[MXLX]

^^^^^
Very nice image. You can just feel the time of day.

[normhead]

^^^^^
Very nice image. You can just feel the time of day.

Thanks, here were some awesome sunsets that week.

[artrasa]

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.

Nice to hear that you like the FA version. I can imagine that it's somehow updated version of the F35-80. Never really understood the difference between F and FA. I don't mind losing the wide end with a crop camera. The wide end gives about 50mm equivalent field of view and I feel it's just right. Nice photo by the way. So far I've only taken some test shots with the F35-80, here's one of those I posted to another thread .
Morning landscape - Album on Imgur

[Jonathan Mac]

You absolutely should upgrade from the 18-55mm kit lens and the best options are either the Tamron or Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. They'll give you a very similar range, faster aperture (allowing you to shoot in lower light and with shallower depth of field), sharper results with better colour and contrast. You can have a look at my reviews of both in the lens review section of this site but in summary: I owned the Tamron for several years and it performed very well indeed. A few years ago I got the Sigma and sold the Tamron shortly after, not because the Sigma is optically better (image quality is very, very similar) but because it has a quiet focus motor and it's better built.

Get the Tamron if money is tight or you need something as light as possible, get the Sigma if you can afford it or value build quality or the luxury of a quiet in-lens focus motor.

Make sure you check it focuses accurately, especially the Tamron, as some people report problems there, though mine was fine. If buying used then check thoroughly first or buy with a guarantee.

[Bertrand3000]

Cheapest brand new upgrade you could afford, the DA 35 F2.4. With a human field-of-view, this lens will be rather versatile despite being a prime. It is light, fast and very sharp. It is more a general lens that the already-recommended DA 50 F1.8 (but you can buy both for the price of a single HD 18-50).


Another rather cheap and light possibility is the Pentax HD 18-50. This version is superior to every 18-55 and to the SMC 18-50 and worth buying, for a sharp and light standard zoom. Sure, handling is terrible, but this lens delivers in IQ department.


SMC 18-50 on the other hand is much better than the original 18-55. Compared to the new 18-55 (AL II, any DA-L, any WR), it is a bit superior, but it is debatable if such an upgrade is worthy. The 18-50 has a quiet motor and is sharper at 50mm, but it's a slower lens, and is not optimized for 18mm (unlike the 18-55), and 18-50's handling (including HD) is much worse than 18-55, especially if you own a non-DA-L version of 18-55 (for Quick shift).

[Levus]

I think that while the 18-55 Kit is good lens in it's category BUT the upgrade is absolutely recommended for the improved colors, better pic quality overall alone.
I tried several lenses, including the Pentax 17-70 F4 SDM , the 16-85 WR and the Pentax 16-50 F2.8 at last.
For my preferences, the 16-50 F2.8 is clearly superior, it's bright, sharp, and has those beautiful Pentax colors what i love most, the pictures taken with it have a lovely pop and are simply alive without any after processing.
Close second is the 17-70. It's not as bright as the F2.8 but has great colors too.
The most hyped 16-85 is sharp, but don't have that Da* like color reproduction so i think that the old 17-70 F4 is better in that regard, at least for my eyes.

[repaap]

This conversation kind of reminds me that I need to put my 18-55 in bag with K-3III. Just for fun. In fact whenI did buy 16-50 and I already had tokina 20-35/2.8. I did compare all of them and why did DA*16-50 win. Because of that 16 mm at wide end and speed(with Tokina they had the same). But the thing is that there is more than that in picture. Now I could throw 28-105 in the mix too. I like that on my K-1 where it is quite good solid performer. But I have to say that on K-3 it is very nice too. Ofcourse it is not wide, but there is very nice rendering. And stopped down it even does get better.

Actually one more refined question for OP is that what are the other options in your camera bag. Kit lenses can be quite nice. But where do you want to specifically develop your photography.

For walking, I have my favourite shoes, then I have my best shoes and even more expensive hiking shoes and of course shoes for biking, as well as running.

I’d put this in as comparison to what do you prefer, because almos any of those shoes you can wear anywhere, only one of them work best in one thing and suck in everywhere else. I could wear my hiking shoes anywhere too, kind of, but my favourite shoes are going to win. Unless I put on my ‘kit lens’ shoes which can take rain, and they are kind of relaxed and you can have nice long walk, but at the end of the day you are happy, but your favourite shoes would have been much more fun, it was just that it was a bit damp day and you did not want to risk it with better option. (And no, I have no crocss , at all, which could also stand for ‘multipurpose comfy shoes’ also good substitute for ‘kit lens’)