[jawats]

I have a Pentax K-3. Here is my current, and I think stable, complement of lenses.

1. SMC Pentax-DA L 18-50mm F4-5.6 DC WR RE

2. Tamron AF 79D 28-105mm F4-5.6

3. Pentax-DA 50mm F1.8

4. Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4

5. Tamron Adaptall 2x teleconverter 01F

With the teleconverter, this really gives me decent lens / decent coverage out to 600mm. I'm not even sure what else I would / could add, given that I don't do any sort of photography that might require more. Thoughts about additions / subtractions?

I've also considered branching into film 645 or 6x7, as those seem interesting...

[pepperberry farm]

I seem to be moving somewhat retroactively... I'm moving towards M42 lenses...

[jawats]

I seem to be moving somewhat retroactively... I'm moving towards M42 lenses...

I just got rid of a bunch of them. I experimented quite a bit, and the switching on and off with the adapters was just too much.

[pepperberry farm]

I just got rid of a bunch of them. I experimented quite a bit, and the switching on and off with the adapters was just too much.

I figured that would be a pain, so I bought a body just for M42 lenses...

[jawats]

I figured that would be a pain, so I bought a body just for M42 lenses...

That makes sense. Which one did you buy?

[pepperberry farm]

That makes sense. Which one did you buy?

a nearly-new K-5 IIS...

[BigMackCam]

I have a Pentax K-3. Here is my current, and I think stable, complement of lenses.

1. SMC Pentax-DA L 18-50mm F4-5.6 DC WR RE

2. Tamron AF 79D 28-105mm F4-5.6

3. Pentax-DA 50mm F1.8

4. Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4

5. Tamron Adaptall 2x teleconverter 01F

With the teleconverter, this really gives me decent lens / decent coverage out to 600mm. I'm not even sure what else I would / could add, given that I don't do any sort of photography that might require more. Thoughts about additions / subtractions?

I've also considered branching into film 645 or 6x7, as those seem interesting...

I don't think you need any more lenses, depending on your use cases, but here's a few thoughts:

Although you have 18-50 covered, I don't see a fast constant aperture lens in your list. A Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 would cover the same fields of view but at a constant f/2.8, which can be extremely useful both for creative control of background blurring (especially for the longer end and shorter distances) and lower light shooting. I have the Sigma, and it's a versatile lens... though I personally prefer my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 as that range suits my personal shooting style better.

Your 60-300 is a lovely lens and impressive optically given its age. I own one, and it deserves the excellent reviews. That said, either the non-PLM or PLM versions of the HD DA55-300 will give you superior sharpness (especially at the long end), the convenience of AF and focus accuracy therein, better ergonomics and a much lighter package (I don't know about you, but I find the 60-300 a little unwieldy in use ). Plus, whilst I haven't tested this myself, I'd like to bet that cropping images from either of these 55-300 models will yield at least the same sharpness as your 60-300 + Tamron 2x TC (that's a decent tele-converter, but again quite old by now, and it will degrade IQ slightly). Something to consider.

You have some nice zooms but I note that you're lacking somewhat in primes. Shooting with primes is great for developing your skills and forcing you to move around in order to capture the elements of a scene you're interested in (you might have found this already while using your DA50/1.8). Any of the DA Limited primes are excellent choices, and so too - at the cheaper end of the scale - is the DA35/2.4. To pick a focal length that might work best for you, look through all the photos you've taken with the 18-50 and see what your most common focal length is. Or, pick something completely outside your typical range - maybe the DA15, DA70 or DFA100/2.8 Macro, forcing yourself to work with a field of view that's outside your comfort zone. That can lead to new discoveries in your photography

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 10-07-2018 at 12:22 PM.

[robiles]

Or maybe you could add somthing like an 8-16, 10-20/24 or 12-24. I see you do not have wide covered. I use wide a LOT, and i think 12 is my fav FOV (or thereabout)

[UncleVanya]

The 2x teleconverter may not work well with your slower zoom lenses. Also 2x teleconverter may not give an image that is better than just cropping provides. I would test these in both conditions.

[jawats]

I don't think you need any more lenses, depending on your use cases, but here's a few thoughts:

Although you have 18-50 covered, I don't see a fast constant aperture lens in your list. A Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 would cover the same fields of view but at a constant f/2.8, which can be extremely useful both for creative control of background blurring (especially for the longer end and shorter distances) and lower light shooting. I have the Sigma, and it's a versatile lens... though I personally prefer my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 as that range suits my personal shooting style better.

