[aslyfox]

. . . I would personally dump tamrons and buy a better quality zoon such as 60-250, or 55-300 PLM as somebody else suggested (not sure PLM is supported by Ks2 . . . .

PLM can be used with the K S2 after the camera has had a free firmware up date:

As a Pentax lens designed for digital, the 55-300mm PLM supports in-camera image corrections and alternate program lines (such as MTF).

*This lens uses an electric focus-by-wire system and will not focus (even manually) on cameras older than the Pentax K100D super (2006).

**Because the aperture is controlled electronically, this lens can only stop down when used with compatible cameras. The Pentax K-50, K-S1, K-S2, K-3, K-3 II, and K-1 are supported via a camera firmware update; the Pentax K-70, Pentax KP and all 2017 or newer bodies will work out of the box. The aperture diaphragm will always remain wide-open on unsupported bodies.

In an nutshell, this lens fully compatible with recent DSLRs but shouldn't be used on older bodies or film cameras.

Read more at: HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 PLM WR RE Review - Specifications | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[bdery]

The DA-L 18-50 is WR.

Right, I missed that. So, macro? You could benefit from faster glass, also.

[Bertrand3000]

Thank you all for your answers. I know that my collection is covering focal length quite well, because I always followed the policy to avoid obsoleting any gear I have with a new lens. But I know that one day, I'll have to ditch out something. That's why it's so complicated to choose.

A used 16-50 gets you a nice WR normal lens and a huge upgrade in the normal zoom. Another choice is the 16-85. If you don’t value WR, the Sigma 17-50 or 17-70 get my vote. The decision is range vs f2.8.

Your long end would be improved by the 55-300 PLM.

Or you could try something fun like a Helios.

I've thought about the 55-300 PLM (and yes it's compatible with the K-S2). It would obsolete the Tamron 70-300 on focal length with its IQ and AF speed, but the Tamron would still have the upper hand for aperture and 1:2 Macro mode. I was considering the 55-300 PLM already because I had a lot of fun with the Tamron 70-300, despite being a rather crude lens (handling and chromatic aberrations mostly).

The DA* 16-50 would be subject to SDM failure, wouldn't it? And I've read that IQ was quite inconsistent with that lens, and not really Star-level. But I may be wrong.

I also considered the two Sigmas, but that would mean trashing 18-50 and even 35 Plastic Fantastic (with the 17-50 f/2.8).

Or maybe a limited? I use them almost exclusively - the 15 is my most used lens by far. If you shoot a lot of portraits, you should take a look at the 70 limited (the one that is missing in my lineup).

Limited would be over budget unfortunately.

good suggestions but I would go with a prime that is a good short telephoto and capable of a 1:1 maco

one of the Pentax 100 F2.8 macro family:

This was my first thought, because macro is really something I don't really have, even if I considered the Tamron 90 Macro instead (new, it's in budget ; way cheaper that the DFA WR).

I tried pseudo-macro with the Tamron 70-300. I shoot hand-held (lack of patience to use my tripod ; beside my (old) tripod is not equipped to allow shooting downwards, the camera always falls down). At 300mm (required for 1:2 macro), I cannot get everything in focus handheld. At 180mm (1:3 macro), it's much better, but the magnification is sub-optimal, to say the least. And I'm not even mentioning focus hunting, focus noise, rotating front element and CA.

however without going over budget, the OP would have to go for an " experienced " lens

What do you mean by "experienced"? Specialized, like a macro, or a prime? Or do you mean used?

Wow, you have quite a lot covered there. I'd second the macro idea; it's the main thing you're missing I think. Although I would think about the 35 mm macro (and maybe sell your plastik fantastik, even though I know you said you didn't want to do that). I had and sold a 105 mm macro in favor of the 35. Much easier to shoot closeups handheld, and very versatile as a landscape and nature lens.

