Please recommend a standard-ish APS-C lens

gatorguy · 06-28-2022, 11:01 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by c.a.m

When I travel, I usually bring my DA 20-40, DA* 50-135, a fast prime, and my DA 15mm Limited. I rarely use the DA 15...
- Craig

The DA15 was one of my first lenses, but for whatever reason it never grew on me and I simply don't use it.

DeadJohn · 06-28-2022, 12:39 PM - **1 Like**

@sajith, Decide whether you want f2.8. If yes, get the 16-50. If no, then 16-85 or 18-135. The best decision might also depend on what other lenses you currently have or plan to buy.

Pentax HD DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 ED Limited. IMO the restricted 2x zoom range defeats one of the main selling points for a zoom. For versatility I'd need to pack 2 other lenses with this to fill in the wider and longer ends.
The new Pentax HD 16-50mm f/2.8 ED. A good choice. If you liked your old 16-50 it's obviously a good focal range for you. Downside is the bulk of a f2.8 lens when you don't need low light or thin depth of field.
Pentax HD DA 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6. Another good choice. As wide as the 16-50, with more reach and less weight.
Pentax 18-135. Another good choice. Twice the reach of the 16-50, much less expensive, much smaller. If you'll miss the wider 16mm of your old 16-50 and don't really need f2.8, maybe add a DA 15 Limited to the 18-135 and that combo still costs/weighs less than the 16-50.

MaineNative · 06-28-2022, 04:53 PM - **2 Likes**

My vote would be for the 18-135. I upgraded from the Pentax DA 18-55 AL II to the 18-135. I also own the 16-85 which is a very good lens, but it is a little bigger and heavier than I like for travel.

So if I am around the house or driving to my shoot, I take the 16-85. If I am flying, hiking or walking a lot, I go with the 18-135 with the DA 10-17 for wide shots.

Both the 18-135 and 16-85 are a step up from the 18-55. The 16-85 is a little sharper but both are good lenses.

**UncleVanya** · 06-29-2022, 07:11 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mikesbike

However, I do understand the allure of the 20-40mm Ltd. Its being capable of f/2.8 at its short end is something other compact lenses do not offer, and can sometimes be important. I feel it especially goes well in its rather svelte compact but upscale build quality with my KP body, which is of like concept. They seem to fit very well together. But its quality will certainly complement any flagship model also.

Ironically the 20-40 and 18-135 are almost identical in size with the 18-135 hood stowed. The 20-40 is lighter and the hood is always on which means that in use it’s smaller than the 18-135 if the hood is included in the length. But the light weight of the 20-40 makes it feel smaller than it is.

Jonathan Mac · 06-29-2022, 07:42 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by K(s)evin

Not to be that guy, but you refer to both the 16-50 f2.8 PLM and the DA20-40 f2.8-4 as primes in the first 2 paragraphs. Sorry.

Must have been at a caffeine low. Corrected.

C_Jones · 06-29-2022, 07:49 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by sajith

Oh, I meant to say that we can't get all the properties that we want (regarding price, size, weight, focusing, aperture, reliability, aesthetics... and something like a soul) packaged into one lens. We are required to make compromises. But why oh why?

Heart wants the 20-40mm Limited. Oh the looks of that lens!

Brain says that the 16-85mm should be the logical option. It is a proven workhorse that deserves respect. And it is wider on the wide end.

Wallet rejects the HD 16-50mm. For now, at least.

It is between the heart and the brain now. Sniff.

One of the reasons I opted for the 16-85 is because it was wider (16) than the 18-55 at the wide end and and had a longer reach at the 85 end. It may not seem that noticeable when looking at the numbers, but the user will really notice it when actually using the 16-85. The 20-40 sounds nice having the 2.8 option, but if you are planning on doing landscape with occasional use of a tripod which will allow you longer exposures, the 16-85 may be valuable for the wider and longer distance shots.