As for zooms... Your 60-300 is a lovely lens and impressive optically given its age (I have that same lens, and it deserves the excellent reviews). That said, either non-PLM or PLM versions of the HD DA55-300 will give you superior sharpness at the long end, the convenience of AF, better ergonomics and a much lighter package (I don't know about you, but I find the 60-300 a little unwieldy ). Plus, whilst I haven't tested this myself, I'd like to bet that cropping images from either of these 55-300 models will yield at least the same sharpness as your 60-300 + Tamron 2x TC (that's a decent tele-converter, but again quite old by now, and it will degrade IQ slightly). Something to consider.

You have some nice zooms but I note that you're lacking somewhat in primes. Shooting with primes is great for developing your skills and forcing you to move around in order to capture the elements of a scene you're interested in (you might have found this already while using your DA50/1.8). Any of the DA Limited primes are excellent choices, and so too - at the cheaper end of the scale - is the DA35/2.4. To pick a focal length that might work best for you, look through all the photos you've taken with the 18-50 and see what your most common focal length is. Or, pick something completely outside your typical range - maybe the DA15, DA70 or DFA100/2.8 Macro, forcing yourself to work with a field of view that's outside your comfort zone. That can lead to new discoveries in your photography

BMC,

When you look at the constant aperture zooms, do you always look AF? And when you say "fast" do you mean 1 - 3.5 or...? When I look over the constant-apertures, I see the ones you recommended, plus your own Tamron, and (the not-too-outrageous-and-also-well-rated), but some are MF:

1. Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro
2. Sigma 20-40mm F2.8 EX DG
3. Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 EX DF
4. Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG
5. Tokina AT-X 20-35mm Pro F2.8
6. Tokina AT-X 28-70 F2.8
7. Tokina AT-X PRO SV 28-70mm F2.8
8. Vivitar 35-105mm f/3.5 auto zoom
9. Makinon 35-105mm F2.8
10. SMC Pentax-AF 35-70mm F2.8
11. Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 SP AF XR LD Aspherical IF Di II
12. SMC Pentax-M 24-35mm F3.5

Any others you'd consider?

I use my 60-300 with TC for moon pictures, for the most part. So, I have attached it to the teleconverter and tripod mounted. I can see some advantages to weight in the Pentax (and third-party) lenses.

I see four models of the 55-300:

1. SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED
2. HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR
3. HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE
4. SMC Pentax-DA L 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED

So, despite the similarities in ratings (all between 8.5 and 8.91), you would def. look at the 55-300 HD versions? I ask because the 18-270 isn't that much more expensive, and seems well-regarded; same with the 18-250.

Among third-party competitors in the same price range, with decent ratings, I see:

1. Sigma 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM
2. Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG
3. Sigma APO 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG
4. Sigma AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 DL Macro (this seems like a very good deal)
5. Samsung D-Xenon 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 (Pentax rebadge?)
6. Promaster AF 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 LD TELE MACRO(1:2) (and Sigma variant?)

Sorry for the list overload. I enjoy learning and planning.

I was working with a few primes - Takumar - the 28, 35mm ranges. I enjoyed them, but found the M42 adapting to be painful.

[BigMackCam]

That's a well-thought-through reply, if I may say, with some good questions I'll try to answer as many as I can

When you look at the constant aperture zooms, do you always look AF?

That depends

With manual focus lenses on DSLRs (any, not just Pentax), I often find it difficult to achieve what I consider to be reliably accurate focus using the optical viewfinder alone. I have the O-ME53 magnified eyepiece on each of my Pentax DSLRs and that helps, but often it isn't enough - especially for subjects several metres away when using wide apertures and/or longer focal lengths and hence relatively shallow depth of field. It's not so important if you're shooting a wide angle lens at f/8 or f/11 (for example), as depth of field will make up for any inaccuracy in focus, more-or-less... but if I'm shooting, say, my Helios-40-2 85mm f/1.5 wide open, it's difficult to nail focus.

As a result, if I'm shooting faster and/or longer manual lenses, I now typically fit an LCD loupe, so I can use the camera's LCD screen in Live View as a viewfinder. It lets me magnify the view and achieve critical focus accuracy - which is great, though the downside is that it makes for a somewhat unwieldy setup. But it works well. The loupe I use, incidentally, is an inexpensive Matin model. I highly recommend getting one if manual focus is your thing and you want good focus accuracy.

