Originally posted by Oktyabr Yeah, I've been considering used too. The PLM is still a bit of unicorn, used, but there are several 18-135s out there. Similarly with the K-70 (several) vs the KP. If I could find the KP bundled with either, at a good discount, I'd buy it. As it is I'm tempted to get the K-70 just because I found a huge savings bundled with the 18-135. If I buy new, I'd be somewhat temporarily confined to the KP + PLM (about US$1300) or I could have the K-70 + PLM + 18-135 for about the same amount.
I've not shot with the K-70 or KP other than to try them at photography shows. I liked them both, and both produce superb quality images. I don't think you could be disappointed with either one.
I have seen a few KPs come up on the Marketplace - not many, but they appear from time to time. So, depending on how patient you can be vs how quickly you want to get started, you might still find one there. The last one I saw was just at the start of this month, and it sold for $650 - mint condition with less than 2,000 shutter count, and a couple of extra genuine Pentax batteries.
Originally posted by Oktyabr And again, I go back to the idea of an affordable prime or two. I could have both the 50mm and the 35mm for less than half what either of the bigger telephotos go for. I wonder if, given both a prime and the 18-135 to play with (when the PLM wasn't mounted), if I could still easily justify the added expense of the 18-135?
The DA35/2.4 and DA50/1.8 are great little lenses (the DA35/2.4 is actually one of my favourite K-mount AF lenses). They feel plasticky because... well... they're made from plastic
But the glass is really good, and image quality is excellent from both. I've had mine for several years now, I shoot with them quite often (especially the DA35/2.4), and they look and feel as good as new. A few people aren't so keen on them, but I think they're in the minority. Of course, neither model is WR - not at all. I would pick both of them over the 18-135 for better image quality at those specific focal lengths, especially at wider aperture settings. Indeed, the 18-135 - being a variable aperture zoom - can't compete on maximum aperture at those focal lengths.
However...
A 35mm lens on an APS-C sensor camera is like shooting with a 50mm lens on "full frame". It's not at all wide, and if even a small portion of your shooting would benefit from wide angle fields of view, I think you'd be better off with the 18-135 (or 18-55, or 16-85). I'm a little unusual in that I tend to shoot between 28 and 75mm most of the time on my APS-C cameras. I'm not that interested in wide angle - or, rather, I don't find I need it very often for what I want to shoot. That said, even I would find it limiting to have a 35mm lens as my widest. I have a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 for those times where I might need wider angle shots, plus the DA15 and DA21 when I know what I'm going to be shooting
IMHO, you'd be better off with a two zoom set to get started. See how you get on. If you find you're never shooting below 35mm, you can always sell the 18-135 (it's a popular lens, so you won't have much trouble moving it on) and pick up the DA35 and DA50.