**wm_brant** · 06-29-2022, 08:12 AM - **1 Like**

I have all three of the lenses you mentioned.

I use the 16-85 lens for group travel, when I expect to travel pretty light and shoot handheld and 'on the fly', in situations where lens changes will be few and far between. I feel that the image quality is quite good, but not quite up to the standard of the other two lenses. I'd prefer a faster aperture than 5.6 on the long end, but 5.6 is acceptable for a travel lens for me. The 16-85 is paired with a 55-300 lens and my KP body for travel - I semi-seriously refer to this as my 'B-Team' kit. If this kit was lost or stolen, I'd be unhappy, but it wouldn't be a major financial loss; both KP bodies and the lenses are available used.

The 16-50 PLM is for my serious work, when I want the best quality I can get from a zoom, and don't mind carrying the extra weight and bulk. The 16-50 is paired with a 60-250 and K-3 III and I refer to this as my 'A Team'. Loss or theft of my A-Team kit would be a serious financial hit. Because of this there are some places I won't take my A-Team kit.

The 20-40 is my day to day 'go-to' normal zoom lens. I feel it takes excellent images and - for me - both it's zoom range and aperture range is more than enough for most of my shooting. Toss a 15mm and 70mm into the bag, add a tripod and I'm ready to photograph almost anything I normally shoot - albeit with more lens changes than I would need with the 16-85. I shoot this lens kit with either my KP or my K-3 III depending on what and where I'm shooting.

Last edited by wm_brant; 06-29-2022 at 05:49 PM. Reason: Wordsmithing

**mikesbike** · 06-30-2022, 01:12 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by clickclick

This is a hard choice. These are all very nice lenses with different things to bring to the table. The 16-85 is great for range and versatility. I gave my copy to my daughter, and I often want it back. ; ) My daily walk the dog kit has become a 15 LTD, 20-40 LTD, and 55-300 PLM. The walk includes a park bench overlooking a river with lots of nice bird action, so I find myself predominantly going between the 20-40 and 55-300, depending on where I am in the walk progress. The 15 gives me the wide when I want it. The build and feel and look of the 20-40 is the winner, and the pixie dust is strong. It's hard not to love this lens. I think what you will need to sort out is if you need more reach, and how do you get that. That's why I mention my kit with the PLM. That trio really covers quite a range, with each lens having a sweet spot of application.

This is a very good plan, saving one carrying penalties while providing a huge FL range. An alternate but similar plan while also minimizing lens-changing, would be the same 3-lens idea but with the DA 18-135mm instead of the 20-40mm Ltd. One advantage of choosing the HD DA 15mm Ltd over relying on the wide end of the DA 16-85mm or the DA* 16-50mm, is it will be better for architecture or other linear subject matter, as its linear distortion will be much, much lower for WA shots. This besides its fitting up with so many other lens options, including other primes.

**Biff** · 06-30-2022, 05:06 PM - **1 Like**

i have the 20-40 and highly recommend it. fairly compact, elegant looks, great operation and excellent images. they're all good. as others have said, depends on your needs. the 20-40 is my standard walk around lens.

sajith · 07-01-2022, 05:42 AM

I probably should have mentioned that I usually carry a 55-300mm PLM and a 31mm Limited in my camera bag, besides the aforementioned 18-55mm lens. I guess that the 18-135mm would be very handy, except that I don't seem to do much shooting in the longer end of that range.

I also have a 10-20mm Sigma (the cheaper one), a 150-500mm Sigma, a Pentax DA* 50-135mm, an FA 35mm, an FA 50mm, and some other film era lenses that see occasional use.

Earlier this year, I moved from Toronto (which has very many pretty parts and is very walkable, where it was fun to shoot at 16mm) to Houston (which has no pretense of being a pretty town or being very walkable). So I have been taking pictures of local birds, cats, reptiles, and plants lately. That will change when I travel, and once I learn more about Houston. Been a little busy after moving here.

