[aslyfox]

. . .

Oh, we're all very helpful at spending others funds on gear...

us

shirley you jest

[ChristianRock]

The thing to remember about the K-7 is that the ISO performance is not very good. With the K20D (same sensor basically) I would never go over ISO 640 - the sensor noise is just too ugly after that. I suppose if you put a lot of work into post-processing, you could go up to ISO 1600, but I tried to never have to do that.

So I think you should have a lens that does f/2.8 or even faster, to be able to keep the ISO down.

So my suggestions are...

Zooms:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - around 150 dollars or less in the used market. Be aware that the build quality isn't great, and a lot of samples out there have issues with focusing or even the front part of the lens coming apart from the rest of the body. If you can find one in good condition, the pictures I've seen from it are very nice. Screw-drive focus, so you will hear it while focusing, like the DA 15 Limited.
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 - around 200-250 dollars in the used market. Better built than the Tamron, and it also has silent focusing due to a lens focus motor. Great image quality as well, on par with the Tamron - any differences would be personal taste, from what I've seen. The Sigma however is a bit bigger and heavier.
Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 - can be had pretty cheap these days considering it's a manufacturer's professional zoom! I've seen them going for less than 300 but the cost is usually more like 350-400 dollars in the used market. The upside is the colors and rendering are typical Pentax - if you like the look of Pentax lenses, you will like the pictures you get from it. The downside is that it's optically inferior to the Sigma and Tamron lenses - the Tamron being the best in regards to flaring and aberration control in harsh light, the Sigma just behind, and the Pentax quite a bit behind. The Pentax will also be a bit less sharp wide open. There's an in-depth comparison here on the site with all 3 lenses, so it's worth a look.

Primes-affordable
Two lens that will pack a lot of image quality for the price:
Pentax DA 35 2.4 - used for 70 dollars or so, new for about 100-120, depending on when you get it... very sharp, good contrast and Pentax colors. Some complain that it has a bit or a "clinical look" like zooms usually do, but I don't see people complaining about that with their favorite zooms... so I think it's more of people just being picky and the DA 35 2.8 Limited being so good.
Pentax-F 50mm f/1.7 - these are going for ridiculously low prices these days, like 60 dollars or so - and people can't seem to be able to sell them, there's a couple stuck here in the Marketplace For-Sale section of this forum.
I have both of these lenses and they're fantastic.

Primes-a bit more money
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art (about 300 dollars used) or Pentax DA 35 2.8 Limited (I got my SMC version recently for 179 shipped but they will usually go for 250+ dollars). Either one is an excellent lens, I also have both now. The Sigma is amazing with low light performance, of course. A few aberrations wide open but not worse than what you'd get with a zoom. Silent focus to boot, but a bit big for a prime. Plenty of character and once you get past f2 it's deadly sharp. Now the Pentax DA 35 2.4 is all that as well, plus is relatively small and light, all metal (great build), focuses down to 1:1 macro and the rendering and colors are just incredible. Super sharp as well. I don't think you would go wrong with either one - the Sigma is f/1.4 and bigger, the Pentax is f/2.8 and smaller, has macro but will hunt a bit in low light, so the autofocus is not perfect. neither is the AF on the Sigma - I don't have any problems but I use center point focusing. Some people like to use multi-point focusing and apparently the Sigma gets a bit lost with that.
Couple one of those with the Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 for portraits and more distant objects. The DA 70 will cost about 200-300 in the used market (SMC version). Fantastic lens, it's on my list to get.

Other considerations:
Now there's other lenses that have more reach (D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro comes to mind as a lens a lot of people love), and there are way more expensive lenses (like the FA Limiteds or the D-FA f/2.8 zooms - but those are designed for full frame, they will work on the K-7 but you'd probably get more benefit from upgrading your camera body rather than buying such expensive lenses).
The DA Limited primes come in the older SMC version or the newer HD version coatings. The SMC are probably 98% as good - sometimes about 100% as good like in the case of the DA 15mm where people can't see a difference in image quality but the older SMC version has better sunbursts.

