[r0ckstarr]

I never use my kit lenses (18-55, 50-200), and I finally realized it's because they are terrible (my nifty fifty spoiled me by showing what my camera can really do with good glass).

Anyway, I am getting ready to get some new glass and I feel like I should get something to replace my kit lens, but I'm not sure what to look for because I already have a 50mm f1.8, 35mm f2.4 (the only two lenses I ever use) and will soon have a DFA 100mm f2.8 which leaves a lot of gaps to fill.



If I'm mostly a landscape/Macro/portrait shooter, what is really missing from my kit that I'm overlooking?

Thanks

EDIT: Thank you everyone for your replies! I have learned a lot from you all. For those who wanted to know, I currently shoot with a K-50 but plan on upgrading to the next APSC flagship whenever it comes out. I was going to get a K-3ii but realized that the next APSC might have a lot of great features inherited from the K-1 so I am investing in glass instead and holding out.

There's no gaps, just wide open space on both sides. My suggestion is DA15.

[Zephos]

UPDATE: Hey everyone I just got a new idea since I might get a FF one day... what if I got the D-FA 28-105 ? I know that doesn't really help on the wide end but it certainly would fill in the gaps everywhere else.

Oh and if you didn't see the edit on the original post, I am shooting with a K-50 but will upgrade to the next APSC flagship whenever it appears.

[grispie]

UPDATE: Hey everyone I just got a new idea since I might get a FF one day... what if I got the D-FA 28-105 ? I know that doesn't really help on the wide end but it certainly would fill in the gaps everywhere else.

filling the focal range does not help. gosh, you have 35/50/100. One can make nice shots with those lenses. And even the kitlenses can do great if you know the limitations. Question yourself in what area you want to grow. If that is wide angle, you need to invest in a dedicated wide angle, if that is portrait, you may want a dedicated portrait lens and other stuff you need. If you go birding, buy a telelens. Whether those are zooms or primes is a personal choice. All suggestions above are quality lenses and will give better results than the kitlenses.

ps: Don't buy something just in case you might want a K1 one day..

[r0ckstarr]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/86234-15mm-limited-controls-my-mind-club.html

Start on page 1. When you get to page 689, you will know which lens you want.

[Zephos]

filling the focal range does not help. gosh, you have 35/50/100. One can make nice shots with those lenses. And even the kitlenses can do great if you know the limitations. Question yourself in what area you want to grow. If that is wide angle, you need to invest in a dedicated wide angle, if that is portrait, you may want a dedicated portrait lens and other stuff you need. If you go birding, buy a telelens. Whether those are zooms or primes is a personal choice. All suggestions above are quality lenses and will give better results than the kitlenses.

ps: Don't buy something just in case you might want a K1 one day..

Haha thanks for pulling me back down to reality

[BigMackCam]

UPDATE: Hey everyone I just got a new idea since I might get a FF one day... what if I got the D-FA 28-105 ? I know that doesn't really help on the wide end but it certainly would fill in the gaps everywhere else.

28mm is a bit limiting at the wide end for some people, with a field of view equivalent to 42mm on full-frame.

It very much depends on what focal lengths are important to you, how much creative control you want over depth of field, and how much lower-light shooting you do.

I bought a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for portraiture on APS-C, but I've become very fond of it as a general-use walk-around lens. I find the focal length range very comfortable - and in that respect, I'd probably enjoy the greater range of the 28-105. But, I also like to have shallow depth-of-field for close-up, portraiture and pet photos, and the 28-105 is a little too slow at the longer focal lengths for my taste.

I also have the same Tamron lens on A-mount full-frame, and the experience of shooting those focal lengths with the larger sensor (and, hence, wider field of view / smaller effective "magnification") is very different, as I knew it would be - so that's something else to bear in mind if you buy a lens to use on your K-50 and later move to a K-1...

[ramseybuckeye]

To me it's obvious that you are lacking in the wider range, and if you need it the longer range is also lacking.

Since I got the Sigma 17-50 about a year ago I have used it more than any other lens, I wish it was WR and I'd use it even more. Since I got the Sigma I've barely used my DA35/2.4 or Cosmicar 28/2.8. Another wide lens I love is the HD DA 15, it's too wide in many instances, but when it is the right situation for a creative composition the results are great. I also have the Tamron 10-24 zoom which is good and sharp but prone to flare. I'll have to admit I want the 21, but I know I don't really need it. If you have deep pockets the 15-30 2.8 looks interesting.

To replace your 50-200, there has already been a recommendation for the new 55-300, I had the older DA55-300 which was good, but if you really want the better performance the DA* 300/4 is great, and the prices have gotten much better on it. The various 70-200/2.8 lenses are all worthy, sharp and fast.

I know you mentioned that you are mostly a landscape/Macro/portrait shooter. For landscapes speed usually doesn't really matter if you're using a tripod, although some of the faster lenses are just higher quality.

[grispie]

Haha thanks for pulling me back down to reality

no worries. A bit in a blunt way, but i also needed others to pull me back in the past ;-) one's mind can play funny games..

