[Ghostbuster360]

I would suggest buying the 55-300. You now have the range to photograph darn near anything. Then go out and just shoot, shoot, and shoot. In a few months, you'll have a much better idea of what direction you want to go with your photography. Lots of lenses have been mentioned and most of them are pretty good. The Tamron 17-50 isn't much different then your kit lens. It is faster IF you really need f2.8 but are you really sure?

I use a Sigma 17-70C as a walk around. It has longer range then the kit lens, is sharper wide open and and can focus very close with it's "macro" range. Speaking of macro, that can often be a good choice for a second lens too. As for primes, the DA 35/2.4 and 50/1.8 are very inexpensive and very, very good lenses.

Lenses can be very expensive so buying glass that you want and need is what you want to do and will avoid having a camera bag full of dust collectors. If you have to ask "what lens should I buy?", you haven't shot enough with what you have yet.

Well thank you, I think you are right indeed. I'll think about it. Maybe I'll choose the 35mm/2.4 -it is inexpensive and from what you all say, quite good. Apart from that I'll just keep shooting and improving myself.

[clackers]

Hi Ghostbuster,

This article is a couple of years old but still very good:

Building a Quality Lens Kit on a Budget - Gear Guides | PentaxForums.com

Enjoy your shooting, whatever you use.

[dave2k]

By analyzing the focal lengths of your pictures as you have done you'll determine whether or not a prime might be satisfying. I have the DA 35 2.4 and I really like it. It's very sharp and quite light weight. I don't worry about the plastic construction at all. However, that lens will only give you sharper images at 35mm focal length. If you want sharper pictures throughout your common focal lengths you either need a better zoom or a number of prime lenses. I really like my Sigma 17-50 which is very sharp. I don't have first hand knowledge of the similar Tamron lens but the lens review section of this forum is excellent. I've never bought a lens without reading all the corresponding reviews on this forum. I like to shoot a lot of landscapes and I normally shoot between 17 and 30 for landscapes so the 35mm prime doesn't help me much. Eventually you'll determine if you are more of a prime shooter or a zoom shooter. Their are trade-offs with either approach and you'll need to determine your preferences. If you want to buy a prime to see if you can be happy shooting without zoom capability the DA 35 2.4 is a great, low cost starting point. But think about how much you want sharper pictures at other focal lengths too.

[ripper2860]

Since the focal length of 17-50 suits you well and you're looking for a brighter/faster and sharper lens, the Tamron 17-50 comes highly recommended. I own it and it is my go-to lens when I need a high-quality lens with a wide to telephoto FL range -- especially when indoors or low light. It also does a great job at close-focus allowing for very close-up (not macro) shots. It's very flexible and renders beautifully. Be aware,however, that more than likely you will need to tweak the auto-focus micro-adjust with the camera as these tend to back or front focus. No problem making the adjustments on the K50, though.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/lens-align-front-back-focus/introduction.html

Once you've made the adjustment, the camera will remember the lens and auto-adjust going forward. A bit of work up-front, but you'll love the results -- especially compared to the kit 18-55.

I also own the DA 35/2.4 and it is a wonderful lens -- razor sharp!! Whenever you are ready for a prime, you should seriously consider this jewel.

---

Last edited by ripper2860; 08-07-2017 at 07:10 PM.

[twilhelm]

Thanks for the response !

I mostly use fl between 24-50mm , sometimes I also use 18 or so to capture landscapes or architecture.
I have also heard that buying a prime lense is very developing - you have to be more inventive to have a good composition. Is that true?

Having a prime lens will help you develop a photographic eye. The 35 2.4 earned its nick name "the plastic fantastic" because it is an amazing lens for little money. I do recommend buying a cheap hood (I put a collapsible hood on mine) to use with it.

