for example). But it's significantly more expensive. For my shooting, I decided the 18-135 was the more appropriate choice both in practicality and budget terms; you will have to decide what fits you best.

My experience is based on use on the K-5, so in sensor terms it's roughly comparable AFAIK.

[hal55]

I'm on Tamborine Mountain in Queensland and rarely visit cities - even our local Brisbane just up the road. Shooting tends to be more nature oriented but, when on holidays, it could be anything.

Hal55

[Adam]

For the price the Sigma 17-70mm ("C" version) is probably going to be the best value, though I'd also check to see if you can get a Pentax 16-85mm for a similar price. It's a bit slower but it does quite well throughout the aperture range, plus you get a slightly larger zoom range.

[hcc]

You already received some good advice. Let me suggest a different take. Do you want an all-around zoom lens, or a kit lens 18-55mm replacement by a better lens?

If you want a focal length like a kit lens (18-55mm), the 17-70mm lenses are good options. Both Tamron and Sigma have good offer: see the comparative in-depth reviews at : Pentax 17-70mm Lens Comparison Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews &DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews. In my opinion, the DA16-85mm is a bit to heavy, albeit it gives you a broader range of focal length.

If you need an all-around lens, the DA18-135mm WR is a great choice: Pentax-DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews. Like all all-around zoom lenses, it cannot and should not be compared with prime lenses. But it is a great lens: small, compact, light, WR with decent IQ.

Hope that the comment will assist.

[pathdoc]

I'm on Tamborine Mountain in Queensland and rarely visit cities - even our local Brisbane just up the road. Shooting tends to be more nature oriented but, when on holidays, it could be anything.

Hal55

Sounds to me like you could use both WR and the extra zoom, then. 18-135 is what I would buy in your shoes.

[LensBeginner]

A vintage 28/3.5 is what I often bring with me as my only lens for a 2-4 days business assignment abroad, so I totally understand your choice of the Pentacon.

I'm not a fan of modern zooms, so I would choose a good vintage 24mm as an upgrade, but that's just me

[pathdoc]

A vintage 28/3.5 is what I often bring with me as my only lens for a 2-4 days business assignment abroad, so I totally understand your choice of the Pentacon.

I'm not a fan of modern zooms, so I would choose a good vintage 24mm as an upgrade, but that's just me

For my film cameras I'm with you all the way, and I nearly went abroad recently with nothing more than an SMC-M 40/2.8 on an ME, but OP seems to be after something different here. I'm trying to keep to Pentax glass exclusively for the vintage stuff, because if I go anywhere near the bottomless pit of LBA that is European glass I don't think I'll ever climb out.

[microlight]

Based on your list, I'd go for the plastic fantastic 35/2.4 which is sharp as a tack, very light, relatively fast and offering a 'standard' FoV on APS-c. If you're looking for a long zoom, then a second-hand DAL 55-300 would probably be had quite cheaply. Fantastic lens also for the price.

[rbelyell]

i too opted against the kit lens when i bought my ks2. i love the da ltd 20-40/2.8-4 i opted for instead. its WR, compact, light and as fast as youll get at those speeds. the rendering is lovely, with great 'pop'. and i think i paid about $400 on ebay.

[Alnjpn]

If you are looking for a walk around zoom also check out the Sigma 17-50 2.8. It can be picked up for slightly cheaper than the 17-70 and it's fixed f2.8. Although its a bit on the heavy side the picture quality is excellent, better than the 18-135 and almost on par with some primes.

[normhead]

The lenses I own

Sigma 8-16, Tamron 17-50, DA 18-55 (2) , DA 18-135, Sigma 18-250, DA 35 2.4, 40 XS, FA 50, 1.7, DA*60-250, Sigma 70 macro, F 70-210, Sigma 70-300, Tamron 90 macro, DA*200, and A-400.

My walk around lens is my DA 18-135.
It is a combination of versatility, range and weight that I find the best set of compromises for what I shoot. This is not the product of some kind of in depth analysis, this is based on an observation of what I walk out the door with. A full 30% of what i shoot with the 18-135 is shot at 135mm. You can get away with less, but why would you?

But my advice to people looking for walk arounds is

Among the various 17-70s
the DA 18-135
the DA 16-85
the DA 20-40 ltd.

Don't get into comparisons, you'll be happy with any of them, go with the best price. There's nothing more irresponsible in my opinion than someone advising that a lens is a bad lens. I ask people not to do it but do they listen?

Simple fact is, people get great images with all lenses, even the 18-55, and people get bad images with all lenses. Get the focal length and aperture that meets your needs. People getting ƒ2.8 lenses when most of their images are in day light are committing to a lot of expense and weight, for reduced range, and that weight will never change, the lens will always be heavier than it needs to be unless you shoot events or in low light. I can't use my DA*200 ƒ2.8 unless I stop it down in direct sun. So If I'm going to be shooting at ƒ5.6 anyway, why not take the DA*60-250?

These guys recommending primes, honestly, when I go out with just a prime, I miss 3/4s of the images I'd like to take. My way is, 18-135 on the camera . 21 ltd. and 40 XS in my pocket. And if I need long, bring the DA*60-250 or DA*200 with the DA 55-300 being the consumer choice.

DA 18-135 or prime? People say they can see a difference. People say all kind of stuff, that doesn't make it true.

Can you tell which is which without looking at the exif?

[LensBeginner]

For my film cameras I'm with you all the way, and I nearly went abroad recently with nothing more than an SMC-M 40/2.8 on an ME, but OP seems to be after something different here. I'm trying to keep to Pentax glass exclusively for the vintage stuff, because if I go anywhere near the bottomless pit of LBA that is European glass I don't think I'll ever climb out.

Yeah I noticed... but it can't hurt to propose a totally different, "lateral" approach

[hal55]

I'd better clarify what this lens - whatever it turns out to be - will be used for. As mentioned I use vintage glass, enjoying the challenge of shooting manually and setting up everything myself,I feel more that I'm taking the shot and not that a couple of thousand lines of code are doing everything. BUT, there are also plenty of times that shooting manually is a right pain and I just want to let the camera do the work. One of these that I remember well was a quilt and embroidery show (don't laugh, the detail and patterning make great subjects) which was so crowded that it was way too difficult to set up each shot manually. Another was Henty sand dunes in Tasmania where climbing a thirty metre sand dune with a hefty camera pack nearly killed me, hence I'm just after a good walkaround lens, capable of good quality shots, that won't be taxing to use. It won't be my standard lens, that tends to be the Rikenon 28-100, but it must be capable of magazine quality work. I have been published in "Camera for Enthusiast" magazine in Australia and write occasional travel pieces, which is the reason I'm after a step up from the kit lens without breaking the bank. Some excellent recommendations, but so far they are panning out more expensive than the Sigma barring a good second hand example coming up, which is something I'll keep my eye out for.

Hal55
,