[UncleVanya]

Agreed.
A used DA 70 on the K-3 would be a lot cheaper and you don't have to give up all the advancements of the newer body.
That was the route I took at one time and do not regret it at all. Later I flipped the DA 70 and got the 77 in preparation for the K-1. It all worked out.

I own both the DA 70 and FA 77 and while the FA 77 has a certain something the DA 70 does too - they are different enough I have kept both. Originally the DA 70 was my dad's purchased new. I got a line on an unreasonably good deal on the FA 77 (new) and picked it up. Now I own both my dad's and my K mounts and have some "overlap" that I can't quite bring myself to remedy. The DA 70 is a superb little lens. For what I can get from it used I just can't bring myself to get rid of it.

[caliscouser]

DA70 is fine lens, no doubt about it. But it's no daily walk-around lens which seems to be what the OP was looking for.

[DeadJohn]

... but I'd rather not switch out lenses all the time. So, what lens would you recommend for IQ above all? I'd especially like macro capabilities and autofocus. Everything else is negotiable.

True 1:1 macro lenses are prime lenses, meaning more lens changes. You'll need to balance your desire to avoid lens changes (zoom lens), macro, and cost (you later said $250 used). Zoom and macro usually needs 2 different lenses and that kills your budget.

The 16-85 and 28-105 are both good, sharp zooms. The 16-85 focal length is the more logical choice for the K-3 sensor size, but if you never want to shoot wide the 28-105 is an option. Neither can focus at macro distances. Considering that these lenses are relatively new releases, they don't come up for sale used very often.

For true macro, as others have said, get the 35, 50, or 100 macro lenses. They are all incredibly sharp. The 100 does show CA in strong backlighting but it's correctable with software. You already have the 50/1.4, so to cover different lengths I would get the 35 or 100 macro. 100mm is better for macro because it gives you more working length from your subject but 35mm is more versatile for general usage.

As a budget option (under $100 used), any variant of the DA 18-55 (all are optically similar) can focus closely at 1:3 magnification. Not true macro but I still think it's the closest of any Pentax zoom. Sigma and Pentax also have some zooms with "macro" in the name; they also hit around 1:3 and not full 1:1 macro. The 18-55 sacrifices IQ, but in good light when you can stop down to f8 gives pretty good results.

[mattb123]

For the budget mentioned, it's going to be tough to get most of these lenses so you may need to continue saving, at least another $100, maybe quite a bit more for the modern lenses.
It seems you want one lens that does it all very well and for only a little money which may be a challenge.

There are also options for turning any lens into a maco lens using extension tubes, a closeup filter, or a macro tele converter. I have an old Vivitar 2x Macro TC that allows lenses to operate as A lenses (but makes them manual focus) and it works well enough for me. For doing things on the cheap these can really perform well for not a lot of money. I think my TC was $75 on eBay.

[ChristianRock]

And don't forget the inverter ring. You can get one for 10 dollars or less, and since it has no optical parts, there's no image quality difference between different ones. It turns a 50mm lens into a 1:1 Macro. I find that the M 50 1.7 is particularly suited for this task because of its flat image field. Other lenses like the 50 1.4s that I tried weren't nearly as good (too much field curvature). A 28mm lens gives you almost 2:1 Macro, and a 24mm lens goes over 2:1 quite a bit.

I have two inverter rings (49mm and 52mm) for my various primes, just haven't used it in a long time... real macro's not what I've been interested in lately, I guess.

I can post some samples if interested...

[luftfluss]

I'm going to take the opposite tack here...F 35-70...Small, cheap, a stack of primes...

Great call! Not only is the F 35-70 cheap, diminutive, and very, very good, it can act as a placeholder while the OP decides what his next move will be.

[photogem]

Hello, fellow Pentaxians. I'm moving up from a K20d to a K3 and am in search of a lens which will serve me well for daily use.

Background: for my daily, walkaround needs, I purchased an MX1 about a year ago. I was beyond pleased with the focal length range, extreme macro ability, tough build quality, and 1.8 aperture. What I didn't like was the glass. I really missed my SMC 50mm 1.4.

So, what lens would you recommend for IQ above all? I'd especially like macro capabilities and autofocus. Everything else is negotiable.

Does this mean you still have the SMC (which one?) 50/1,4 ?

Cheap:
Somebody recommended the F 35-70. If you find a good sample, really good. Has kind of macro ability, which can be enhanced by using a Canon Close-Up 240D lens (achromatic, often sold for cheap money). The F35-70 is almost 3 primes in one tiny body, but aperture is limited. So good light or high ISO.

Larger, if you find a good sample, pretty good, based on the floated design of the FA31: DA16-45
(F4 constant) good close up ability, forget an achromatic lens for this one as 67mm
Way better than the 18-55 in any incarnation but not WR.

My favourite zoom is the DA20-40limited!

I don't now the DA 16-85 but guess it is a great zoom but I find it too heavy for a walk-around lens.

So if your purse allows it, the DA20-40 is just great --- also good close up ability, fast, quiet, amazing built.
Downside: not for FF

Primes:

DA50/1,8 is cheap and great, with a Canon 240D achromatic lens good close-up ability

DA35/2,4 not bad, DA35,2,8 macro limited is way better, 1:1 macro but can hunt due to being a true macro

FA43: one of my favourite lenses but I miss quickshift. It is to be mastered, not an easy lens.

FA31 or Zeiss Distagon 35/2 T* (no AF): both fantastic, expensive. FA31 more an artist, Distagon a precision master instrument.
FA31's can be misaligned (as can be the 16-45, both floated designs as is the Distagon but it lacks AF, only PK/A and thus no
danger) If FA31, then made in Japan (as for the FA43)

FA35/2: very good, fast, expensive, with 240D achromat good close-up.
(I prefer the A35/2, which I find superior, but it lacks AF)

One prime I would find too limited, but if it had to be one, it would either be the FA43 or the FA31.
But I could even live with the DA50/1,8.