Interesting. Since I shoot handled, a Macro lens of a lesser focal length would be a good idea. That said, the Tamron 90 Macro (or DFA 100 Macro) are also very good and fast telephoto lens, something that DA 35 Macro and DFA 50 Macro would not provide.

You ‘need’ a short tele 🤓. DA70 or 100mm macro can be had for around 300 euros (used though). Great for candid portraits, soccer matches and landscapes

Thank you for telling me what I need. But if I buy another prime in that range, it would have to be a macro lens to be even more useful.

I would say that the 18-250 already more or less obsoletes the 18-50. That said, within your restrictions I am not sure what to say. There's... basically nothing. If you are willing to buy used, then a 90 (Tamron) or 100 (Pentax) mm macro would be a logical choice as several people have mentioned.

I do not consider 18-250 obsoleting 18-50. The latter is much lighter (my neck is thankful), silent (DC motor), and WR (my only lens which is WR). The former allow to zoom much farther, but is heavy, noisy, and suffer from zoom creep. In term of IQ, I do not know, since Pentaxforums do not review the Tamron 18-250, only the Pentax version of this lens, and I do not know if they are comparable when it comes to IQ, since coating may be an important factor.

Help, trigger? You want someone to fuel your LBA? OK, I'll try. For a start, you only have seven lenses. That is total rookie territory
when it comes to LBA. I have DOZENS and still want more. Some own HUNDREDS and want more. If you are serious about your
LBA then you should be gobbling up any lens you can, including duplicates of lenses you like and odd, obsolete mounts in the hope
they might some day be adapted.......

I'm sure my wife will forbid me to come into serious LBA territory.

Truthfully, you have few options that meet all three requirements. There is the DA560, but it is way over budget.
There is the DFA150-450, but it too is way over budget.

Indeed.

What sort of images do you like to take? Portraits, street scenes, intimate wildlife scenes (flowers and things in the garden), skittish wild
life scenes (things that run away like birds and antelope), big wide landscapes, carefully arranged still life, the moon........
Having some idea what kind of images you like to take can inform a good recommendation.

All of these, except street scene.

Do you ever use your DA35 or DA50? Do you enjoy their petite size or do you find their lack of zoom limiting? Adding a prime
at a focal length you use frequently might be a good choice. The suggestion above for adding a macro lens is another good
choice. Allowing for second hand lenses will greatly expand your choices, otherwise you will be restricted to generalist zooms
and only a handful of primes.

I do not use DA35 and DA50 often, I admit. I use them when I need the extra light provided by the larger aperture (DA35) and for portraits (DA50). I do not find their lack of zoom limitating (zooming with my feet has taught me a lot about photography), but the focal length I use most are either much lower (10 to 20mm, most usage) or much higher (150 to 300mm).

But when it comes to wide angle, DA 10-17 Fisheye and Sigma 10-20 already fills the bill, it seems.

So, what do I need? It seems that my budget-limited case of LBA would require me to need either a Macro length (but which focal length?) or the 55-300 PLM.

[Braveheart]

Get a DA20-40 to start with. Still have LBA and money left, think about the DFA100F/2.8 macro and then the DA*300F/4

[wstruth]

Hello,

I have the current selection of lenses :
- DA 10-17 Fisheye
- Sigma 10-20 f/3.5
- DA-L 18-50
- DA 35 f/2.4 (Plastic Fantastic)
- DA 50 f/1.8 (Other Plastic Fantastic)
- Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-6.3
- Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6

Body is K-S2.


I am considering buying another lens. But what should I buy, considering the following criteria :
1) I would like to avoid obsoleting any lens I already have ; it should complement the kit rather than replacing part of it
2) I am budget limited (<= 400 euros)
3) I prefer to buy new rather than used equipment whenever possible

I shoot often landscapes (preferred subject), but I also do animals (mostly pet, but wild ones would be good if I come across some), kids, portraits and night sky.

I think adding a prime will complement your kit

For landscapes the 15 mm or 22 mm Limiteds are great little lenses.