This is how my thinking going now:

- Adding a 20-40mm Limited and DA 15mm would make a nice light-weight kit that covers most of my needs. Well, except for that one time when I saw the Milky Way in a clear sky at Badlands National Park, when having a 16mm f/2.8 came very handy... or when walking around a pretty city at night. I would love to see and take some pictures of the Milky Way again, maybe at Big Bend National Park.

- I like the 16mm coverage of the 16-85mm lens, but I don't really seem to use the whole range...

- I actually would like to have a HD DA* 16-50mm some day, if I ever advance to a really advanced amateur stage. Or when it begins to show up in the used market, or when its price drops a little bit.

My current confusion is a good "problem" to have, I realize, and I am grateful for that. :-)

**rvandenbrink** · 07-01-2022, 06:01 AM - **1 Like**

Another vote for the 16-85 here, or the 18-135 and you’ll gain a bit on the high side too (and on price)
Tho if it’s the wide shots you want, a used Sigma 10-20 (not a fisheye) can be had pretty cheaply too, I just picked one up and it’s great!

**UncleVanya** · 07-01-2022, 11:02 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by sajith

I probably should have mentioned that I usually carry a 55-300mm PLM and a 31mm Limited in my camera bag, besides the aforementioned 18-55mm lens. I guess that the 18-135mm would be very handy, except that I don't seem to do much shooting in the longer end of that range.

I also have a 10-20mm Sigma (the cheaper one), a 150-500mm Sigma, a Pentax DA* 50-135mm, an FA 35mm, an FA 50mm, and some other film era lenses that see occasional use.

Earlier this year, I moved from Toronto (which has very many pretty parts and is very walkable, where it was fun to shoot at 16mm) to Houston (which has no pretense of being a pretty town or being very walkable). So I have been taking pictures of local birds, cats, reptiles, and plants lately. That will change when I travel, and once I learn more about Houston. Been a little busy after moving here.

This is how my thinking going now:

- Adding a 20-40mm Limited and DA 15mm would make a nice light-weight kit that covers most of my needs. Well, except for that one time when I saw the Milky Way in a clear sky at Badlands National Park, when having a 16mm f/2.8 came very handy... or when walking around a pretty city at night. I would love to see and take some pictures of the Milky Way again, maybe at Big Bend National Park.

- I like the 16mm coverage of the 16-85mm lens, but I don't really seem to use the whole range...

- I actually would like to have a HD DA* 16-50mm some day, if I ever advance to a really advanced amateur stage. Or when it begins to show up in the used market, or when its price drops a little bit.

My current confusion is a good "problem" to have, I realize, and I am grateful for that. :-)

Curveball... grab the not very commonly found DA 14 f2.8 as your f2.8 wide option. It isn't the best for astro (coma and astigmatism) but is a wonderful lens. Not as jewel-like as the DA 15 but a nice lens nevertheless.

sajith · 07-03-2022, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Curveball... grab the not very commonly found DA 14 f2.8 as your f2.8 wide option. It isn't the best for astro (coma and astigmatism) but is a wonderful lens. Not as jewel-like as the DA 15 but a nice lens nevertheless.

I did consider that lens, but it seems hard to find, like you said. I also considered the DA* 11-18mm f/2.8, and decided that I am not worthy. ;-)

**mikesbike** · 07-03-2022, 02:41 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by sajith

I also have a 10-20mm Sigma (the cheaper one), a 150-500mm Sigma, a Pentax DA* 50-135mm, an FA 35mm, an FA 50mm, and some other film era lenses that see occasional use.

The DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 and DA 20-40mm Ltd actually make for a very fine but still compact kit together. It also offers more available aperture and very high quality imaging with WR protection. I often use this combo. I carry the DA* 50-135mm in a separate lens belt case, with the DA 20-40mm Ltd on my KP in a holster type belt-loop/shoulder-strap camera case, and the DA 15mm Ltd in the case's front accessory pocket. With this arrangement, I can walk along or ride along with a feeling of relative ease, yet while having very powerful photography tools readily available. It is an attractive alternative instead of taking my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, when I need to save size and weight, as well as having WR. In your case, I would definitely suggest thinking about adding that very small DA 15mm Ltd also, as it matches well with this kit, yet is so small as to hardly be noticed.

Then you already have the Sigma ultra wide for when you need ultra wide with the framing versatility of a zoom, and the DA 55-300mm PLM, the superb FA 31mm f/1.8 Ltd and FA 50mm for large aperture needs in both a normal FOV and moderate tele. Then the Sigma 150-500mm long-ranger, You'd very well have a huge FL range and with very high quality, yet with very good portability. If you decide to also get the DA 18-135mm lens as well, (like myself) the only time you'd reach for it (still having the DA 15mm along) would be when needing to minimize lens changing.

sajith · 07-28-2022, 03:39 PM - **2 Likes**

Here's an update: I bought the HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm lens. What an incredibly handsome lens! I'm very happy with the purchase. Thank you for the help, everyone!

The 20mm end seems to be wide enough for the kind of pictures I like to take (except the Milky Way, of course), but I am very close to getting a HD Pentax-DA 15mm also. I just have to think long and hard even though I know that I am ultimately going to spring for it. It is part of the ritual, you know. :-)

06-28-2022, 12:39 PM - 1 Like	#32
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,833	@sajith, Decide whether you want f2.8. If yes, get the 16-50. If no, then 16-85 or 18-135. The best decision might also depend on what other lenses you currently have or plan to buy. Pentax HD DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 ED Limited. IMO the restricted 2x zoom range defeats one of the main selling points for a zoom. For versatility I'd need to pack 2 other lenses with this to fill in the wider and longer ends. The new Pentax HD 16-50mm f/2.8 ED. A good choice. If you liked your old 16-50 it's obviously a good focal range for you. Downside is the bulk of a f2.8 lens when you don't need low light or thin depth of field. Pentax HD DA 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6. Another good choice. As wide as the 16-50, with more reach and less weight. Pentax 18-135. Another good choice. Twice the reach of the 16-50, much less expensive, much smaller. If you'll miss the wider 16mm of your old 16-50 and don't really need f2.8, maybe add a DA 15 Limited to the 18-135 and that combo still costs/weighs less than the 16-50.

07-03-2022, 01:18 PM	#43
sajith New Member Join Date: Oct 2016 Posts: 23 Original Poster	Originally posted by UncleVanya Curveball... grab the not very commonly found DA 14 f2.8 as your f2.8 wide option. It isn't the best for astro (coma and astigmatism) but is a wonderful lens. Not as jewel-like as the DA 15 but a nice lens nevertheless. I did consider that lens, but it seems hard to find, like you said. I also considered the DA* 11-18mm f/2.8, and decided that I am not worthy. ;-) Last edited by sajith; 07-03-2022 at 01:18 PM. Reason: typo