That's about it for an introduction... there's a whole lot more than that to cover But that should get you started on your decision making.

[aslyfox]

The thing to remember about the K-7 is that the ISO performance is not very good. . . .

So I think you should have a lens that does f/2.8 or even faster, to be able to keep the ISO down.

So my suggestions are...

Primes-affordable. . .
Pentax-F 50mm f/1.7 - these are going for ridiculously low prices these days, like 60 dollars or so - and people can't seem to be able to sell them, there's a couple stuck here in the Marketplace For-Sale section of this forum. . . .

Other considerations:
Now there's other lenses that have more reach (D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro comes to mind as a lens a lot of people love), . . .

when considering costs:

the DA 50mm 1.8 is often found in the marketplace at a good price

_________________

The optical design is the tried-and-proven formula of the previous generation D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro lens, which in turn had inherited the optical design from the well-respected FA 100mm F2.8 and F 100mm F2.8 macro lenses introduced in 1991 and 1987, respectively. None of these earlier lenses had rounded aperture blades.

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

the D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR is the most expensive option

but the others deserve consideration. I like my D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro

[blackcloudbrew]

us

shirley you jest

Don't call me Shirley

[savoche]

I just received my used Pentax K-7. I have the Pentax DA 15mm f/4 ED AL Limited Lens and am looking at acquiring another. I am just learning the art and looking for recommendations. I want to do MOSTLY outdoor, landscape, street, etc.
I appreciate advice ! I will likely stick with just 2 lenses for a while while I learn.

As you see there's more than one way to peel a potato The 15 Ltd is a fantastic lens, impossibly flare resistant and with good contrast. It is also very wide. Definitely nice for landscapes, but IMO too wide for an only lens. But I guess you already know that or you wouldn't have asked, would you

I think the suggestions for a zoom are good, maybe one of the 17-50/2.8 ones to keep your ISO down. Personally I prefer primes and could live happily with the DA15 Ltd and DA70 Ltd - and maybe one in between, like the DA35 Macro Ltd or DA40 Ltd. The 35 can be slow to autofocus (as most macros are), but it's sharp, sharp, sharp - and it's never wrong to have a macro capable lens. As others have mentioned, the DA35/2.4 (not Limited and not macro) and DA50/1.8 are more budget friendly and also very good. Of those two I like the 35 more than the 50, probably because I find 50mm to be a bit "in between" on a K-7 - but that's all down to preference.

If you haven't already, I'm sure you'll discover soon enough that lenses can be addictive - just one more...

Oh, one more thing - the DA15 can produce some very nice starbursts. Just stop it down to f/11 or f/16 and point it at some bright light.

[ChristianRock]

when considering costs:

the DA 50mm 1.8 is often found in the marketplace at a good price

Yes but I personally think the F 50 1.7 is the better lens and they both cost about the same in the used market these days - 60 to 80 dollars or so*. All I've seen points to the DA 50 1.8 being a bit like the 50 1.4 models - a bit "flat looking" wide open at f/1.8, colors and contrast are kind of "meh" until you get past f2... It's fantastic from f/2.8 to smaller, but that's not why you buy an f/1.8 lens, right? Still, not a bad lens at all, it's just that the alternatives might be a bit better... Pentax would do good to revise that lens and maybe create an optically-tweaked HD-coated version that looks good from wide open...

The SMC-F 50 1.7 on the other hand is very good at f/1.7, and totally fantastic from f2... I could use it at f2 all day and get nothing but amazing pictures (if I did my job regarding where I point the camera, of course )

And the DA's "sister" the 35mm f/2.4 is sharp and contrasty from wide open, which in this case of course is f/2.4 but I find that with a 35mm lens you can get slower shutter speeds so it was not uncommon for me to get great sharp pictures from it using my K20D at 1/10s or even longer shutter speeds, most of my shots at 1/6s were very good unless the subject was moving of course...

*I got my SMC-F 50 1.7 a few years back for 73 dollars when they were going for about 180 dollars in the used market. It was in "V" condition at Adorama but the optics were perfect. I couldn't believe myself and basically jumped for joy. It's incredible how you can get these fantastic lenses for little to nothing nowadays...

