[mikesbike]

The best thing you could do, and get a lens of quality to go with a camera like the K-5, is save up and get the DA 18-135mm WR DC. Its autofocus (AF) performance is unbeatable, and great on the K-5. The K-5 is a great camera, but its AF is no longer up to current standards, especially with some lenses. But with this lens, performance is so good it would be hard to differentiate its AF from the latest! Quiet, fast, and accurate. Even in dimmer light! I know because although I usually shoot these days with my KP, or sometimes my K-S2 or K-5 IIs, I still have my original K-5, and I've had the DA 18-135mm WR DC for years. it is capable of producing superb images, is built like a tank but compact, and it has a very versatile zoom range. It handles very nicely. I have some of the most expensive zoom lenses and prime lenses, but the DA 18-135mm is one lens I would not want to be without. Its price is considered mid-point, so for what it can do it is a bargain. Even a well cared-for used one would be better than not having it.

It is a good thing to shoot with your old lenses and develop your eye for manual focus. In the meantime, save up and go for the DA 18-135mm WR DC! It will also open up many features of your K-5 now not available to you, so you will be able to explore and take full advantage of what you have.

3rd party lenses are not available having WR. With Nikon or Canon brand cameras, WR lenses start in the $1,000 range. Believe me, you have a real bargain that is within reach.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 08-28-2018 at 12:16 PM.

[Ropuchy]

The best thing you could do, and get a lens of quality to go with a camera like the K-5, is save up and get the DA 18-135mm WR DC. Its autofocus (AF) performance is unbeatable, and great on the K-5. The K-5 is a great camera, but its AF is no longer up to current standards, especially with some lenses. But with this lens, performance is so good it would be hard to differentiate its AF from the latest! Quiet, fast, and accurate. Even in dimmer light! I know because although I usually shoot these days with my KP, or sometimes my K-S2 or K-5 IIs, I still have my original K-5, and I've had the DA 18-135mm WR DC for years. it is capable of producing superb images, is built like a tank but compact, and it has a very versatile zoom range. It handles very nicely. I have some of the most expensive zoom lenses and prime lenses, but the DA 18-135mm is one lens I would not want to be without. Its price is considered mid-point, so for what it can do it is a bargain. Even a well cared-for used one would be better than not having it.

It is a good thing to shoot with your old lenses and develop your eye for manual focus. In the meantime, save up and go for the DA 18-135mm WR DC! It will also open up many features of your K-5 now not available to you, so you will be able to explore and take full advantage of what you have.

3rd party lenses are not available having WR. With Nikon or Canon brand cameras, WR lenses start in the $1,000 range. Believe me, you have a real bargain that is within reach.

Ok, I'll try to keep an eye out for one and save up.
I'll be saving up anywho.

And it's going into winter now, so WR is a bit less important than it would be in the summer where I live.

And yeah, Nikon and Canon stuff is super expensive compared to comparable Pentax stuff. I guess that's just what happens when you own the market, prices inflate, you start to segment your products and features to squeeze out more money, and you try to turn your customers into a cult.


Anywho, thanks for all the input everyone!

[grispie]

I have:
2 SMC Pentax-M 50mm f2. One is a bit beat up.
An Albinar-ADG 75-300mm f5.6.
A Sears 80-200mm f4.0.
A Ricoh 35mm f2.8.
And a Magnicon XC 28-70mm f3.8-4.8.

Reading this, i assume you want to fill up the wide angle side.
To be honest, the 18 55 WR really is quite good.
Botswana - christophe gryspeert
In case you just want a wide angle..

It might be worth saving up indeed for a 2nd hand da 16-85 or 18-135 in the long run..
Not really weather resistant, but still though and cheap 2nd hand is the DA16-45.
I used to have a copy and it's a serious contender. Quite a step up in IQ vs kitlens.
Depends on how harsh your weather is.. :-)

[Ropuchy]

Reading this, i assume you want to fill up the wide angle side.
To be honest, the 18 55 WR really is quite good.
Botswana - christophe gryspeert
In case you just want a wide angle..

It might be worth saving up indeed for a 2nd hand da 16-85 or 18-135 in the long run..
Not really weather resistant, but still though and cheap 2nd hand is the DA16-45.
I used to have a copy and it's a serious contender. Quite a step up in IQ vs kitlens.
Depends on how harsh your weather is.. :-)

Yeah, I'd love something in the low 20mm or below sometime. One of the drawbacks coming from my K1000.

Oh ok, I'll look into it.
Sometimes we get really hard thunderstorms and hail. We'll get a few blizzards in the winter.

Maybe I'll be able to get by with my old Swiss poncho and an umbrella.


Thanks!

[jlstrawman]

I wouldn't look at lenses as 'beginner' or not. Just get a good lens and you can use it for years and years.

Exactly. Beginner status really has nothing to do with choosing a lens. Why not buy a useful lens just once?

