[telackeypentax]

For wide and inexpensive (just under $300), go with the DA 16-45mm F4. With the full disclaimer that I do not own one, by all reports and reviews it is tack sharp and has good color. It has some distortion at 16mm, but correctable. For wide angle only, the Sigma 10-20mm is popular.

[Fl_Gulfer]

I'd go with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 It's the best of the wide Zooms...

[MoiVous]

Alfisti , with regards to how wide?I'd like something to take the place of my film 24mm but think I'm going to have to go with an equivalent to a 28mm film

.....I have shot Canon film (A-1's and F1's) for years and know their lenses (FD) inside and out....f my Canon FD 35-105 macro (my alltime favorite carry around lens)

Like you Ken, I'm from the Canon FD school of lenses - solid and reliable. The two you quote above were my favourites. But as others have pointed out the 18-55mm AL II kit gives pretty good performance (and quite reasonable close focus like the old Canon lens). Given the APS-C cropping, the 18mm is like the old 28mm lens, and 70mm would be the old 105mm.
Remember, multiply the focal length by 1.5 to get the effective 35mm focal length on APS-C.

So the suggestion of a 16-45mm is credible. Having surfed these pages for little while now, I'm about to take the plunge into a Tamron 90mm macro (my passion) and perhaps an older Pentax F70-210mm f4-5.6 I spotted second hand this week.

Either way, the feel of a solid lens is important as you say. The rot there started when AF started to creep into lens bodies. (I recall Canon were one of the instigators when they killed the FD mount ) Thankfully, Pentax did not follow that path, and from the reviews have lots of great lenses going back a long way!

Anyway, for a pretty good description of the lenses designations visit
Pentax Lenses Explained - which also has a camera compatibility chart, and Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page - both have lots of info for Pentax converts

It comes down to what you shoot - good luck with your hunting.....

[Mike Cash]

Manual focus and metering issues.

Strange....I shoot Takumars on a daily basis and wasn't aware that I was suffering from manual focus and metering headaches.

I can understand if someone chooses not to use manual focus lenses, but to give the impression that there is some sort of issue using them is to give an misleading impression.

[focalplus]

why is it that people are choosing a less reliable and poor quality digital over high quality film?

its a backwards step and i dont get it, have you all lost your minds.

its about time we all separated photography (film) form this binary capture and file storage device.

they are not the same

a water colour painting can not be called a oil painting, and a digital print cannot be called a photo, never never never

i wouldnt even line my parrots cage with digital prints , and the parrot would want me too. he would die from sh@tting to much to cover them from his view.

[NaClH2O]

Ken, first of all I have to agree with Mike Cash, I have many manual focus "K" lenses and don't have a problem with either metering or manual focusing. One of the greatest benefits of the Pentax system is all of those "legacy" lenses. I disagree very strongly with what Alfisti wrote.
Some (relatively) inexpensive suggestions:
Long zoom, Pentax "A" 70-210 F4.0 Good lens, my greatest criticism with it is that the barrel rotates while focusing which causes problems with CP and graduated ND filters. It's not terribly light and the "one touch" push-pull zoom/rotate focus takes a bit of getting used too. If you need longer check out the Pentax "K" 300mm F4.0

Mid-range tele Pentak "K" 135 F2.5. For a F2.5 lens at 135mm it's almost slender at 58mm (tho not light, weighs in about 500g) Excellent, contrasty lens, and amazingly sharp. Easy to focus.

"walk around" zoom I've several "walk around" zooms, my favorite is the Tamron 28-75 F2.8, excellent lens quite sharp, good close focus (not really a macro, tho marketed as one) Many people on these forums swear by this lens, I'm one. It's major downside is that it isn't really inexpensive, but good second hand copies can be found for relatively less.

wide zoom This one is a bit harder, I'll go with others in recommending the Pentax DA 18-55mm. It's not a great lens, but it is an excellent "bang for the buck" lens. If you want to go for more money, I can highly recommend the Pentax DA 12-24mm F4.0. This is one of my favorite lenses.

Speciality lenses
fish-eye Don't know if you are a fan of fish eye lenses, but there is an inexpensive lens out there that I personally have a lot of fun using. It is a manual focus "new" lens, the Zenitar 16mm F2.8. One of the things I like about it is that the fisheye distortion isn't highly pronounced and if you are a bit careful with framing and cropping you will barely notice the distortion, but of course, it's there if you do want it.

macro I have a great fondness for the Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro. Good true macro, nice contrasty "short tele" and can also be used effectively as a portrait lens. It is known for it's excellent bokeh. It is another one of those lenses that can be found on the second hand market fairly frequently.

NaCl(hope that helps...btw like your "screen name" !)H2O

[Mike Cash]

why is it that people are choosing a less reliable and poor quality digital over high quality film?

its a backwards step and i dont get it, have you all lost your minds.

its about time we all separated photography (film) form this binary capture and file storage device.

they are not the same

a water colour painting can not be called a oil painting, and a digital print cannot be called a photo, never never never

i wouldnt even line my parrots cage with digital prints , and the parrot would want me too. he would die from sh@tting to much to cover them from his view.

You know, we're tolerant of varying opinions to quite an extraordinary degree (even RiceHigh can't get banned). But having just reviewed every post you've made so far it is obvious you're not only a troll, you're a troll with a stick shoved sideways up his ass about the size of a redwood.

If you're going to be a distasteful, abusive troll then at least try to have a little variety to your bile in order to not be so tiresomely monotonous.

[Ratmagiclady]

I have shot Canon film (A-1's and F1's) for years and know their lenses (FD) inside and out . I'm old school and believe that the glass is far more important than the body. I recently made the decission to buy a K20d as well as a used ist DL for back up. I'm trying to build my lens arsenal to make the transition to digital less painful but I'm somewhat confused.
I bought a FA 28-105 new with the K20d hoping it would fill the shoes of my Canon FD 35-105 macro (my alltime favorite carry around lens) but I alittle dissapointed .

Haha, Seacapt, we're in a similar boat. I love the big old 35-105, too, I call it, not an overgrown standard zoom, but 'A Small Stack Of Primes.'

It seems to me that Pentax digitals have quite a lot of appeal to we stubborn Canon FD holdouts: they represent a modicum of the old school in something affordable. But, I had to finally stop dreaming about finding a red and gold box labeled 'Digital Back FN.' I still think Canon could strip down a 5D, put an FD mount on there, and they'd sell a good number of them.

Yeah, right.

I'm not letting go of my black and white film, myself: now that every art school student in the world isn't running around with their very first roll of Tri-X and flooding the market, I think being able to do good film will have its place.