[aslyfox]

I admit to being a newbie and not an expert [ but pretty good at research ] and someone who posts a lot

I have that focal lengths covered with these lenses

SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.4

SMC Pentax-DA 50mm F1.8

SMC Pentax-DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM

SMC Pentax 55mm F 1.9

but I don't have the F 50mm 1.7

i have read good comments on all of the above lenses including the F 50 1.7

and not knowing the OP's budget or what might be available when the OP starts looking I thought I would mention the DA 50mm F1.8

[Bertrand3000]

Having both DA 50 F1.8 and DFA 50 F2.8 Macro, I can say that the DFA is better wide open at F2.8 than the DA at F2.8 (which is not wide open). Of course, price is not the same.

[ChristianRock]

I admit to being a newbie and not an expert [ but pretty good at research ] and someone who posts a lot

I have that focal lengths covered with these lenses

SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.4

SMC Pentax-DA 50mm F1.8

SMC Pentax-DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM

SMC Pentax 55mm F 1.9

but I don't have the F 50mm 1.7

i have read good comments on all of the above lenses including the F 50 1.7

and not knowing the OP's budget or what might be available when the OP starts looking I thought I would mention the DA 50mm F1.8

We're probably splitting hairs here, I'm sure the DA 50 1.8 is also a fine lens.

And good point about the OP's budget. Since I didn't know either, I gave a "very cheap" suggestion list, and one that would cost a bit more.

Didn't even get into manual focus lenses... that would have been a much longer post

[hcc]

You already received some very good advice. I have a K-7 that I continue to use as my 2nd body. The K-7 is still very good at low ISO (400 or below) and it gives great results with prime lenses IMHO.

A few years ago, I travelled to Paris with my K-7 and two primes. The DA15mm Ltd and the Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4:

Primes in Paris - PentaxForums.com

Considering your needs, I would say that you start very well with the DA15mm Ltd. I would complement it by a fast 50 mm prime lens. The DA50mm f1.8 (plastic fantastic) is possibly the best value for money among the AF lenses. At the other end, the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4, a MF lens, is one of the greatest lens for outdoor, poor weather conditions and low light. Not cheap. The good news is that you have a lot of choice for a fast 50 mm lens. Fast meaning f1.2 to f1.8.

Hope that the comment may help.

[pres589]

The FA 35 f2.0 on the used market might be quite the lens to use with a K-7. For some reason I'm not a huge fan of 35mm lenses on crop bodies (I know I suggested one on the previous page) which I chalk up to personal opinion as some folks love them. The FA 35 seems to render quite nicely wide open and it's good and small and I believe it focuses accurately. I want to suggest the Sigma 30mm f1.4 which has been mentioned already but fear of a poor focusing lens makes me not want to push that option.

[Bucketlist21]

As a followup, what think you all of Pentax SMC DA 16-50 (lightly used ) vs the Sigma 17-70, knowing that the Pentax is $ 100.00 more (lightly used) than the Sigma new. ?

[baro-nite]

As a followup, what think you all of Pentax SMC DA 16-50 (lightly used ) vs the Sigma 17-70, knowing that the Pentax is $ 100.00 more (lightly used) than the Sigma new. ?

I haven't used either lens. The Pentax is from the high-end DA* series, meaning you get weather sealing, rugged build, very high optical quality, and a silent in-lens focus motor (SDM). Note, though, that those motors in that first generation of SDM lenses tend to fail. However, with this lens and your K-7 you can hack the lens firmware so that you focus with the camera's screwdrive motor instead.

[pres589]

There's a very good comparison of the Sigma and Tamron 17-50's as well as the Pentax 16-50 here; DA* 16-50mm vs. Sigma and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Comparison Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

If they all cost the same I would still get the Sigma or the Tamron first. I think the Sigma is better made and probably slightly sharper in real world use vs. the Tamron.

[ehrwien]

The real (only?) benefit of the *16-50 against 3rd party lenses is AW(WR+) (and general build quality?) imho.