AF lenses, on the other hand, offer real convenience in accurate focusing, and speed of operation that generally isn't attainable when focusing manually.

And when you say "fast" do you mean 1 - 3.5 or...?

For constant aperture zoom lenses, f/2.8 is generally considered fast. Of course, in the world of primes that would be distinctly average or even slow... but for a constant aperture zoom, it's fast.

When I look over the constant-apertures, I see the ones you recommended, plus your own Tamron, and (the not-too-outrageous-and-also-well-rated), but some are MF:

1. Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro
2. Sigma 20-40mm F2.8 EX DG
3. Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 EX DF
4. Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG
5. Tokina AT-X 20-35mm Pro F2.8
6. Tokina AT-X 28-70 F2.8
7. Tokina AT-X PRO SV 28-70mm F2.8
8. Vivitar 35-105mm f/3.5 auto zoom
9. Makinon 35-105mm F2.8
10. SMC Pentax-AF 35-70mm F2.8
11. Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 SP AF XR LD Aspherical IF Di II
12. SMC Pentax-M 24-35mm F3.5

Any others you'd consider?

I haven't used quite a few of those, so I can't really comment all that knowledgeably. What I can say is, generally speaking, newer lenses tend to perform better at wider apertures.

To some extent, it's about expectations. I really like the rendering and optical "flaws" in many older lenses, and although focus accuracy is important to me, I'm not too concerned about pin-sharp images with excellent contrast (I can deal with that in post-processing if necessary). But a lot of people find those things important. Newer fast aperture lenses generally provide better sharpness and contrast at wider apertures than older designs. If maximum sharpness, detail and contrast are really important to you, there's not much point in owning an old f/2.8 zoom lens that needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 before it will provide the kind of images you want.

Now, any lens - new or old - will perform better when you stop it down a little. But the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 I mentioned as an example is quite impressive in that it performs remarkably well even wide open. It's better still at f/5.6, of course, and really excellent at f/8 (no surprises there ). But it's very usable at f/2.8 all day long if required. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 that I favour ideally needs stopping down a bit, but I'm personally happy with it wide open for many purposes, and it sharpens up noticeably even just one or two thirds of a stop down.

Picking one of the lenses from your list - the Tokina AT-X 28-70 f/2.8... This is known to have what some describe as the "Tokina glow" at f/2.8. I imagine that's an endearing term for "spherical aberration", which leads to a certain softness in appearance. It doesn't mean that lens isn't usable at f/2.8, but you will notice the softness even when your images are perfectly focused. That's a typical example of the kind of thing you'll have to deal with and accept with older zoom lenses (and bear in mind, that Tokina is considered to be rather good overall - some lenses will be much, much worse wide open).

As a general rule, I wouldn't expect any older constant aperture lens to be all that great wide open. But they can still be usable - it just depends on your expectations

I use my 60-300 with TC for moon pictures, for the most part. So, I have attached it to the teleconverter and tripod mounted. I can see some advantages to weight in the Pentax (and third-party) lenses.

I see four models of the 55-300:

1. SMC Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED
2. HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED WR
3. HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE
4. SMC Pentax-DA L 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED

So, despite the similarities in ratings (all between 8.5 and 8.91), you would def. look at the 55-300 HD versions? I ask because the 18-270 isn't that much more expensive, and seems well-regarded; same with the 18-250.

Any version of the 55-300 is a good lens, and - coatings aside - they use the same optical formula. All but the DA L have quick-shift manual focusing while in AF mode, which can be very useful, so my recommendation would be to go for any of the others - but if price is a high priority, the DA L is still a great bit of glass. WR is worth having if you ever shoot in drizzle or rain, or in windy conditions at the beach, for example. I haven't tried the PLM version, but I've heard it's a bit better than the older screw-drive models, and I can believe that. Its near-silent and very fast AF are worth the premium if those factors are important to you.

I went for the HD DA55-300 non-PLM version because I already own other lenses with HD coatings (the current Limited primes and 20-40 zoom), and I like the high contrast and colour reproduction. Plus, for my use cases at the long end, WR is a handy feature. For me, the non-PLM version was a better choice as I own some older Pentax / Samsung cameras that aren't KAF4 compatible and hence can't operate the diaphragm on the newer PLM lens.