The 18-55 is a good lens, and there are many others out there that are faster with great image quality, as stated earlier, read the reviews here for a better feel of what you would want. I have the SDM 17-70 f4, a lot of people had problems with the SDM although I never have. But there is a trade off for a faster zoom and that is size and weight. My 17-70 is much larger and weighs quite a bit more than the 18-55. Something to consider when buying a new zoom lens.

[pres589]

There's two things that really taught me a lot about photography. One is PentaxForums. You're here so that's done. Next was getting a prime lens that did not communicate with the body. I bought a junky 28mm prime, in k-mount, with manual focus and an aperture ring to control the aperture. I wonder how many thousand shots I took with that dumb thing. I would do that experience over again exactly the same.

Get something very basic like that and you'll probably learn a lot. A 24mm f2.something would be an excellent lens to add.

[normhead]

It sounds like your choice might be the Tamron 17-50 2.8. My wife has one, it sees constant use. Or for even blurrier backgrounds the DA 50 1.8. A great low light performer.

If you need sharper than the 18-55, almost everything is, but it's really pretty good. Apart from eh 50 1.8 anything good in low light is going to be expensive.

The 18-135 is a great first step up form the kit, if you can find one at a good price. But, it's still not fast lens.

[C_Jones]

I used a Pentax 18-55 AL II until I sold it and purchased a Pentax 16-85 to replace it. The 18-55 gave me excellent images, but the wide 16 end and ability to zoom to 85 while getting great shots from the 16-85 is really nice. If you could either hold out with your 18-55 or get something interim that will satisfy your immediate needs until you can get a 16-85, that might be something to approach.

[SpecialK]

Composition should be based on your eye, not where you stand necessarily. Zooms are useful. You frequently can not zoom with your feet. I can't imaging being overwhelmed because you can adjust the focal length :-) I'd go with the 17-50 over a prime for now.

[Dericali]

I would recommend the 50mm 1.8. Why? It's very affordable, and it's a great lens for someone who is still developing. Shooting with a prime lens is - I find - a lot more fun and satisfying, because it makes you more instinctive with the camera. Without the zoom function, you're left to move around the subject, or change position to change framing, or simply accept the limitations. 50mm is a good focus length, it's demands accurate framing. It goes well on the K-50, and it's a great price for a new Pentax lens

[robthebloke]

The 20-40 is a great lens, but quite pricey! For significantly less than that lens, you could buy the DA35 f2.4 and DA50 f1.8. *for the price*, they are excellent. (I'd say the DA50 is a little bit better optically, although I would say that f1.8 is a little optimistic, and would always prefer f2.5 when I owned it).

Don't worry about the fact they're plastic - they don't feel cheap or flimsy in any way.

If you don't mind going second hand (honestly, not a terrible option!), then that opens up the DA ltd primes (all brilliant!), the DFA50mm f2.8 macro, FA 50mm f1.4, or even a DFA100mm macro (but I reckon that's a little too long for a first prime).

If I was to own only 1 prime for apsc, it would be a close call between the DA21 and DA35 f2.8 macro.

[Madaboutpix]

When I went digital with my first Pentax, a K-7, back in 2009, it came with the DA18-55 WR. Which made sense at the time, because, although it wasn't a stellar lens optically, it gave me a fair range of photographic options from wideangle to short telephoto, and even made for some degree of weather sealing. It was this lens around which I would build my kit. My kit zoom saw a lot of use at 18mm, whenever I needed a wider angle for travel and family shots, some at 55mm, mostly for casual portraits and details, and little use in between.

Now we happen to be a family of fairly frequent zoo visitors, and so I soon longed for more reach in the telephoto department, without breaking the bank. Reviews of the DA55-200 WR were somewhat mixed and its longest FL a bit short for what I had in mind, and so I ended up getting a DA55-300 as first additional lens. Again, that was not exactly high-end glass, but the real surprise was how it optically wiped the floor with my kit lens, especially with its snappy contrast! (In fact, I'm using that same DA55-300 on my 24MP K-3 to this day, with altogether decent results.)