07-03-2022, 02:41 PM - 1 Like	#44
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	Originally posted by sajith I also have a 10-20mm Sigma (the cheaper one), a 150-500mm Sigma, a Pentax DA* 50-135mm, an FA 35mm, an FA 50mm, and some other film era lenses that see occasional use. The DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 and DA 20-40mm Ltd actually make for a very fine but still compact kit together. It also offers more available aperture and very high quality imaging with WR protection. I often use this combo. I carry the DA* 50-135mm in a separate lens belt case, with the DA 20-40mm Ltd on my KP in a holster type belt-loop/shoulder-strap camera case, and the DA 15mm Ltd in the case's front accessory pocket. With this arrangement, I can walk along or ride along with a feeling of relative ease, yet while having very powerful photography tools readily available. It is an attractive alternative instead of taking my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, when I need to save size and weight, as well as having WR. In your case, I would definitely suggest thinking about adding that very small DA 15mm Ltd also, as it matches well with this kit, yet is so small as to hardly be noticed. Then you already have the Sigma ultra wide for when you need ultra wide with the framing versatility of a zoom, and the DA 55-300mm PLM, the superb FA 31mm f/1.8 Ltd and FA 50mm for large aperture needs in both a normal FOV and moderate tele. Then the Sigma 150-500mm long-ranger, You'd very well have a huge FL range and with very high quality, yet with very good portability. If you decide to also get the DA 18-135mm lens as well, (like myself) the only time you'd reach for it (still having the DA 15mm along) would be when needing to minimize lens changing. Last edited by mikesbike; 07-04-2022 at 07:19 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"Standard" prime lens - 35mm equivalent in APS-C	Angelic Layer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	43	03-13-2020 11:01 AM
52mm thread(ish) Budget(ish) Landscape Lens (on deal for BF/Cyber Monday)	BruceBanner	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	11-27-2016 07:42 PM
When is an APS-C lens not really an APS-C?	lightbox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	03-27-2015 07:45 PM
best 18-50-ish standard zoom under $500 used	CPTenorII	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	09-10-2012 05:09 PM
DNG - The non standard standard	Lowell Goudge	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	13	07-21-2009 05:02 AM

06-28-2022, 11:01 AM - 1 Like	#31
gatorguy Moderator Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Central Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,092	Originally posted by c.a.m When I travel, I usually bring my DA 20-40, DA* 50-135, a fast prime, and my DA 15mm Limited. I rarely use the DA 15... - Craig The DA15 was one of my first lenses, but for whatever reason it never grew on me and I simply don't use it.

06-28-2022, 04:53 PM - 2 Likes	#33
MaineNative Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2017 Photos: Gallery Posts: 280	My vote would be for the 18-135. I upgraded from the Pentax DA 18-55 AL II to the 18-135. I also own the 16-85 which is a very good lens, but it is a little bigger and heavier than I like for travel. So if I am around the house or driving to my shoot, I take the 16-85. If I am flying, hiking or walking a lot, I go with the 18-135 with the DA 10-17 for wide shots. Both the 18-135 and 16-85 are a step up from the 18-55. The 16-85 is a little sharper but both are good lenses.

06-29-2022, 07:11 AM - 1 Like	#34
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by mikesbike However, I do understand the allure of the 20-40mm Ltd. Its being capable of f/2.8 at its short end is something other compact lenses do not offer, and can sometimes be important. I feel it especially goes well in its rather svelte compact but upscale build quality with my KP body, which is of like concept. They seem to fit very well together. But its quality will certainly complement any flagship model also. Ironically the 20-40 and 18-135 are almost identical in size with the 18-135 hood stowed. The 20-40 is lighter and the hood is always on which means that in use it’s smaller than the 18-135 if the hood is included in the length. But the light weight of the 20-40 makes it feel smaller than it is.

06-29-2022, 07:42 AM - 1 Like	#35
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897	Originally posted by K(s)evin Not to be that guy, but you refer to both the 16-50 f2.8 PLM and the DA20-40 f2.8-4 as primes in the first 2 paragraphs. Sorry. Must have been at a caffeine low. Corrected.

06-29-2022, 07:49 AM - 1 Like	#36
C_Jones Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,084	Originally posted by sajith Oh, I meant to say that we can't get all the properties that we want (regarding price, size, weight, focusing, aperture, reliability, aesthetics... and something like a soul) packaged into one lens. We are required to make compromises. But why oh why? Heart wants the 20-40mm Limited. Oh the looks of that lens! Brain says that the 16-85mm should be the logical option. It is a proven workhorse that deserves respect. And it is wider on the wide end. Wallet rejects the HD 16-50mm. For now, at least. It is between the heart and the brain now. Sniff. One of the reasons I opted for the 16-85 is because it was wider (16) than the 18-55 at the wide end and and had a longer reach at the 85 end. It may not seem that noticeable when looking at the numbers, but the user will really notice it when actually using the 16-85. The 20-40 sounds nice having the 2.8 option, but if you are planning on doing landscape with occasional use of a tripod which will allow you longer exposures, the 16-85 may be valuable for the wider and longer distance shots.