The Pentax 18-250, 18-270, Tamron equivalents and all other super-zooms (including the Sigma 18-300) are something of a different breed. Covering such a wide focal length range, they are all huge compromises in terms of image quality, especially away from the centre of the image. I used to own the Pentax 18-270, and it wasn't a bad lens by any means - but nor was it anything special. I have some nice photos taken with it, but the same photos taken with the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or Pentax HD DA55-300 would have been noticeably better.

Of the superzooms, I have a soft spot for Sigma's 18-300 - within its class, at least. It's still a lens of compromises, but it seems the designer gave priority to the long end. As such, at 300mm it's remarkably close to the DA55-300 - at the centre of the frame, at least. I'd still pick the 55-300 in preference, but what I'm saying is the Sigma is actually capable of taking very good photos at 300mm. As a walk-around lens when you're in tourist mode and don't want to carry a bag of gear with you, it's a very serviceable bit of glass. It's acceptable (not great) at everything and surprisingly good at some things, but it will never compete against equally-modern lenses with narrower focal length ranges.

Among third-party competitors in the same price range, with decent ratings, I see:

1. Sigma 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM
2. Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG
3. Sigma APO 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG
4. Sigma AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 DL Macro (this seems like a very good deal)
5. Samsung D-Xenon 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 (Pentax rebadge?)
6. Promaster AF 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 LD TELE MACRO(1:2) (and Sigma variant?)

Sorry for the list overload. I enjoy learning and planning.

I was working with a few primes - Takumar - the 28, 35mm ranges. I enjoyed them, but found the M42 adapting to be painful.

Honestly, I'd rather go for the cheapest 55-300 (the DA L) than a Sigma or Tamron 70-300. Others may disagree, though, so don't just take my word for it. I've seen lovely images taken with those lenses, so they can be great fun and useful tools. I've heard that the Tamron 70-300 models can suffer from quite a high degree of purple fringing. I'm not sure how the Sigmas compare...

[Sandy Hancock]

Like robiles, I'd say your only glaring gap is something on the ultra-wide side. 18mm is not particularly wide on a crop camera.

A fisheye like the Pentax DA 10-17 f/3.5-4.5 would open up new creative possibilities. On the rectilinear side, the Sigma 8-16 and Pentax DA 12-24 are excellent, and then there is the uniquely wonderful DA 15 Limited....

[jawats]

That's a well-thought-through reply, if I may say, with some good questions I'll try to answer as many as I can



That depends

With manual focus lenses on DSLRs (any, not just Pentax), I often find it difficult to achieve what I consider to be reliably accurate focus using the optical viewfinder alone. I have the O-ME53 magnified eyepiece on each of my Pentax DSLRs and that helps, but often it isn't enough - especially for subjects several metres away when using wide apertures and/or longer focal lengths and hence relatively shallow depth of field. It's not so important if you're shooting a wide angle lens at f/8 or f/11 (for example), as depth of field will make up for any inaccuracy in focus, more-or-less... but if I'm shooting, say, my Helios-40-2 85mm f/1.5 wide open, it's difficult to nail focus.

As a result, if I'm shooting faster and/or longer manual lenses, I now typically fit an LCD loupe, so I can use the camera's LCD screen in Live View as a viewfinder. It lets me magnify the view and achieve critical focus accuracy - which is great, though the downside is that it makes for a somewhat unwieldy setup. But it works well. The loupe I use, incidentally, is an inexpensive Matin model. I highly recommend getting one if manual focus is your thing and you want good focus accuracy.

AF lenses, on the other hand, offer real convenience in accurate focusing, and speed of operation that generally isn't attainable when focusing manually.



For constant aperture zoom lenses, f/2.8 is generally considered fast. Of course, in the world of primes that would be distinctly average or even slow... but for a constant aperture zoom, it's fast.



I haven't used quite a few of those, so I can't really comment all that knowledgeably. What I can say is, generally speaking, newer lenses tend to perform better at wider apertures.

To some extent, it's about expectations. I really like the rendering and optical "flaws" in many older lenses, and although focus accuracy is important to me, I'm not too concerned about pin-sharp images with excellent contrast (I can deal with that in post-processing if necessary). But a lot of people find those things important. Newer fast aperture lenses generally provide better sharpness and contrast at wider apertures than older designs. If maximum sharpness, detail and contrast are really important to you, there's not much point in owning an old f/2.8 zoom lens that needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 before it will provide the kind of images you want.

