[WideVistas490]

I'll cast another vote for the Tamron 17-50/2.8. I bought it used a few years ago after reading the comparison review. It's the default lens on my K-3 II, as it's sharp and fast.

I also have the 18-135 that replaced an old 18-55 kit lens. It's a solid walk around lens, especially for travel, and the extra reach is nice.

[tibbitts]

I've had the Tamron and Sigma 17-50s, and the Pentax 16-85. I haven't had complete success with PDAF on any of them (that is, getting them to work wide open at every focal length), but with CDAF or MF all three will be an upgrade from the kit lens (which I also have.) It's as important to get a good copy of whatever lens you choose, as it is to worry about the relative performance. Even the kit lens can be okay at moderate apertures. Obviously the others have some capabilities the kit lens doesn't. Every extra mm on the wide end is definitely beneficial.

[UncleVanya]

As someone else mentioned the 18-55 series 1 is inferior to the later versions. But from series II on it’s been reasonably good. I like the 18-135 and 18-50 more but any of these work for shots made a few stops down from wide open.

[EssJayEff]

You live in NC too: There's not a Pentax selling dealer in the state! It's probably almost as cost effective to buy and take the hit (assuming not buying new) on resale.

Southeast Camera in Raleigh was a Pentax dealer. I bought their very first K-1. They use to rent a 645Z, but I never rented it. I just checked their website . . . nothing Pentax in sight. They and their Carrboro store sell used Pentax gear, or at least they used to sell it. I've not been in either store since the pandemic began.

---------- Post added 07-27-21 at 08:56 AM ----------

Southeast Camera in Raleigh was a Pentax dealer. I bought their very first K-1. They use to rent a 645Z, but I never rented it. I just checked their website . . . nothing Pentax in sight. They and their Carrboro store sell used Pentax gear, or at least they used to sell it. I've not been in either store since the pandemic began.

I just thought I'd add that when I bought my very first Pentax—a K-5—Southeast Camera was not a Pentax dealer. I really wanted it but instead I bought a Canon 7D with regrets. I felt lousy about my purchase, so without taking the camera out of the box I returned it and drove up to DC area just to buy my K-5.

---------- Post added 07-27-21 at 09:01 AM ----------

getting the announcement from Ricoh about the revised 16-50 put me looking for the current one. Sorta surprised to find that that one isn't so highly regarded.

I've rather enjoyed the DA* 16-50mm and didn't experience any of its reported problems. I still have it, though rarely use it since moving up to full-frame. Gee, you can get it now for $750 . . . a lot less than back when I bought it.

---

Last edited by EssJayEff; 07-27-2021 at 05:52 AM. Reason: Better English

[Lev]

Someone will say that it doesn't matter what kind of glass you're using and most important is you as a photographer to "see", but at the end, mostly, gear limitations will definitely affect final results.

[RICHARD L.]

Very nice images. TBH I hadn't considered a "walkaround" lens with that much range short to long.

Range from 18 mm to 135 mm from the same POV, with a DA 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 ED WR.

18 mm

135 mm

[UncleVanya]

What's remarkable about the 18-135 is that it crushes the older 28-200 full frame lens in head to head comparison. The 18-135 packs a lot of flexibility into a small package.

---

Last edited by UncleVanya; 07-28-2021 at 07:10 PM.

[normhead]

What remarkable about the 18-135 is that it crushes the older 28-200 full frame lens in head to head comparison. The 18-135 packs a lot of flexibility into a small package.

One of my biggest disappointments with he K-1 is, there is no 18-135 equivalent for a walk around lens. I bought the 28-200 out of desperation for $100. I ws ripped off. It's terrible pixel peeping.

However, reduced in size it renders beautifully.
The 28-200 maybe be terrible on K-5, but with a size reduction to 8 MP, it's pretty good on a K-1.



As I said elsewhere, large pixels can redeem a truly bad lens.

---------- Post added 07-27-21 at 10:42 AM ----------

Someone will say that it doesn't matter what kind of glass you're using and most important is you as a photographer to "see", but at the end, mostly, gear limitations will definitely affect final results.

See the image above, taken with a lens universally acknowledged as terrible. Almost all gear can be used appropriately or inappropriately. That's on the photographer, not the gear. You just have to accept 8k instead of 36k MP.

[UncleVanya]

One of my biggest disappointments with he K-1 is, there is no 18-135 equivalent for a walk around lens. I bought the 28-200 out of desperation for $100. I ws ripped off. It's terrible pixel peeping.

