[Eagle94VT]

I have a variety of lens combos I throw in a bag. A frequent one happens to be: K3 + 10-17 / 20-40 / 55-300 PLM. The 18-135 is great - I use that when I seriously doubt I'll have any moments to change lenses.

[jeallen01]

I have a variety of lens combos I throw in a bag. A frequent one happens to be: K3 + 10-17 / 20-40 / 55-300 PLM. The 18-135 is great - I use that when I seriously doubt I'll have any moments to change lenses.

As I see it, the "problem" (at least to me) with your set of lenses is that anything beyond 40mm relies on the PLM - and (again for my part) that would leave me no option but to be continually changing lenses when I need something around 40-70mm. However, the 17-70 fills that "gap" admirably (and it's very sharp).Thus my go-to combo is the 10-20 Sigma + 17-70 Sigma + PLM.

[Gary H Perth]

I am also looking to buy the 55-300mm PLM WR to pair with my K-70. I already have four zooms with telephoto ability: the M 80-200/4.5, the DAL 55-200mm, Sigma 18-250 HSM macro and an old Tamron Adaptall 60-300mm/3.8-5.4. Of these the Tamron is best image quality but heavy, and has a great macro capability. Pentax-M is close behind but needs the green button to get exposure correct. The DAL is for travelling light (paired with any of DA16-45, 16-85 or two primes M28mm + FA50mm) and the Sigma for when it's a single-lens exercise.

I am hoping that the new 55-300mm will give me the optical performance of the Tamron at half the weight. Combined with either the 16-85 - or a used 16-45mm, that's a light lens with good IQ, would give a great two-zoom kit that's weather-resistant. When I need to I will carry a prime or two (or three or four). One other item I carry is a quality closeup "lens" to screw onto the primes or the DAL,saves carrying a macro lens.

[SteveinSLC]

So the KP that BigMackCam mentioned up thread was bought by me. For use in a travel/hiking setup along with the 20-40 and 55-300PLM. I'm OK with the fact they don't overlap perfectly. 40-55 is a range where I can usually use the foot zoom.
I had a K-70, but did decide I wanted a little more durability and a little more shake reduction for travel and hiking. And the battery grip option.
That said, not like I was unhappy with the K-70. It took very good pics and the fully pivotable screen was nice(that may be what I'll miss most having the KP). The K-70 is also nice if you have bigger hands, as the grip size is good. Even the large grip on the KP seems small to me.

If you're interested, I am selling my K-70, and have it posted in the Marketplace here. It's in good shape with low shutter count. I hadn't been planning on also selling the 18-135, but could possibly be talked into that.

[BigMackCam]

I am also looking to buy the 55-300mm PLM WR to pair with my K-70. I already have four zooms with telephoto ability: the M 80-200/4.5, the DAL 55-200mm, Sigma 18-250 HSM macro and an old Tamron Adaptall 60-300mm/3.8-5.4. Of these the Tamron is best image quality but heavy, and has a great macro capability.

I am hoping that the new 55-300mm will give me the optical performance of the Tamron at half the weight.

The Tamron 60-300 is a lovely old lens. I have a mint copy, and I'm surprised by how good it can be optically. But even my non-PLM HD DA55-300 runs rings around it, so given that the PLM is reputed to be better still, I think you'd be extremely satisfied with it

[Oktyabr]

If you're interested, I am selling my K-70, and have it posted in the Marketplace here. It's in good shape with low shutter count. I hadn't been planning on also selling the 18-135, but could possibly be talked into that.

Sent you a PM!

[Gary H Perth]

OK, I am a newbie to digital but will throw in my few months of experience. I am VERY happy with the K70 although I don't have experience with other models for comparison. I have the the 18-55 kit. It works but it works best, at least the one I have at about 35mm. THEREFORE, if you are "serious about sharp" a prime 35 might also fit the bill. The 55-300 PLM is great if your proximity to the subject is right. I have had good and bad experience shooting birds. It seems that their shyness varies with location. Yes, these are weasel words but I have had shorebirds that will sit on your feet and forest birds daring you to climb the tree. Lately I have wished for a 500-5000mm but of course those are out of the price range of mortals. The 55-300 is relatively affordable and very versatile.

Too true. The elusive ones are often the most photogenic, and tend to be perched in an interesting setting. I am just starting to play around with a Tamron SP Adaptall 2 500mm mirror lens and matched 2x teleconverter. At least I will get an in-focus shot tightly framed, even if not the very best IQ. This pair cost me about US$150.

[Oktyabr]

I was also impressed by how fast and quiet the PLM is! That should be quite useful for shooting some of the more flighty wild life (no pun intended!)