For something longer: the 70 mm limited or the 100 mm macro. with the macro double as... well a macro lens.

[robiles]

Thank you all for your answers. I know that my collection is covering focal length quite well, because I always followed the policy to avoid obsoleting any gear I have with a new lens. But I know that one day, I'll have to ditch out something. That's why it's so complicated to choose.



I've thought about the 55-300 PLM (and yes it's compatible with the K-S2). It would obsolete the Tamron 70-300 on focal length with its IQ and AF speed, but the Tamron would still have the upper hand for aperture and 1:2 Macro mode. I was considering the 55-300 PLM already because I had a lot of fun with the Tamron 70-300, despite being a rather crude lens (handling and chromatic aberrations mostly).

The DA* 16-50 would be subject to SDM failure, wouldn't it? And I've read that IQ was quite inconsistent with that lens, and not really Star-level. But I may be wrong.

I also considered the two Sigmas, but that would mean trashing 18-50 and even 35 Plastic Fantastic (with the 17-50 f/2.8).


Limited would be over budget unfortunately.



This was my first thought, because macro is really something I don't really have, even if I considered the Tamron 90 Macro instead (new, it's in budget ; way cheaper that the DFA WR).

I tried pseudo-macro with the Tamron 70-300. I shoot hand-held (lack of patience to use my tripod ; beside my (old) tripod is not equipped to allow shooting downwards, the camera always falls down). At 300mm (required for 1:2 macro), I cannot get everything in focus handheld. At 180mm (1:3 macro), it's much better, but the magnification is sub-optimal, to say the least. And I'm not even mentioning focus hunting, focus noise, rotating front element and CA.



What do you mean by "experienced"? Specialized, like a macro, or a prime? Or do you mean used?



Interesting. Since I shoot handled, a Macro lens of a lesser focal length would be a good idea. That said, the Tamron 90 Macro (or DFA 100 Macro) are also very good and fast telephoto lens, something that DA 35 Macro and DFA 50 Macro would not provide.



Thank you for telling me what I need. But if I buy another prime in that range, it would have to be a macro lens to be even more useful.



I do not consider 18-250 obsoleting 18-50. The latter is much lighter (my neck is thankful), silent (DC motor), and WR (my only lens which is WR). The former allow to zoom much farther, but is heavy, noisy, and suffer from zoom creep. In term of IQ, I do not know, since Pentaxforums do not review the Tamron 18-250, only the Pentax version of this lens, and I do not know if they are comparable when it comes to IQ, since coating may be an important factor.



I'm sure my wife will forbid me to come into serious LBA territory.



Indeed.


All of these, except street scene.



I do not use DA35 and DA50 often, I admit. I use them when I need the extra light provided by the larger aperture (DA35) and for portraits (DA50). I do not find their lack of zoom limitating (zooming with my feet has taught me a lot about photography), but the focal length I use most are either much lower (10 to 20mm, most usage) or much higher (150 to 300mm).

But when it comes to wide angle, DA 10-17 Fisheye and Sigma 10-20 already fills the bill, it seems.

So, what do I need? It seems that my budget-limited case of LBA would require me to need either a Macro length (but which focal length?) or the 55-300 PLM.

All my limiteds are used copies, of the smc type (green band and non rounded aperture blades, for extra starburst - the 15 and 21 are well known for this feature). They all work great and am pleased with them.

Last couple of months there have been constant discounts on the official ricoh store (at the moment it's 10%) in europe, and the shopping season is close. I am certain a lot of good deals are to be made around the Pentax 100 year anniversary, black friday, and Christmas sales.

But at the same time i know that when LBA bites, it bites hard, and it is really hard to wait a month or two. I am also a bit behing with my LBA, but i gave myself time until december to make up my mind (i'm waiting for a good deal too).

