[pres589]

My thought is that, with the costs and such involved, there's no reason to not have a 50mm faster than f2.0, with an option like the DA 50 1.8 hanging around.

At the stated end of the cost spectrum, and buying new instead of used, these are the best lenses I can think of for what you're wanting to do. Honestly I don't think you can really go wrong with any of the three mentioned. Look at sample shots and read the user reviews. I will say that I was not that happy ultimately with my DA 35 and I will be keeping my DA 50 1.8. Some folks love the DA 35. Personal preference.

[UncleVanya]

My thought is that, with the costs and such involved, there's no reason to not have a 50mm faster than f2.0, with an option like the DA 50 1.8 hanging around.

At the stated end of the cost spectrum, and buying new instead of used, these are the best lenses I can think of for what you're wanting to do. Honestly I don't think you can really go wrong with any of the three mentioned. Look at sample shots and read the user reviews. I will say that I was not that happy ultimately with my DA 35 and I will be keeping my DA 50 1.8. Some folks love the DA 35. Personal preference.

I would argue that a) limiting to new is arbitrary, and b) the FA 35 f/2.0 is still available new and outperforms the DA 35 f/2.4 on objective and subjective tests for a reasonable cost (perhaps 2.5x however).

But I would recommend the DA 35 f/2.8 Macro as the lens that most is like a 35mm film 50mm macro and the FA 35 f/2 as the most like a "fast 50" albeit only f/2.

---------- Post added 11-01-17 at 10:32 AM ----------

Click on forum picture which will open up the Flickr image. Move your mouse to bottom right corner and click on the two arrows symbol overlay. This will take you to the Flickr photo page. Read exposure etc. settings off your screen (scroll down a bit), or click on the 'Show EXIF'.

Yes I'm familiar with Flickr and EXIF. This shot didn't seem to have much EXIF data in Flickr when I first viewed it. Sometimes flickr seems to not display the data correctly. Now when I look I see the relevant data - before it was largely blank. I have seen this even with my own photos. Not sure what to say about that. LOL. I thought at first it was my browser vs. the mobile client but rechecking the data is now there on both.

[pres589]

"I would argue that a) limiting to new is arbitrary, and b) the FA 35 f/2.0 is still available new and outperforms the DA 35 f/2.4 on objective and subjective tests for a reasonable cost (perhaps 2.5x however).

But I would recommend the DA 35 f/2.8 Macro as the lens that most is like a 35mm film 50mm macro and the FA 35 f/2 as the most like a "fast 50" albeit only f/2."

Maybe buying new is arbitrary. I've bought used and been happy with what I got. But if we're going to open this to used gear as well it might get pretty crazy dealing with all the options. And then you'll have goofballs like me suggesting the Super-Wide II AF due to it's very useful focal length on crop, small size, f2.8 max aperture, sharpness and IQ... it seems really overwhelming to try and tell new people that they should go out and find used equipment that won't have warranty support.

The lenses being considered by the original poster of the thread are all below $200 USD new. Suggesting the 35 Ltd seems to ignore the cost aspects. And really, for a new shooter, aiming closer to "plastic fantastic" pricing is probably the smart thing to do.

[Steve Grosvenor]

[I]it seems really overwhelming to try and tell new people that they should go out and find used equipment that won't have warranty support.

The lenses being considered by the original poster of the thread are all below $200 USD new. Suggesting the 35 Ltd seems to ignore the cost aspects. And really, for a new shooter, aiming closer to "plastic fantastic" pricing is probably the smart thing to do.

Personally, especially as WR and AutoFocus were not a major considerations for myself, and I am use to (from film days) working around the characteristics lets call them (rather than limitations) of old glass, I went with old primes.

But going that route you end up with lenses which are great at one task, but are not what I would call general purpose lenses. I would never consider using the 50/1:1.2 I found for landscapes shooting into the sun for example.

For my daughter, who this lens will be used by, WR and AutoFocus are important features.

