Originally posted by LeDave I have a couple of questions concerning these lenses. I have a Pentax K-M/K2000 with the 18-55 plastic cheap lens.
Is the 18-55 II better IMAGE WISE than the 18-55 kit that came with my K-M/K2000? Because I see that there are two versions of the 18-55. I'm pretty sure the II has to be better somehow on the image quality side since it costs more and it has the word II on it.
Also I am confused which lens I should get. I like taking pictures of people, buildings, and cars. I am thinking of the 18-250 or 55-300 since I already have a 18-55. But the thing is I don't want to swap out lenses often so the 18-250 would be better for me. BUT I am willing to spend that extra money if the 55-300 has a NOTICEABLE amount of better quality images than the 18-250.
Which one do you guys recommend me? 18-250 or 55-300. THEN after that, what do you recommend YOURSELF? The 18-250 or 55-300 and why?
Also I am interested in the Sigma APO 70-300mm, this will fit my Pentax K-M/K2000 am I correct? Also What do you prefer? The 70-300 from Sigma or the 55-300 from Pentax? I see that the APO 70-300mm is significantly cheaper so that is why I am asking.
Sorry for all the questions, hopefully I explained it well enough for you guys.
And one last thing, is there anything else I need to know that I might have missed out? Is there any other explanation of these lenses that you would like to point out? Any bad or good, etc. Thanks for your time.
Having all three I can tell you...
The 18-55mm AL II along with the 55-300mm make a great combo.
The 18-250mm is a very nice all in one lens and the image quality is very good for its price range. It does not have quick focus and that could be a deal breaker.
The 18-55mm AL II and the 55-300mm make the best combo I think, and that is what I carry in my every day pack. I also have the 50-200mm and it is quite small but optically the 55-300m is a much better lens (read all the reports).
wll