[Serkevan]

Yeah, my comment about the Tamron 18-250 was because I, too, mistook the 18-50 for the old 18-55 (oops! ).

If you find that the 10-20 is your most used lens, I would say that the 15 Ltd might be interesting (if the flare resistance and compactness are useful to you). Other than that, I have an older 90/2.5 Tamron (the 1:2 macro version though, not the f/2.8 1:1) and I generally find it very pleasing, also for general portraiture even if a bit heavy for the speed.

[MossyRocks]

I would say a longer fast prime or a macro. Either one will end up being above your budget new but then I've only bought one lens new and usually buy used lenses and have had very good luck in doing so.

[aslyfox]

Yes, I use " experienced " instead of " Used "

My first "macro -light " lens was an old Tamron 70- 300 1:2

I decided to move to my DFA 100m f2.8 ( non WR) because it is a better lens

[fsge]

There is a sigma 70 macro in the marketplace, wouldnt be a nice addition ?
Pretty rare lens in K mount so it would hold its value better than average...

[HoutHans]

May I also suggest a (100 mm) macro? They provide you with macro ability and also work nicely as a short tele, enabling portraits and capturing the occasional animal.

[aslyfox]

. . . Interesting. Since I shoot handled, a Macro lens of a lesser focal length would be a good idea. That said, the Tamron 90 Macro (or DFA 100 Macro) are also very good and fast telephoto lens, something that DA 35 Macro and DFA 50 Macro would not provide.

it would have to be a macro lens to be even more useful. . . .

So, what do I need? It seems that my budget-limited case of LBA would require me to need either a Macro length (but which focal length?) . . . .

perhaps this might help

A lens such as the D FA 100mm macro has two main advantages over shorter focal lengths. The first is that it allows more distance between the subject and the camera for a given magnification. This is especially useful when photographing live subjects such as insects, but also applies to small objects in general. More distance helps to prevent shadows created by the photographer or the equipment and avoids scaring off live subjects.

Distance is usefulShallow depth of field

The second advantage is that, all things being equal, a longer focal length will allow narrower depths of field to be obtained, which leads to better subject isolation. However, this is not always an advantage, and macro shooters often work at F8 or smaller apertures in order to increase the DOF. Because of this, a 50mm or even 35mm macro lens can be more desirable. A 50mm is also easier to hold by hand than a 100mm.

Macro lenses often serve more than one purpose, and this should be kept in mind when selecting a lens. A 100mm can double as a short telephoto lens. A 50mm doubles as an excellent portrait lens. A 35mm, especially the Pentax Limited, can serve as a compact and reliable walkaround lens.

Read more at: Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Review - Macro Basics | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Tamron 90mm Macro vs Pentax 100mm WR: Review
Introduction
Two of the most popular autofocus lenses for Pentax are the SMC Pentax DFA 100mm WR and the Tamron 90mm SP. Now that Sigma has discontinued the Pentax version of the Macro 105mm lens, and has yet to start producing its replacement, the Pentax and the Tamron are the only two autofocus macro lenses currently available in this focal length range. Last year, we reviewed the Pentax 100mm on its own- but now it's time to see how it matches up with the competition!

Read more at: Tamron 90mm Macro vs Pentax 100mm WR: Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Tamron 90mm Macro vs Pentax 100mm WR: Review
Conclusion and Ratings
When all is said and done, which lens provides the best alternative? As can be deduced from our previous commentaries, there is no easy answer to that question, and the best choice will probably be different for different users.

The Pentax lens has the best build quality, with its metal finish, weather sealing and smaller size. The Tamron, on the other hand, offers a focus limiter and an aperture ring. Focus speeds are comparable. The Tamron is slightly more prone to aberrations. Bokeh is, in general, equally pleasing with either lens. Resolution figures, an important aspect of macro photography, favours no lens decisively but suggests the Pentax might win a hair splitting contest. The Tamron is also cheaper.