Thanks for all the insights, you are quite correct that the question was specifically related to the under $300 lens.

Unfortunately, although by hunting around you may come upon a deal (like I came across on the 50 noted above), finding a used WR lens at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame is not very likely.

It is too bad in some ways that zoom lenses have become the 'standard' kit lens. I would have loved to see the 'plastic fantastic' primes reissued as WR lenses... for that matter I would love to see a wider range of WR primes in general released. But that is a different topic.

[normhead]

that depends on your ability to multitask and your sense of all the circumstances around you

and keeping both eyes open instead of shutting the left eye

getting lost in the view finder may not be the best idea.

I'm not sure any of that was relevant to my post... but, whatever.

[pres589]

If you want good cost AND weather resistance, it's zooms when talking about what's available in k-mount land. The 18-50 WR (I am not excited about this lens), 18-55 WR (punches above its weight, I think), 50-200 (I own one, I wouldn't recommended it, although it's been fun to shoot things fairly close up like plants and flowers on my patio), and the 55-300 (great all around telephoto, I've not used one myself). All these can be found on the used market inside your budget.

What I think you want is one of two lenses I have been annoying people here about for a while. Something around 25 or 26mm prime, made primarily of plastic, but with an f2.4 or so max aperture (at least 2.8, 2.0 would be awesome) and carries a WR rating. The problem is that there's no existing optical block to steal from like they had with the DA 34 f2.4 and DA 50 1.8 or the 40mm pancakes. So there's design and testing to be done with that aspect.

This is why I went out and bought a Kino Precision 28mm f2.0. I'm not that great at focusing the thing accurately as often as I would like and have replaced that with a Sigma 28mm f1.8. That lens I bought just weeks ago, refurbished by Sigma, through Adorama. It would be at the top of your budget. I like it so far although I'm still learning how to focus the thing properly, an issue I've not had with AF lenses on my camera before. In any case, it's probably not really something you want right now. Maybe in the future. The other lens I might consider is the old Pentax F 28mm f2.8. They're about the same price as what I spent on the Sigma.

---------- Post added 11-01-17 at 10:49 AM ----------

... getting lost in the view finder may not be the best idea.

With the week I'm having, I'd love to go get lost in a view finder for a while.

[normhead]

Unfortunately, although by hunting around you may come upon a deal (like I came across on the 50 noted above), finding a used WR lens at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame is not very likely.

Of the lenses I've looked for second hand, I have one of maybe 5 I've gone looking for. IN some of those cases I decided I din't really want the lens, but K 20 ƒ2. FA 20-35, FA 300 ƒ4.5, the thing is if you want it, there are probably a lot of others looking for it too. And a deal is not guaranteed. I have found copies of some lenses that were just way too high based on the prices of better modern equivalents. Buying used glass is a crapshoot and I usually cut off the search after about a month if I don't find anything. But the search for used lenses at good prices can be time wasted. Sometimes a lot of time.

Despite the constant advice on the forum "second hand is an option" or even "old glass is an option" it should be considered that way only is if you already own it. When I decided i wanted the DFA 100 macro, before I pushed the "buy" button, I looked at the marketplace, and found one practically brand new for 100 dollars off (and another $45 in taxes saved.) I went for that, because "I wasted no time, I knew what wanted, and the price was fair to both me and the buyer. That is a lot more rare than you'd think.

Searching for a lens second hand can be a boring, tedious thankless waste of time. Second hand is about snatching opportunities that come to your attention while just doing what you do. A caveat that seems to be ignored by many who recommend it.

[Steve Grosvenor]

Searching for a lens second hand can be a boring, tedious thankless waste of time. Second hand is about snatching opportunities that come to your attention while just doing what you do. A caveat that seems to be ignored by many who recommend it.