[niceshot]

UPDATE: Hey everyone I just got a new idea since I might get a FF one day... what if I got the D-FA 28-105 ? I know that doesn't really help on the wide end but it certainly would fill in the gaps everywhere else.

Oh and if you didn't see the edit on the original post, I am shooting with a K-50 but will upgrade to the next APSC flagship whenever it appears.

Then save your self the money and get and Sigma 18-125 for cheap, and it is real sharp although it vignettes at the 18mm range. It is sharp sharp sharp. Or get the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 as Adam told you . Additionally DCSHOOTER is right stick to PRIMES

[pres589]

You could probably find a used DA-L 55-300 if you want better telephoto length glass and not spend much. It would be a good way to find out what focal lengths you really care about, then sell that lens on later for not much loss and spend where you want.

I like the idea of the 28-105 on APS-C but I wouldn't consider that a walk-around setup; I'd be wanting wider shots too often, and walk-about to me doesn't mean constantly changing lenses. A good photographer can work around this somewhat but I don't know that I'd want the challenge.

But I agree with the above; you've got a decent 35 and 50mm lens pair with the plastic jobs, and you have the DFA 100 Macro on the way. I don't do anything macro so I can't say anything about all that; the 100 does seem like a great lens for a lot of uses. I would either go with one of the mentioned 17-50's, the DA15, or the DA21 to back up those other lenses. OR you could try you hand at a manual focus lens like the Samyang 14, 16, or 20 (I've seen no reviews of the 20 yet so grain of salt there).

[audiobomber]

By that criterion, you've likely limited yourself to a handful of lenses at best, and all primes, especially if you want to buy new. The 50 1.8 is pretty outrageously sharp, even wide open. The zooms suggested above are all sharp lenses, but you will find use scenarios where they aren't as sharp as the 50.

DXOMark results show a different story. The DA 50 is only sharp at a small spot in the very centre wide open,. The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is as sharp or sharper lens than the DA 50mm f1.8 at common apertures. The largest difference is at f4, in favour of the zoom.

You can see details by going to the link below. Click on MEASUREMENTS, SHARPNESS, FIELD MAP, FOCAL, APERTURE.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-17-50mm-F28-EX-DC-...5_914_1219_914

The 17-50 is also sharper and more consistent across the frame than the 15, 21 and 40mm Limiteds. Of course the Limiteds have their own allure due to small size, flare resistance and punchy colours.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-17-50mm-F28-EX-DC-...218_830_1221_0

Sorry, I can't see any way to identify the image files I uploaded. They are:
1. DA 50mm @ 1.8
2. DA 50mm @ 2.8
3. 17-50mm @ 2.8
4. DA 50mm @ 5.6
5. 17-50mm @ 5.6

[Zephos]

DXOMark results show a different story. The DA 50 is only sharp at a small spot in the very centre wide open,. The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is as sharp or sharper lens than the DA 50mm f1.8 at common apertures. The largest difference is at f4, in favour of the zoom.

You can see details by going to the link below. Click on MEASUREMENTS, SHARPNESS, FIELD MAP, FOCAL, APERTURE.

Thanks for the info. I am leaning heavily on the 17-50 at this point mostly due to the DXO scores and the review I read.\

EDIT: I meant the Sigma 17-50

[grispie]

I'll complicate your life a little further and swing in a vote for the da12 24.. It is a very versatile range and truly wide angle since 35mm & 50mm are already covered.
It's an expensive lens but secondhand nice copies are available. I have a da15 but it sees no use anymore since i got the 12 24.
The thing is, don't underestimate the power of extra mm's on the wide side.

I also wonder if a da16-45 would be an option for you. They come around quite cheap second hand. it is f4, but great for a wide angle, sharp and has that extra mm. I use to have one untill my cat decided it looked better on the floor.

If you would check out my smugmug site, most pictures under 'usa' are taken with that lens..

nah, on 2nd thought, probably the 16 45 is obsolete now due to the 16 85 being available.

[Zephos]

I'll complicate your life a little further and swing in a vote for the da12 24.. It is a very versatile range and truly wide angle since 35mm & 50mm are already covered.
It's an expensive lens but secondhand nice copies are available. I have a da15 but it sees no use anymore since i got the 12 24.
The thing is, don't underestimate the power of extra mm's on the wide side.

I also wonder if a da16-45 would be an option for you. They come around quite cheap second hand. it is f4, but great for a wide angle, sharp and has that extra mm. I use to have one untill my cat decided it looked better on the floor.

If you would check out my smugmug site, most pictures under 'usa' are taken with that lens..

nah, on 2nd thought, probably the 16 45 is obsolete now due to the 16 85 being available.

Thanks. I am planning on getting the 12-24 as well as the 17-50. This is my full upgrade path so far:

D-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro (been dreaming of this for too long, so it's first) -> Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 -> DA 12-24mm -> DA 70mm f2.4 limited OR FA 77mm limited -> Next Gen APSC flagship body -> 35mm limited Macro -> DONE

I also need to pick up a flash or two along the way.

[Jonathan Mac]

The lens I always recommend to replace a kit lens with something optically much better quality is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. It's faster, sharp wide open and covers more-or-less the same focal lengths. Just make sure that you try before you buy or can return for free as some do not focus correctly.