[Ronald Oakes]

For under $100, you already have the lens I would choose.

This lens goes for as little as $21 on Ebay…..lol.
I think I will just get a hood for $5 , and a plastic bag and rubber band for WR and be done with it.

[paulh]

This lens goes for as little as $21 on Ebay…..lol.
I think I will just get a hood for $5 , and a plastic bag and rubber band for WR and be done with it.

There you go. Learn to use your 18-55 - it's a decent lens capable of nice images once you know its limitations. I still use my old DA18-55 v1 quite a bit as a light, unobtrusive walkaround. Have a look at The Kit Lens Club here on the forums.

[E-man]

My only objection to the DAL lenses is their plastic mount. Optically, there's no real difference between DA and DAL lenses. I had an DAL 18-55 that I got with my K30 and sold it on very quickly since I already had two DA 18-55's and didn't need any more redundancy. If I had to slim things down to one body and two lenses from what I presently own, I'd go with my K200D, a DA 18-55 and my DAL 50-200 ED WR. While I'd prefer a metal mount, I have no other complaints regarding its optics, handling or overall performance.

[normhead]

My only objection to the DAL lenses is their plastic mount. Optically, there's no real difference between DA and DAL lenses. I had an DAL 18-55 that I got with my K30 and sold it on very quickly since I already had two DA 18-55's and didn't need any more redundancy. If I had to slim things down to one body and two lenses from what I presently own, I'd go with my K200D, a DA 18-55 and my DAL 50-200 ED WR. While I'd prefer a metal mount, I have no other complaints regarding its optics, handling or overall performance.

There's no informationI I know of, including extensive data collected by lensrentals.com (who have looked at the issue) to suggest a plastic mount is in any way inferior to a metal mount. Their report indicated, the only advantage one way or the other was that plastic mounts are cheaper to repair if broken than metal mounts. There was no advantage for metal in terms of either durability or frequency of repair. Sometimes the engineers who design these things actually do know more than the rest of us.

[robiles]

I just picked up an inexpensive K-R at a local auction for $45 in Mint condition.
It came with the DAL 18-55 AL lens.
However after initial quick testing I wasn't real impressed except at the wider end , and it actually wasn't bad at all stopped down.
I keep looking at the SMC Pentax-DA L 18-50mm F4-5.6 DC WR RE compact lens and think based solely on the reviews it might be a better option ?
I don't understand why the HD version of this lens gets a much lower review score than the non-HD version ? Confusing.

So in reality what Im asking is which of the two lenses should I choose to leave permanently attached to this little K-R and use as a general use camera to tag along every where I go ?

why not the DA 16-45? it is a highly regarded lens, and if you have patience, you can find it for cheap (bought mine for 80€ but i do not actually use it)

edit: i know i am off topic, and did not answer your question, but im just trying to help out

[Adam]

Okay, this is going to blow your budget by 50%, but there's used Tamron 17-50's in seemingly good condition on ebay right now for $150 buy-it-now's with shipping included (or $130 + $20 shipping). I would totally do that. My sister makes small amounts of money running a photog business on the side with that lens and a Canon crop body that isn't much better than a K-r. I like that lens, I like that price, that's what I would do. Basically option d. with a real answer attached.

I second this recommendation, at the current price that lens is a steal.

[Adam]

I don't understand why the HD version of this lens gets a much lower review score than the non-HD version ? Confusing.

Probably because it's 3x (ish) the cost and about the same otherwise.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[normhead]

Probably because it's 3x (ish) the cost and about the same otherwise.

That's one of the things you have to watch out for. People who pay a lot more for their lenses, often expect a lot more. People who pay a little are often thrilled with what they get for their money. Getting good lenses is an exponential thing. A DA*16-50 isn't 5 times better than an 18-55, but if you want that little bit extra, it costs a bundle. Never believe an expensive lens is as bad as its rated, or that an inexpensive lens is worse than an expensive lens in any relationship to the cost. A good lens will be a little bit better. Bargains are found when you realize a cheap lens is good for what you do. It may not be good for everyone, but if it does what you need it to do, it may as well be rated a10 for you at least. Unfortunately other reviewers can't possibly rate a lens for you. They can only rate it for themselves. If I cared about ratings, I would have sold my 18-135 years ago. As long as it works for me, why would I care what everyone else thinks?

With the more expensive lenses, one bad review can pull down a lens's rating an awful lot.

[RKKS08]

If you want more reach, have a look at the (out of production) Sigma 18-125.
Last year I got one in very good condition for less than €100, so about $100.

I cannot compare it with the Pentax 18-135, but it is certainly not worse than my 18-55 WR.
But mind the AF is not screwdrive (and also no fallback to screwdrive), so AF will not work with some of the earliest Pentax DSLRs.

EDIT: And also mind that this AF will drain the battery much faster than the buit-in screwdrive of the camera.

[Kozlok]

Another option with a big IQ jump is the V1 Sigma 17-70; the screwdrive version. Great MFD, great IQ, $125-150 max. Really a lot to recommend it for low-budget walk around.

[clackers]

+1 to the idea of the DA16-45 as an overlooked cheap lens that by all accounts punches above its weight.

Fellow Brit kh12345678 or whatever his handle is takes nice pics with it.

[Ronald Oakes]

why not the DA 16-45? it is a highly regarded lens, and if you have patience, you can find it for cheap (bought mine for 80€ but i do not actually use it)

edit: i know i am off topic, and did not answer your question, but im just trying to help out

Hmmmm...Thanks ! This one caught my attention.....

---------- Post added 07-06-18 at 15:23 ----------

+1 to the idea of the DA16-45 as an overlooked cheap lens that by all accounts punches above its weight.

Fellow Brit kh12345678 or whatever his handle is takes nice pics with it.

This one has caught my attention. I think this is now on my radar at a low price solution. Now the hunt begins.....Thanks. Or at least keeping my eye out for one in the $100 price range if its even possible.....lol.

[kh1234567890]

+1 to the idea of the DA16-45 as an overlooked cheap lens that by all accounts punches above its weight.

Fellow Brit kh12345678 or whatever his handle is takes nice pics with it.

Yes and I took it round the world earlier this year. It is a step up from the DA18-55 but it is not WR and the mechanics (it extends to zoom out) might not be to your taste. It is also bigger than the DA18-55 and a bit more delicate.

Some of my DA16-45 shots.

The DA18-55 is not a bad lens - I have the WR version - once you'd learned to live with its shortcomings.

Some of my DA18-55WR shots.

[Ronald Oakes]

I second this recommendation, at the current price that lens is a steal.

I wanted to stay with Pentax and not third party. However , since you also recommended it I will look into it thoroughly. Thanks.
Dollar for dollar Im more inclined to go with the DA 16-45 at the moment if everything is equal as far as purchase price.

---------- Post added 07-06-18 at 15:45 ----------

Yes and I took it round the world earlier this year. It is a step up from the DA18-55 but it is not WR and the mechanics (it extends to zoom out) might not be to your taste. It is also bigger than the DA18-55 and a bit more delicate.

Some of my DA16-45 shots.

The DA18-55 is not a bad lens - I have the WR version - once you'd learned to live with its shortcomings.

Some of my DA18-55WR shots.

I thoroughly enjoyed your albums. Just from your images would I even notice an actual difference between either ?
I think this is an example just what Real World results are Vs. PF Lens Review.
Thank You !

[clackers]

.
Dollar for dollar Im more inclined to go with the DA 16-45 at the moment if everything is equal as far as purchase price

IIRC, a little secret to its IQ is that it has an aspherical element, like the FA35 and FA31, albeit plastic.