[UncleVanya]

I'm going to say this. AT the budget quoted the DA 18-55 WR or DAL 18-55 WR will be the most likely to fit the needs. The DAL 18-50 WR is another choice - my copy was $75 for example, but it tends to be a little more expensive. I also will recommend that the OP hold out for the DA versions not the DAL versions of the 18-55 or 50-200 since the quickshift feature and the included hood is worth the extra few $.

The utility offered by the DA 18-55 WR is what he is after. The extra bit of function from a silent motor and a little more range and better IQ doesn't sound like a high priority to him.

[parinya-ekparinya]

From what you said, I think 18-55mm WR suits you most. I believe that it is the cheapest WR lens you can find for Pentax.

[MaineNative]

I owned the non-WR version of the 18-55 mm lens and got some nice pictures over the years. I later upgraded to the 18-135 and then the 16-85. I think you can get some nice pictures out of the 18-55. One reason to get the 18-135 would be if you wanted some more telephoto capability without buying another lens. The 135 mm will get you much closer in on a subject compared to the 18-55.

The 16-85 is nice but it is a lot of money if you are still figuring out what you want to photograph. For me, I do mostly landscapes and waterfalls, so the shorter length of the 16-85 is better for me.

[Ropuchy]

I'm going to say this. AT the budget quoted the DA 18-55 WR or DAL 18-55 WR will be the most likely to fit the needs. The DAL 18-50 WR is another choice - my copy was $75 for example, but it tends to be a little more expensive. I also will recommend that the OP hold out for the DA versions not the DAL versions of the 18-55 or 50-200 since the quickshift feature and the included hood is worth the extra few $.

The utility offered by the DA 18-55 WR is what he is after. The extra bit of function from a silent motor and a little more range and better IQ doesn't sound like a high priority to him.

Right, I'm more just looking for a lens that will work in light rain without worry.

---------- Post added 08-28-18 at 07:19 PM ----------

From what you said, I think 18-55mm WR suits you most. I believe that it is the cheapest WR lens you can find for Pentax.

I've noticed that as well. It seems to be pretty inexpensive.

---------- Post added 08-28-18 at 07:22 PM ----------

I owned the non-WR version of the 18-55 mm lens and got some nice pictures over the years. I later upgraded to the 18-135 and then the 16-85. I think you can get some nice pictures out of the 18-55. One reason to get the 18-135 would be if you wanted some more telephoto capability without buying another lens. The 135 mm will get you much closer in on a subject compared to the 18-55.

The 16-85 is nice but it is a lot of money if you are still figuring out what you want to photograph. For me, I do mostly landscapes and waterfalls, so the shorter length of the 16-85 is better for me.

Alright, thanks for the input.

I have a 75-300mm and a 80-200mm for getting those closer-up pictures. I don't mind swapping lenses about.
I think having a WR lens just for it to be WR opens up a lot for me. And the 18-55 has 52mm filters, which I already have 4 of for my other lenses.

Thanks!

[lotech]

Hi Ropuchy sorry to ask, did you get your K5 used or you bought without the lens ? it normally came with the 18-55WR I remember, because I want a wider range zoom I traded it for the 18-135, and I sold it later and purchased 2 lenses short and long for better image quality. As far as I remember one thing I notice on the lens there is vignetting at the wide end, and there is purple fringing at the long end which is quite normal on superzoom and can be corrected with on camera image correction feature, I can't remember if the K5 has this feature it is on the K3, but for the 18-55 you don't have to worry about that. And as a side note, if you get the K5 used, please take note the lens release button, it pop up off the camera quite easily, I lost the button and replaced while still under warranty, Pentax fixed that on the K3.

---------- Post added 08-29-18 at 11:57 AM ----------

If I remember right Tokina produced lenses for Pentax before, and I used one like 24-70/2.8 long time ago with film camera and the IQ was excellent, the image was slightly cool but very sharp, I specially like the push pull AF/MF switch over design... I don't know why Tokina no longer produce lenses for Pentax, and Pentax really need new lenses to support the system.

[pxt]

And it's going into winter now, so WR is a bit less important than it would be in the summer where I live.

At the summer comfort takes shot in rain is very nice option. In my country minimum quater of summer is rainy.

[UncleVanya]

I traded it for the 18-135, and I sold it later and purchased 2 lenses short and long for better image quality. As far as I remember one thing I notice on the lens there is vignetting at the wide end, and there is purple fringing at the long end which is quite normal on superzoom...

I don't recall either of these issues with my 18-135.

[TER-OR]

I really like the 18-135. With any zoom like this you'll have issues, but it's a really nice little lens which performs very well for most uses. I use it a lot as a basic walkaround.

[UserAccessDenied]

If you can swing the cost, I would go 16-85.

I find the focal range from 85-135 on the 18-135 subpar and the extra wide length between 16-18 is more useful in my opinion.

[UserAccessDenied]

I owned both, and sold both.

I just prefer primes...
But the 18-135 was less impressive than the 16-85