06-29-2022, 08:12 AM - 1 Like	#37
wm_brant Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Central Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 173	I have all three of the lenses you mentioned. I use the 16-85 lens for group travel, when I expect to travel pretty light and shoot handheld and 'on the fly', in situations where lens changes will be few and far between. I feel that the image quality is quite good, but not quite up to the standard of the other two lenses. I'd prefer a faster aperture than 5.6 on the long end, but 5.6 is acceptable for a travel lens for me. The 16-85 is paired with a 55-300 lens and my KP body for travel - I semi-seriously refer to this as my 'B-Team' kit. If this kit was lost or stolen, I'd be unhappy, but it wouldn't be a major financial loss; both KP bodies and the lenses are available used. The 16-50 PLM is for my serious work, when I want the best quality I can get from a zoom, and don't mind carrying the extra weight and bulk. The 16-50 is paired with a 60-250 and K-3 III and I refer to this as my 'A Team'. Loss or theft of my A-Team kit would be a serious financial hit. Because of this there are some places I won't take my A-Team kit. The 20-40 is my day to day 'go-to' normal zoom lens. I feel it takes excellent images and - for me - both it's zoom range and aperture range is more than enough for most of my shooting. Toss a 15mm and 70mm into the bag, add a tripod and I'm ready to photograph almost anything I normally shoot - albeit with more lens changes than I would need with the 16-85. I shoot this lens kit with either my KP or my K-3 III depending on what and where I'm shooting. Last edited by wm_brant; 06-29-2022 at 05:49 PM. Reason: Wordsmithing

06-30-2022, 01:12 PM - 2 Likes	#38
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	Originally posted by clickclick This is a hard choice. These are all very nice lenses with different things to bring to the table. The 16-85 is great for range and versatility. I gave my copy to my daughter, and I often want it back. ; ) My daily walk the dog kit has become a 15 LTD, 20-40 LTD, and 55-300 PLM. The walk includes a park bench overlooking a river with lots of nice bird action, so I find myself predominantly going between the 20-40 and 55-300, depending on where I am in the walk progress. The 15 gives me the wide when I want it. The build and feel and look of the 20-40 is the winner, and the pixie dust is strong. It's hard not to love this lens. I think what you will need to sort out is if you need more reach, and how do you get that. That's why I mention my kit with the PLM. That trio really covers quite a range, with each lens having a sweet spot of application. This is a very good plan, saving one carrying penalties while providing a huge FL range. An alternate but similar plan while also minimizing lens-changing, would be the same 3-lens idea but with the DA 18-135mm instead of the 20-40mm Ltd. One advantage of choosing the HD DA 15mm Ltd over relying on the wide end of the DA 16-85mm or the DA* 16-50mm, is it will be better for architecture or other linear subject matter, as its linear distortion will be much, much lower for WA shots. This besides its fitting up with so many other lens options, including other primes.

06-30-2022, 05:06 PM - 1 Like	#39
Biff Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: SF Bay Area Photos: Albums Posts: 1,081	i have the 20-40 and highly recommend it. fairly compact, elegant looks, great operation and excellent images. they're all good. as others have said, depends on your needs. the 20-40 is my standard walk around lens.