Now, any lens - new or old - will perform better when you stop it down a little. But the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 I mentioned as an example is quite impressive in that it performs remarkably well even wide open. It's better still at f/5.6, of course, and really excellent at f/8 (no surprises there ). But it's very usable at f/2.8 all day long if required. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 that I favour ideally needs stopping down a bit, but I'm personally happy with it wide open for many purposes, and it sharpens up noticeably even just one or two third of a stop down.

Picking one of the lenses from your list - the Tokina AT-X 28-70 f/2.8... This is known to have what some describe as the "Tokina glow" at f/2.8. I imagine that's an endearing term for "spherical aberration", which leads to a certain softness in appearance. It doesn't mean that lens isn't usable at f/2.8, but you will notice the softness even when your images are perfectly focused. That's a typical example of the kind of thing you'll have to deal with and accept with older zoom lenses (and bear in mind, that Tokina is considered to be rather good overall - some lenses will be much, much worse wide open).

As a general rule, I wouldn't expect any older constant aperture lens to be all that great wide open. But they can still be usable - it just depends on your expectations



Any version of the 55-300 is a good lens, and - coatings aside - they use the same optical formula. All but the DA L have quick-shift manual focusing while in AF mode, which can be very useful, so my recommendation would be to go for any of the others - but if price is a high priority, the DA L is still a great bit of glass. WR is worth having if you ever shoot in drizzle or rain, or in windy conditions at the beach, for example. I haven't tried the PLM version, but I've heard it's a bit better than the older screw-drive models, and I can believe that. Its near-silent and very fast AF are worth the premium if those factors are important to you.

I went for the HD DA55-300 non-PLM version because I already own other lenses with HD coatings (the current Limited primes and 20-40 zoom), and I like the high contrast and colour reproduction. Plus, for my use cases at the long end, WR is a handy feature. For me, the non-PLM version was a better choice as I own some older Pentax / Samsung cameras that aren't KAF4 compatible and hence can't operate the diaphragm on the newer PLM lens.

The Pentax 18-250, 18-270, Tamron equivalents and all other super-zooms (including the Sigma 18-300) are something of a different breed. Covering such a wide focal length range, they are all huge compromises in terms of image quality, especially away from the centre of the image. I used to own the Pentax 18-270, and it wasn't a bad lens by any means - but nor was it anything special. I have some nice photos taken with it, but the same photos taken with the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or Pentax HD DA55-300 would have been noticeably better.

Of the superzooms, I have a soft spot for Sigma's 18-300 - within its class, at least. It's still a lens of compromises, but it seems the designer gave priority to the long end. As such, at 300mm it's remarkably close to the DA55-300 - at the centre of the frame, at least. I'd still pick the 55-300 in preference, but what I'm saying is the Sigma is actually capable of taking very good photos at 300mm. As a walk-around lens when you're in tourist mode and don't want to carry a bag of gear with you, it's a very serviceable bit of glass. It's acceptable (not great) at everything and surprisingly good at some things, but it will never compete against equally-modern lenses with narrower focal length ranges.

Honestly, I'd rather go for the cheapest 55-300 (the DA L) than a Sigma or Tamron 70-300. Others may disagree, though, so don't just take my word for it. I've seen lovely images taken with those lenses, so they can be great fun and useful tools. I've heard that the Tamron 70-300 models can suffer from quite a high degree of purple fringing. I'm not sure how the Sigmas compare...

Thanks for all of the great information - that gives me some great direction. With winter coming on, this might be a spring-to-come decision. We shall see.

---------- Post added 10-07-18 at 03:00 PM ----------

Like robiles, I'd say your only glaring gap is something on the ultra-wide side. 18mm is not particularly wide on a crop camera.

A fisheye like the Pentax DA 10-17 f/3.5-4.5 would open up new creative possibilities. On the rectilinear side, the Sigma 8-16 and Pentax DA 12-24 are excellent, and then there is the uniquely wonderful DA 15 Limited....

Now I just have to decide between WA / UWA or 55-300....decisions decisions.

[Kozlok]

Just get the 15. It’s not as sharp as some lenses, but all of my very favorite landscapes are with the 15.

[UncleVanya]

Thanks for all of the great information - that gives me some great direction. With winter coming on, this might be a spring-to-come decision. We shall see.

---------- Post added 10-07-18 at 03:00 PM ----------



Now I just have to decide between WA / UWA or 55-300....decisions decisions.

Given that you already have a decent 300mm zoom I'd probably point you to the UWA.