However, reduced in size it renders beautifully.
The 28-200 maybe be terrible on K-5, but with a size reduction to 8 MP, it's pretty good on a K-1.



As I said elsewhere, large pixels can redeem a truly bad lens.

---------- Post added 07-27-21 at 10:42 AM ----------



See the image above, taken with a lens universally acknowledged as terrible. Almost all gear can be used appropriately or inappropriately. That's on the photographer, not the gear.

Agreed on both points.

By rumor the 28-300 is supposedly much better than the 28-200. I haven’t tried one so I can’t say how much it actually improves things.

[RussV]

I have 9 lenses all manual focus except my kit lens. I use just the kit if want to travel light. With a bit of care it gives good results. I get the impression quality amongst individual samples can to vary though.

[DennyT]

In my weaker moments of considering DSLR as opposed to film I considered the kits , the prices.
In the end to me it was like starting out in golf. Buy a cheap package set and only you have outplayed the clubs you have( I.e. the clubs are the problem and not your game) don’t buy the expensive name brand.

To me( just my opinion) only when the weakness of shots are solely attributed to the equipment and not the equipment - stick with the kit.

Just my humble opinion.

Right now I have an super program with a 50/1.4 and Couple of zooms that came with the buy and am still a long way from mastering what i have.

[normhead]

In my weaker moments of considering DSLR as opposed to film I considered the kits , the prices.
In the end to me it was like starting out in golf. Buy a cheap package set and only you have outplayed the clubs you have( I.e. the clubs are the problem and not your game) don’t buy the expensive name brand.

To me( just my opinion) only when the weakness of shots are solely attributed to the equipment and not the equipment - stick with the kit.

Just my humble opinion.

Right now I have an super program with a 50/1.4 and Couple of zooms that came with the buy and am still a long way from mastering what i have.

It's much easier to master digital gear. That might not be a functional strategy.

Just from the ability to see results immediately and correct on the fly, digital gives you way more feedback instantaneously, while everything is still fresh in your mind, I remember only too well, getting back images at the end of a vacation and wishing I could go back nd shoot differently. With digital, most of the time I know if I have what I want, while I can still do retakes.

---------- Post added 07-27-21 at 12:14 PM ----------

Range from 18 mm to 135 mm from the same POV, with a DA 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 ED WR.

18 mm

135 mm

Notice the "weak" edges at 135mm, that don't appear to be at all weak. Test site data often doesn't translate into real word results. They are different things.

[RICHARD L.]

I got my first digital camera, a K10d, with a DA 18-55 mm, Version II. I couldn't make an image that was sharp from corner to corner with it. It was very soft at 18 mm, got better starting at 28 mm but when the center and left corner were sharp, the right corner was totally fuzzy.

Not being patient (I started taking pictures in 1967, so I saw water flowing under the proverbial bridge), I changed it for a DA 16-45 mm f/4, much more uniformly sharp but ridden with color aberrations in the lower ranges on the K10. Starting with my K5, the on-board camera programming corrected most of these color aberrations and it became a terrific lens for me. I'm sure the DA 18-55 mm was badly decentered and was a "lemon", but I always had this lens in horror since.

Regards


K5 + DA 16-45 mm f/4 @ 16 mm

[artrasa]

I have been taking pictures with the 18-55mm AL II kit zoom lens for some 12 years now. I got it together with the K10D that I bought used from a photographer who was upgrading to K20D. I was always very satisfied with the 18-55 kit lens. It served me well all these years. However, recently it became more and more de-centered and at the moment it takes photos that are sharp only on one side of the frame. I replaced it with an older SMC-F 35-80mm full-frame kit zoom lens. Hopefully I could keep using it at least as long as the 18-55.

[normhead]

I have been taking pictures with the 18-55mm AL II kit zoom lens for some 12 years now. I got it together with the K10D that I bought used from a photographer who was upgrading to K20D. I was always very satisfied with the 18-55 kit lens. It served me well all these years. However, recently it became more and more de-centered and at the moment it takes photos that are sharp only on one side of the frame. I replaced it with an older SMC-F 35-80mm full-frame kit zoom lens. Hopefully I could keep using it at least as long as the 18-55.

I have the FA 35-80. It's among my favourites although, because of the wider wide end, I like it more on my K-1.



I eventually bought the 28-105 and hardly ever use it any more. That 7mm of range at the wide end is huge. But the first few month I had the K-1 it was big.