So much for the zoom. At some point of your photographic journey, and better sooner than later, however, you should also explore what a good prime lens can do for your photography. Pentax has some gorgeously rendering options in its line-up, from the inexpensive plastic-fantastics to the Limiteds and DA*s, and I would suggest the DA50 as a perfect starting point into that world. Yep, like the DA35, its shell and mount are plastic, but the optics are flat out amazing, and that lens can be had for around 100 euros brandnew. (Seriously, if that little gem should break on me one day, I might well just pick up another copy, which tells you something about how much I like its output.)

Otherwise, to foster your growth as a photographer, I would always recommend taking your time to really learn each lens with its capabilities before rushing out and buying another.

Anyway, I would have probably struggled to pull off the attached images, if I hadn't moved beyond the kit zoom, be it for reach, bokeh, flare resistance, or rendering. And, to be sure, that is the chief attraction of an interchangeable-lens camera system.

[k5astro]

As I have already said - I would like a sharper image, brighter lense and better depth of field.
And thanks for responding, I will look the last on up see how it looks like.

I totally understand the desire for a faster lens. I think the real benefit is the brightness factor when looking through the lens and framing your shot, and of course Boke.

I have a 50mm and 35mm prime. I got the 50 because people said get the standard 50 for starters. The only reason the 50 is a good choice is that it approximates the perspective of the human eye. The problem is that with an APS-C camera, its a bit like looking through a tube. I never feel like I can get a good field of view with it.

So I bought a 35mm F2 and I like it much more and use it when I go out with a prime. Otherwise I generally use my DA17-70, which is a very good lens but only F4.

(For a full-frame camera like the K-1, I would say get a 50mm.)

[pathdoc]

IIRC the K-50 will support the newest iteration of the DA55-300 with its electronic aperture and all the latest whizbang features. A half-stop slower than its predecessors, but I hear good things about it so far... and if your K-50 should ever develop the aperture block failure, I believe the KAF4-mount lenses (of which this is the first and currently only) should be immune to that.

If you want a two-lens kit to do it all, DA55-300 seems your best bet.

If you want a prime, shoot your kit lens at 35mm for a week and then repeat at 50mm (or start fully zoomed to 55, which is probably close enough). If the 55mm view of the world is too narrow, the 35 moves into contention. The 50/1.8 is of course a stop faster, which is sometimes enough to sway some people in and of itself. I own the 50 and it is a very good performer, even in manual focus; in fact, I'd even use it on my film bodies if not for its lack of an aperture ring.

More to the point is that if it's speed and wide open aperture you want, the 18-55 is f/5.6 at the long end while the 50mm is f/1.8 - just over three stops faster. If you spend a lot of time zoomed all the way in, or if the type of shooting you do gives you space to move back and recompose, this is something to think about if you decide to get a prime. And the 50/1.8 is cheap; you may even find you can afford both the 55-300 and this, but I'll leave that decision to you and your wallet.

Certainly the zoom gives you much more versatility - but once you have that, I would strongly recommend the 50/1.8 as the first prime to save up for.

[Blacknight659]

For most of us, we purchased lenses when we feel a struggle and through research realize a lens is the best way to deal with it. It sounds like you are in the beginning of your journey and probably haven't hit a wall with your current gear. If this is the case, then I want to sway you a bit.

Your 18-55 is great to learn on and take stunning images. You will outgrow it, but you need to out grow it.

You don't have a prime lens yet, which will teach you yet another way to look at photography. You can't simulate this experience, or even substitute it. You must buy one eventually.

I suggest you buy a 50mm or 35mm DA lens. If they are too costly, look for a SMC-M or SMC-A 50mm f1.7 lens. These lenses will help you grow and develop your eye. When you have gone through this process, replacing your 18-55 will be much easier. It won't be difficult to make your next purchase decision, you will know what you need next.