I'd go for 2 primes or the DA20-40 limited. (DA21 has also good close-up ability)

[GeneV]

If I were to use only one prime on the K3, and it needed to cost $250 or less used, would be one of the 35mm options (DA/FA/DAL). However, for a walk around lens in that price range, I prefer the 18-135. Given the difference in the K3 and MX1 sensors, you will find this combo superior in image quality and range. If you already have a fast 50mm, you are all set for low light. If not, adding a DAL 50 won't add much expense or weight. Most of the other options mentioned are significantly higher than your budget.

[luftfluss]

Cheap:
Somebody recommended the F 35-70. If you find a good sample, really good. Has kind of macro ability, which can be enhanced by using a Canon Close-Up 240D lens (achromatic, often sold for cheap money). The F35-70 is almost 3 primes in one tiny body, but aperture is limited. So good light or high ISO.

Yes. Last year I bought a couple of 49mm Pentax close-up filters - Close-up #1 and T80 - for $10 and find them to be very worthwhile. Even though they don't provide true 1:1 (or even 1:2) macro, they do get you closer and allow for narrow DoF. I find they work well on the F 35-70 for "environmental portraits" of insects.

(DA21 has also good close-up ability)

I think the DA21 is only something like 1:6, so IMO it's not that great, but I never tried it with a close-up filter.

[photogem]

Yes. Last year I bought a couple of 49mm Pentax close-up filters - Close-up #1 and T80 - for $10 and find them to be very worthwhile. Even though they don't provide true 1:1 (or even 1:2) macro, they do get you closer and allow for narrow DoF. I find they work well on the F 35-70 for "environmental portraits" of insects.

I only know the Pentax Close-up #1: Magnification is more like the Sigma achromatic lens or the Canon 500D (and 450D allthough I am not sure the 500D(450D is an achromat). As the T80 was made for the 85/105/135 lenses, my guess is that it has similar low magnification but you will know it. Both are about 2 diopters.

The Canon 240D and the similar but newer and thus more expensive 250D have higher magnification (4 Diopters) and are achromatic as well.

Both are significantly heavier and thicker than the Pentax #1. Try it, one can find it often very cheap. It's an amazing close-up achromat. And.... It has to be an achromat, normal close-ups (with single glass elements) are toys.

I also have the Leitz ELPO-2 achromatic close-up here (55 and 43mm, 43 for older Leitz lenses). The Canon is as good.

The Sigma and Pentax achromatic lenses can be of good use to achieve 1:1 ratio with a 1:2 macro lens, such as the M50 or Takumar 2.nd generation 50mm F4 macro lens.

There is also the possibility to use a close-up lens in reverse mode:
Close-up lenses

I think the DA21 is only something like 1:6, so IMO it's not that great, but I never tried it with a close-up filter.

It is closer to 1:5 but there is a difference of magnification and close-up ability.

A nice close-up 24mm lens is the Exakta 24/2,8 which was built by Cosina.
Cosina 24mm f/2.8 MC MACRO Lens Reviews - Cosina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[UncleVanya]

More info on the 500d and 250d lenses.

Close-up lenses - Canon Professional Network

[luftfluss]

I only know the Pentax Close-up #1: Magnification is more like the Sigma achromatic lens or the Canon 500D (and 450D allthough I am not sure this one is an achromat). As the T80 was made for the 85/105/135 lenses, my guess is that it has similar low magnification but you will know it.

The Canon 240D (and the similar but newer and thus more expensive 250D) have high magnification and is achromatic as well.
It is heavier and thicker than the #1. Try it, one can find it often very cheap. It's an amazing close-up achromat. It has to be an achromat.

I also have the Leitz ELPO-2 achromatic close-up here (55 and 43mm, 43 for older Leitz lenses). The Canon is as good.

The Sigma and Pentax one can use for 1:1 with the 1:2 50mm macro lenses.

There is also the possibility to use a close-up lens in reverse mode:
Close-up lenses



It is closer to 1:5 but there is a difference of magnification and close-up ability.

A nice close-up 24mm lens is the Exakta 24/2,8 which was built by Cosina.
Cosina 24mm f/2.8 MC MACRO Lens Reviews - Cosina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Yes, I've found that the T80 works best with the focal lengths you state - coupled with a 200mm lens it has poor IQ, and at 35mm it does create narrower DoF but does not provide much greater magnification. It is interesting to use at 35mm, though - an example:

F 35-70 @ 35mm + T80


1st pic: T80 + Jupiter-9 85/2 @ f/2.8, 2nd pic: T80 + F 35-70 @ 70mm




I do have the Raynox DCR-150 which is similar to the Canon 250D (I think), but I haven't used it on wide or normal lenses, just tele.

My wide close-up capable lens is the Sigma Super Wide II AF 24/2.8, an excellent lens.

[UncleVanya]

I own the Nikon 6T / 4T and the Canon 500D and the Raynox 150 and 250. I can provide input on them if needed. All are excellent is the short version.

[photogem]

I own the Nikon 6T / 4T and the Canon 500D and the Raynox 150 and 250. I can provide input on them if needed. All are excellent is the short version.

Probably here my English is lacking, I don't understand what you mean with being excellent in the short version?

[pres589]

Out of left field, what about a 40XS, 27-49 step up ring, and something like the T80 or one of the other close up lenses? Nice, small, fast-ish lens. Round aperture blades for round bokeh balls.

That said, I think the OP wants a zoom that does macro, or or near macro, and the above F 35-70 shots with and without a T80 added look awesome. Too cool!