07-01-2022, 05:42 AM	#40
sajith New Member Join Date: Oct 2016 Posts: 23 Original Poster	I probably should have mentioned that I usually carry a 55-300mm PLM and a 31mm Limited in my camera bag, besides the aforementioned 18-55mm lens. I guess that the 18-135mm would be very handy, except that I don't seem to do much shooting in the longer end of that range. I also have a 10-20mm Sigma (the cheaper one), a 150-500mm Sigma, a Pentax DA* 50-135mm, an FA 35mm, an FA 50mm, and some other film era lenses that see occasional use. Earlier this year, I moved from Toronto (which has very many pretty parts and is very walkable, where it was fun to shoot at 16mm) to Houston (which has no pretense of being a pretty town or being very walkable). So I have been taking pictures of local birds, cats, reptiles, and plants lately. That will change when I travel, and once I learn more about Houston. Been a little busy after moving here. This is how my thinking going now: - Adding a 20-40mm Limited and DA 15mm would make a nice light-weight kit that covers most of my needs. Well, except for that one time when I saw the Milky Way in a clear sky at Badlands National Park, when having a 16mm f/2.8 came very handy... or when walking around a pretty city at night. I would love to see and take some pictures of the Milky Way again, maybe at Big Bend National Park. - I like the 16mm coverage of the 16-85mm lens, but I don't really seem to use the whole range... - I actually would like to have a HD DA* 16-50mm some day, if I ever advance to a really advanced amateur stage. Or when it begins to show up in the used market, or when its price drops a little bit. My current confusion is a good "problem" to have, I realize, and I am grateful for that. :-)

07-01-2022, 06:01 AM - 1 Like	#41
rvandenbrink Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2021 Location: Stratford Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 256	Another vote for the 16-85 here, or the 18-135 and you’ll gain a bit on the high side too (and on price) Tho if it’s the wide shots you want, a used Sigma 10-20 (not a fisheye) can be had pretty cheaply too, I just picked one up and it’s great!

07-01-2022, 11:02 AM - 1 Like	#42
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by sajith I probably should have mentioned that I usually carry a 55-300mm PLM and a 31mm Limited in my camera bag, besides the aforementioned 18-55mm lens. I guess that the 18-135mm would be very handy, except that I don't seem to do much shooting in the longer end of that range. I also have a 10-20mm Sigma (the cheaper one), a 150-500mm Sigma, a Pentax DA* 50-135mm, an FA 35mm, an FA 50mm, and some other film era lenses that see occasional use. Earlier this year, I moved from Toronto (which has very many pretty parts and is very walkable, where it was fun to shoot at 16mm) to Houston (which has no pretense of being a pretty town or being very walkable). So I have been taking pictures of local birds, cats, reptiles, and plants lately. That will change when I travel, and once I learn more about Houston. Been a little busy after moving here. This is how my thinking going now: - Adding a 20-40mm Limited and DA 15mm would make a nice light-weight kit that covers most of my needs. Well, except for that one time when I saw the Milky Way in a clear sky at Badlands National Park, when having a 16mm f/2.8 came very handy... or when walking around a pretty city at night. I would love to see and take some pictures of the Milky Way again, maybe at Big Bend National Park. - I like the 16mm coverage of the 16-85mm lens, but I don't really seem to use the whole range... - I actually would like to have a HD DA* 16-50mm some day, if I ever advance to a really advanced amateur stage. Or when it begins to show up in the used market, or when its price drops a little bit. My current confusion is a good "problem" to have, I realize, and I am grateful for that. :-) Curveball... grab the not very commonly found DA 14 f2.8 as your f2.8 wide option. It isn't the best for astro (coma and astigmatism) but is a wonderful lens. Not as jewel-like as the DA 15 but a nice lens nevertheless.

07-28-2022, 03:39 PM - 2 Likes	#45
sajith New Member Join Date: Oct 2016 Posts: 23 Original Poster	Here's an update: I bought the HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm lens. What an incredibly handsome lens! I'm very happy with the purchase. Thank you for the help, everyone! The 20mm end seems to be wide enough for the kind of pictures I like to take (except the Milky Way, of course), but I am very close to getting a HD Pentax-DA 15mm also. I just have to think long and hard even though I know that I am ultimately going to spring for it. It is part of the ritual, you know. :-)