[UncleVanya]

18-135 plus 55-300 PLM is a great idea. I have the 18-135, 18-50 DAL, 55-300 (DA but not PLM) and 20-40 Ltd. I've owned the DA 18-55 also. Of these the 18-135 or 20-40 are the ones I would likely pair with the 55-300 I own. The next choice would be the 18-50.

[rickc118]

Welcome back to Pentax!

About two years ago, I moved from the K-x to the K-70 with the 18-135mm WR, and I'm very happy with this combination. I've since added the DA 50mm prime, the 55-300mm PLM, a Tamron 90mm macro, and a Sigma 10-20mm wide angle. I also have the 18-55mm from my old K-x, but don't have much use for it.

Of these lenses, the 18-135mm WR spends the most time on my camera, followed by the 55-300mm PLM. Of course, this depends a lot on what I happen to be shooting at the time. I agree with previous comments that these two lenses to start off with would cover a very wide range of uses...definitely a lot of versatility.

One quick comment on the K-70 vs. the KP. The KP has a number of great features that I really like, but I would suggest that if you haven't actually handled both cameras, you do so before buying one. To me, the ergonomics of the two cameras are very different. The KP has changeable grips, but even using the largest one, for my medium-large hands the grip is not comfortable. I much prefer the depth and shape of the K-70 grip. Having said that, some of the KP features are better than the K-70's. For me, that's why I'd love to hear some news about a new K-3iii (or whatever it will be called).

Good luck with your decision!

[ramseybuckeye]

Welcome back to photography. I purchased a KP in July and the 55-300 PLM a couple of weeks later. It's a dynamic combination, the lower light ability of the KP really work well with this lens and the combo focuses very quickly. I was also looking at both cameras, the lower light abilities of the KP won out, because I do a lot of nature photography, the forest can be dark. And then Amazon was selling them for around $150 less than the current price for a couple of days, so I jumped on it. I bought the PLM because I had sold my Little used Tamron 70-200 and had nothing else in that range, plus my son had my DA*300 for a trip to Yellowstone, I would not get it back for a couple months, and I had need myself for a long lens. I had a DA 55-300 before, great lens except for the autofocus. The PLM solves that problem. It's a fantastic combination for many uses. I would agree with those that suggested the 18-135. Nice low cost primes like the 35 or 50 could fill a nice gap, although not weatherized.

Yesterday I went to a few places and hiked about 7 or 8 miles while taking photos. I carried the KP, 55-300, F50/1.7, 15/4, a Sony 20/2.8, plus various ND & CP filters in a Think Tank Turnstyle 10 sling bag. I had a lens case with a Sigma 17-50/2.8 on my belt, and also a Think Tank Stuff It with a Sony a6000 with 30mm macro lens on my belt. I also carried a tripod. There was no chance of rain or it would have been the 18-135 instead of the Sigma. I chose the Sigma because it focuses very close. I'll suggest the Think Tank Turnstyle sling bags as they are water repellant and have a rain cover They are small enough to be compact and light and can hold the KP with the 55-300 PLM mounted, and a couple other lenses. I really did not need the lens case on the belt, because while hiking I did not carry the camera in the bag. This bag fits my uses very well. There are a lot of good bags, it all depends on your own uses and preferences.

[pres589]

First get yourself an 18-135. Then a DA 15. Then something for for portraits like a DA 50 1.8 or DA*55 or DA 70. Then ask yourself why you picked such a costly hobby.

My 2 cents but get the 18-135.

[DeadJohn]

The 18-135 is better image quality and also gives more range than the 18-55. The 135 is undoubtedly the better of the 2 lenses. The 18-55 WR is less expensive and smaller (make sure to get the WR version given your weather).

I suggest the 18-55 and also set aside $100 for the DA 35 or DA 50 prime. Don't buy the prime now, though. The 35 is IMO a more useful focal length, but the 50 is better if you want very narrow depth of field. Practice with the 18-55 for a while to decide which prime. You might find that as your photography progresses, maybe neither prime stays high on your shopping list, because you might end wanting to save more for a specialty lens such as macro or ultrawide.

[Sandy Hancock]

I can't argue with the KP/18-135/55-300PLM combination. I have all three and can vouch for their quality and versatility for the size/price.

For the record, I also have the K-1 Mark II with all the DFA zooms, but sometimes minimalism wins.

[Oktyabr]

Then ask yourself why you picked such a costly hobby.

My 2 cents but get the 18-135.

I'm after an 18-135.

And for the record, ALL of my "hobbies" have been costly, from 1000 gallons of salt water aquarium in the living room, to rock and mud crawling jeeps, to audiophile stereo equipment, and now vintage diesel pusher busses. You can ask either of my two ex-wives but photography is probably one of the tamer interests I've had over the years!