Though we ended up scoring the Pentax lens higher than the Tamron, if truth be told, either lens is satisfying from a user's point of view. The choice should probably be dictated by the user's budget and by his or her specific needs (WR, aperture ring, etc).

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/tamron-90mm-macro-vs-pentax-100mm-wr/co...#ixzz62RDh2YkQ

[MJKoski]

Zeiss 50mm makro-planar (.ZK) of course.

[whammerhead]

I love the 100mm macro WR and highly recommend it. It's definitely worth waiting for BF & possibly Xmas/NY sales. I've developed a bit of a LBA myself and recently had to tell myself to 'calm down' to reflect on what I've collected to date (to assess where to go to next :P). Finding the time to use them all is another matter. A few months ago I had a bit of a lens buying spree (thank you lens reviews section) via a well known online auction site. I found that some bargains could be had by looking at joblots under the camera and lens sections. Another tip is to look for 'unspecified items' (depends how much time you have available to do this I suppose). There are quite a few great retro manual lenses out there at bargain prices eg a ricoh singlex camera with a Helios 44-2 (58mm f2.0) attached cost me £9.50 ($12). Quite a few sellers are doing house clearances and have no real knowledge of what they are selling. The issue though is that (where third party lens are concerned) they don't always state the mount (or know which type it is) eg won a Vivitar (Komine) 90mm f2.8 to find it was a Canon FD fit.


Good luck with the LBA

My stuff to date:

Samyang 16mm f2.0 ED AS UMC CS HD Pentax-DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Takumar - A 28mm f2.8 Pentax K Mount Cosina MC MACRO 28mm f2.8 Wide Angle Lens MC Cosinon-W 28mm F2.8 SMC Pentax-M 35mm F2.8 SMC Pentax 35mm F3.5 SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 Macro Asahi SMC Pentax - M 50mm f1.7 SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.4 Asahi SMC Pentax - 55mm f1.8 Helios 44-2 58mm F/2 Vivitar 75-205mm F3.8 Macro Focusing SMC Pentax FA 77mm f1.8 Limited Vivitar (Komine) 90mm f2.8 Macro (Canon FD Mount) SMC Pentax-M 100mm F2.8 SMC Pentax DFA Macro 100mm f2.8 WR Jena Sonnar MC 135mm, f3.5 - M42 Screwmount SMC Pentax-M 135mm F3.5 Tamron Adaptall 135mm f2.8 Tamron Adaptall 200mm f3.5 SMC Pentax DA* 300mm f4.0 ED [IF] SDM WR SMC Pentax DA 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] DC WR SMC Pentax DAL 50-200mm f4.5-5.6 ED WR SMC Pentax DAL 55-300mm f4.0-5.8 ED Pentax 1.4X AW HD PENTAX-DA AF Rear Converter

[MossyRocks]

I've developed a bit of a LBA myself and recently had to tell myself to 'calm down' to reflect on what I've collected to date (to assess where to go to next :P).

This year has been a bad one for me in that regards.
Started off getting the 77mm ltd
Next was 2 auto 110 cameras with 5 of the 6 lenses for it, only missing the 18mm pan focus but have the regular 18/2.8 24/2.8 50/2.8 70/2.8 and 20-40/2.8. I have duplicates of the 24mm and 50mm lenses for it
Then I got a mis-labeled, thus hugely under priced, SMC A 50/1.2 that I figured I could sell at a profit if I didn't like it (it's not for sale sorry)
Thinking it would probably be the last thing I purchased for the year was the D FA 100/2.8 WR macro
But no, the day after the 100 macro arrived an A* 400/2.8 came up for sale that was in good shape and hadn't been mucked with so bought that after looking for over a year for one.
So I think I need to take a pause from buying for now although I do need a better faster ultrawide as the old S-M-C 17/4 fisheye takumar isn't good for wide astro shots and the A 1.4x L rear converter would a good friend to the 400/2.8 so you know there is always a chance that I spend even more money.