I completely agree... I had decided to purchase the plastic 50/1.8, but thought I would check local ads just in case and came upon a used 50/1.2. For my own use, as autofocus is not important, it was just a better match at a lower price. That said, although I knew that I was interested in used glass, I was not about to waste a lot of time trying to find it.

[Alex645]

For my daughter, who this lens will be used by, WR and AutoFocus are important features.
I would have loved to see the 'plastic fantastic' primes reissued as WR lenses... for that matter I would love to see a wider range of WR primes in general released. But that is a different topic.

Steve, I believe the only new Pentax prime that is WR is the Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro, which is quite a bit over $300.

In general, primes are less likely to need all the WR or AW seals like zooms because there are less moving parts and areas where the optics can be compromised. Countless times Iʻve been shooting in a rainforest with a group of photographers, and their non-WR zooms will develop internal condensation while my non-WR prime doesnʻt.

With that said, it IS a shame that a simple rubber or silicon O-ring gasket isnʻt put on the lens mount of all primes. In the rain or salt spray, I usually jury-rig an upside-down large plastic zip-lock bag with a hole for the lens to keep most of the elements off. Meanwhile, my son with his K-50 and 18-55mm WR just needs to keep the water off his front element.

[clackers]

Steve, I believe the only new Pentax prime that is WR is the Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro, which is quite a bit over $300.

The DA*55 is WR, as is the DA*300, IIRC.

[normhead]

The DA*55 is WR, as is the DA*300, IIRC.

New is relative.

There is newest, new and brand spanking new.

[Alex645]

The DA*55 is WR, as is the DA*300, IIRC.

Yes, correct; I sort of didnʻt even consider those because of the price for Steve and his daughter.

[UncleVanya]

The DA*55 is WR, as is the DA*300, IIRC.

DA* lenses of all sorts including the DA* 200, 300 and 55 are at a higher standard than WR. I can't remember the exact wording.

[Steve Grosvenor]

DA* lenses of all sorts including the DA* 200, 300 and 55 are at a higher standard than WR. I can't remember the exact wording.

Sorry, I should have specifically stated that there is an absence, even in the high end series, let alone entry or mid priced level, a single standard length WR fixed... with a crop sensor by standard length we are talking 28 to 40mm. Even the shortest fixed lens with WR would be considered a telephoto.

Why it puzzles me is that many of the fixed lense are IF. So I wouldn't have thought it would be that difficult (or expensive) an update.

From a profit perspective, imagine how many 'plastic fantastic' lens have been sold... and how many of those with them would be willing to purchase an 'updated' version if available?

In our local camera club everyone who has remained with Pentax has done so for one reason and that is WR. Even many of those with Canon and Nikon, when you say you want to be able to shoot in the rain, suggest considering Pentax. It is becoming a nitch product such that addressing holes in the product line within this nitch makes sense.

[aslyfox]

DA* lenses of all sorts including the DA* 200, 300 and 55 are at a higher standard than WR. I can't remember the exact wording.

I found these sources which address, among other things, what I think you might be referring to:

A Guide to the Best Pentax Camera Lenses - Reviewed.com Lenses

★: DA* and D FA* lenses feature robust build quality, high-quality optics, and weather sealing, making them suitable for professional use.

WR: Indicates that a lens is weather resistant—sealed against moisture and dust. WR lenses feature a bright red o-ring gasket on the metal mount.
AW: A beefed-up kind of weather sealing found on some DA and D FA* lenses. DA* lenses feature weather sealing generally considered equivalent to AW.

Pentax K-Mount Lenses Explained: The differences between various Pentax lens series


DA* Lenses: The DA series includes a number of "star" lenses (DA*) with top notch optical and mechanical engineering. All DA* lenses have the Quick Shift focusing system and - despite not having the WR designation - are also weather sealed.

Lens Name Suffixes
The following abbreviations are used in lens names:

AW: All Weather. The highest degree of sealing against dust and rain.

WR: Weather Resistant. The lens is sealed against dust and light rain.